So say I

[Anonymous]

What was on her hard-drive that PURE does not want WWASP to have?

It?s Not Just a PURE thing.  

I wish ya?ll understood just what she has done. It?s not just a matter of her saying: Hey Ken, I have a years worth of email from a group of people , including the one you and I hate most, and will sell it to you for a hundred grand.  Well OK, if you put it like that; 12.5 will do.

This is pretty awful behavior, that from my point of view can not be defended - but it was so much more that this.

It was a betrayal of Trust. She was part of this group b/c she wanted to be. She was trusted and confided in by this large group of people.  Personal information was exchanged. Lots of frustrated and angry discussion about our common problem. None of this anything, anyone, would want in the hands of those who are the program.  

Her actions have NOTHING to do with her being a banner of truth. It has EVERYTHING to do with retribution and vengeance against one person in this group - and one or two others she has found disagreeable.  She gave up a large group of people whom she has nothing against; some who remained friendly with her; All of whom are interested in the advancement of a solution to the common problem; just so she could get her need for revenge satisfied.  Doing so for money, just adds to the aura of sleaze surrounding her actions.

And Ginger, you are mistaken in this notion that They knew about this group; or had any idea who was in it; or had any idea anyone had what monster bock handed over; until she told them about it. She used your forum to do so; and then when that was no longer satisfying enough, like any addict, she had to increase the dose; so she called Ken.

On top of all this; she is lying about people in an attempt to help wwasp make a case against them.  She is lying and she knows she is lying; but she is saying what They want her to say. It?s called False Testimony and when done under oath its called Perjury.  When done on a large public scale as she has done, its called a distortion campaign. Certain personality disordered people are highly prone to conducting distortion campaigns.

She is what she is. She did what she did. If you or anyone defend her, it is natural for those effected to feel you are an accomplice and not to be trusted. She clams to speak with you daily. Anything you have you give to her. Anything she has, she gives to Them - so what are people supposed to think?

You kept saying: wait and see; wait and see. . .
Well, you?ve seen. You have your sought after proof. And still you say,  Wait and see.

What are people supposed to think?

The logical conclusion seems incomprehensible to me; and yet - I don?t know what else to think.

[Carey]

You are calling me a liar?  What is it that you claim I have lied about?  Specifics please.

She clams to speak with you daily.

I suggest you go back to your source of info, either she totally twist the testimony or you totally twist what you heard.  By the way, I did not lie about anything, I would not risk going to jail for PURE or WWASP.

[Froderik]

On top of all this; she is lying about people in an attempt to help wwasp make a case against them. She is lying and she knows she is lying; but she is saying what They want her to say.

Yes, please elaborate on this...

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-15 09:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

"What was on her hard-drive that PURE does not want WWASP to have?



It?s Not Just a PURE thing.  

Agreed. But to say, as some here often have, that this has nothing to do with PURE is just patently rediculous. Of COURSE it does! PURE is the primary defendant in the suit!

I wish ya?ll understood just what she has done.

What makes you think anyone doesn't understand?

It?s not just a matter of her saying: Hey Ken, I have a years worth of email from a group of people , including the one you and I hate most, and will sell it to you for a hundred grand.  Well OK, if you put it like that; 12.5 will do.

I have seen no evidence to support that it went down that way. In fact, it seems very implausible compared to Carey's story that WWASP gave her an ultimatum and she made a counter-offer. I don't think I've ever heard of a parent who never voluntarily sent their kid to an abusive program going out of their way to help that program. But I've heard of WWASP and other programs attempting to intimidate people to get what they want all the damned time. It's even happened to me, as you probably well know.

Her actions have NOTHING to do with her being a banner of truth. It has EVERYTHING to do with retribution and vengeance against one person in this group - and one or two others she has found disagreeable.  

Unless you are telepathic, you can't possibly know this as fact. This is your opinion. And, coincidentally or not, it's the same ol'e song and dance that Program people always do whenever anyone criticizes them. How many times have people discounted what program vets have to say with the ad hominem "You're just bitter, angry people who can't handle life and need to blame sombody"?

She gave up a large group of people whom she has nothing against; some who remained friendly with her; All of whom are interested in the advancement of a solution to the common problem; just so she could get her need for revenge satisfied.

Again, the only way to know for sure why anyone does whatever they do is to ask them. And, since you discard out of hand everything Carey says as a dirty, rotten lie, you have no access to that info.

Now, I'll agree that there are probably a lot of relatively innocent people who have been or will be hurt by WWASP having this info. Even that's going out on a limb, though, as I don't know for sure who was on the list or what they said to eachother.

And I'm nearly dead certain by now that not everyone, in the context you present the term, is on the same page wrt the nature of the problem or the solution. Some people, in fact, think the solution to the problem is to simply transfer the kids from WWASP to some other program where they don't want to be and can't communicate with the outside world.

 Doing so for money, just adds to the aura of sleaze surrounding her actions.

I suppose if you're working from a socialist paradigm it does. But I do things for money all the time. My mortgage holder, the grocery store owner, the gas company and others require it of me. And, frankly, given a choice between cash and faux martyrdome, I'll take the cash every time.

And Ginger, you are mistaken in this notion that They knew about this group; or had any idea who was in it; or had any idea anyone had what monster bock handed over; until she told them about it.

Wow! You can read Ken Lay and all of his legal ppl's minds too? Maybe you just don't understand how difficult it is to really keep anyting secret on the net. Everything leaves a trail. It has to. Computers don't really think. They just push data in various ways depending on the data you feed them.

