And you know this ... how? From what I've read, there were also other staff members who had felonies on their records. From the sound of it, Buccellato appears to have been quite aware of these priors and didn't/doesn't seem to have a problem with them. I s'pose a lot could depend on what the felony conviction was for, and when and how it was committed, eh?
I have not read about the other felonies myself and I have been reading this thread for years now. I am only aware of the one here who speaks negative towards HLA and RCS.
Just so that we're crystal clear 'bout this... This thread was started
just shy of four months ago by Troll Control.
How do you know that this former staff member lied? And how do you know that he was fired? This sounds like more opinion on your part, Whooter!
I have seen many inconsistencies in his stories and statements made. He has also made statements as fact about RCS when he was fired years before that school was opened. If you compare what RCSworkhorse describes (and he wasnt pleased with RCS) to what Troll Control describes it is not hard to see who is not credible. RCSworkhorse is able to see the good and the bad within the same program and speak honestly about it even with a known bias. We have never seen this from regulars here on fornits. This gets back to another thread about honesty that we discussed earlier.
LOLOLLLL... As we all know, Hidden Lake Academy
closed, and simply
reopened as Ridge Creek School. They are basically the same place. They occupy the same location, reflect yet another variation of the same ownership, employ many of the same personnel, and avow the same or similar philosophy. They just go by a different name. There simply isn't the same shitload of wretched reviews and claims of abuse associated with RCS as there are of HLA when you google it. Yet.
Even Len Buccellato freely admits that RCS = HLA, and has even gone so far as to write letters to current and prospective parents to reassure them that, in fact, this is the case.
As to your contentions re. who is the more believable or "honest" former staffperson, has it ever occurred to you that they might
both be believable? Since when have folks' personal experiences ever been the
exact same "truth" as everybody else's? Your attempts to attribute a moral value to one person's sole post on here, just because you find it more palatable, is... well...
more opinion on your part, dontcha think? And yet, aren't you the one who always claims to be such a "moderate" 'cuz
you "accept all information equally?"Really? His stories of HLA actually carry quite a lot of credibility here, but that's just my opinion. It's YOUR stories that appear to lack credibility, Whooter. Mostly because so many of your "facts" seem to contradict one another, but also because you seem to have an overriding agenda of your own. Of course, that's just my opinion, but at least I call it for what it is! 
I understand this is your opinion, Ursus. But we have to keep in mind that you are radically anti-program. I on the other hand am a moderate and able to see both sides of the issues fairly. I understand that there are programs which are abusive and those that are not. Many on fornits cannot see this and therefore hold a heavily biased and uniformed opinion of the industry. Do you see what I mean? So of course they would view my information as not credible because it does not fit with their (your) agenda.
If you speak to people randomly on fornits they will tell you that they dont know anyone who has benefited from a program and therefore could not possibly speak to the positive side of the industry, most have only been exposed to negative information and experiences.
I am not frustrated or get upset with negative reports or positive reports, I accept all information equally. But the anti-program group like yourself cannot make that statement. Many of you close the door on information you dont want to hear or try to discredit the information or the person posting it. You have been here long enough to witness this, Ursus.
Ya can spin it any way you want, Whooter. I've been accused of worse, and even of being the complete opposite! :rofl: While I have neither the time nor the inclination to haggle with you over the details today, I
would like to point out one glaringly obvious inconsistency in your above seranade...
Namely, that — despite your professed "moderate" views
(<cough cough>), you STILL to this day disavow the possibility of
thought reform as being potentially damaging in and of itself. That is, that "the process" itself can wreak havoc with the psyche, not just the incidents of egregious abuse which may or may not
also occur.
This, to my mind, is NOT a moderate view. Not to mention completely lacking in common sense. But that's just
my opinion.
You liken thought reform to potty training. Or being in a program as being analogous to having an ear infection and getting IT "treated." These are really inappropriate analogies for methodologies and processes that seek to
destroy and rewrite key concepts of self identity in vulnerable individuals with little or no choice in the matter, and certainly less than full understanding of the manipulations they are being subjected to.