I'm sorry some good people didn't understand the risk and are finding out the hard way. But it's nearly inconceivable that Carey was the only source for these emails. Odds are pretty good that they're cached and/or backed up in a dozen places or more.

She used your forum to do so; and then when that was no longer satisfying enough, like any addict, she had to increase the dose; so she called Ken.

Take a look at the complaint at http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPURE/ Looks like the primary defendents used Lon Woodbury's server to bust themselves initially. I can't remember offhand the content of that post that Sue was so upset about. But when I talked to her on the phone about it (the horrors! I talked to Sue Scheff on the phone! More than once! Does that make me a Sue's accomplice too?) and looked over the post in question, she agreed that the only things in it that I should have to delete were her private email address and phone number.

Maybe you can refresh my memory and I can find that post again.

And, again, you're guessing about motives and details here, stating your opinions as fact and then attacking me for wanting more substantiation than that.

On top of all this; she is lying about people in an attempt to help wwasp make a case against them.  

Proof? What lies? Here's your big chance to refute those lies in public.

She is lying and she knows she is lying; but she is saying what They want her to say. It?s called False Testimony and when done under oath its called Perjury.  When done on a large public scale as she has done, its called a distortion campaign. Certain personality disordered people are highly prone to conducting distortion campaigns.

Oh, good grief! Got that tape for me yet?

She is what she is. She did what she did. If you or anyone defend her, it is natural for those effected to feel you are an accomplice and not to be trusted.

Defend her? Or just refuse to convict without evidence?

She clams to speak with you daily. Anything you have you give to her. Anything she has, she gives to Them - so what are people supposed to think?

Evidence, please? Who wants to take a bet? It is true that I've talked to Carey a couple of times. But daily? Why would she say that? I can't imagine, especially since I don't know anything. I have no affiliation w/ WWASP or PURE, never put my kid in any program, wasn't on the Trekers list, etc. What could we possibly have to talk about daily? On the other hand, I have been asking some difficult questions. So some people who keep not answering those questions might want very much for other to think badly of me. Whoever you are, anon, you're not even a very goodliar. Wouldn't it be a hoot if you turned out to be Sue?

You kept saying: wait and see; wait and see. . .

Well, you?ve seen. You have your sought after proof. And still you say,  Wait and see.

I still haven't seen any proof of anything, except for the docket and some of the filings. (which were not, btw, provided by any of the people who keep demanding that I take their word for everything) I believe Carey sold the data because she said so and I can't imagine why she'd lie. I do not believe she did it purely out of malice, that she's mentally unstable or any of the other bullshit you're asking me to swollow. It's possible, of course. But it's far from the most plausible explanation. And so I don't believe it.

What are people supposed to think?

Hmm, maybe they should think "Gee, I sure wish someone would provide some evidence to support their arguments."

The logical conclusion seems incomprehensible to me; and yet - I don?t know what else to think.

"

There are no contradictions. If you think you've found one, check your premises.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
--Albert Einstein

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[Anonymous]

So you're in bed with Carey Ginger.  That's OK.  You know you sound more and more like a victim then a survivor?

[Antigen]

Oh, dear GOD!

No, I'm in bed with Sue Scheff. Can't you read? I called her, you know. In fact, I've called her several times! And she's called me too! So I guess she's in bed with me. We're all in bed together pursuing some diabolically twisted secret agenda. Now you know. So glad to have that off my chest. Come on, ladies, let's get back in bed.

Oh, and btw, I've had long chats with Shelby and Bill, Marti and Sammy, Mike and Rhonda, Morli, Leigh and even the evil legalizer, Arnold Trebach! And, of course, Wes, Ken and a long list of other people. We're all in a conspiracy to.... I can't say  :rofl: But, since we're all more-or-less friends, and we all talk and don't exactly hate eachother, then we must all be up to something big and evil and no good at all, right?

Oh yeah, and Alex. How could I forget Alex! Though we've never talked on the phone, we don't hate eachother. So now Alex is a party to this conspiracy too.

Isn't this fun everybody? Mwoohahahaha! :roll:

If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education

--Thomas Jefferson

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[scottT]

"I suppose if you're working from a socialist paradigm it does. But I do things for money all the time. My mortgage holder, the grocery store owner, the gas company and others require it of me. And, frankly, given a choice between cash and faux martyrdome, I'll take the cash every time. "



Dear Ginger:

The current discussion reminds me of an anecdote about the time George Bernard Shaw attended a formal dinner party and happened to ask a certain lady at the table if she would sleep with him for $100,000.  When she said that she would,  Shaw then asked her if she would sleep with him for $10.  Indignantly,  she replied "Certainly Not! What do you think I am?"  Shaw answered:" Madam, I think we've established WHAT you are.  All that remains is to negotiate the PRICE."

I am quite surprised that you now seem to consider the "renting" of a hard drive for $12,500 to be a morally neutral sort of commercial transaction.  I seem to recall a few months ago when WWASP had one of their law firms send you a cease and desist letter to stop people on this this board from saying mean (albeit truthful) things about the Academy at Ivy Ridge,  and you told them where to stick it.  Obviously,  of all the oh-so-many rewards of running this site,  cash is NOT one of them.  Nonetheless,  you were willing to risk faux martyrdom.  God I hope that the last few days haven't been so discouraging that you are considering putting your archives up on EBay for the BMS's and EdCon's to salivate over!!

One of the earlier Anon posters provided a link to Colorado State's list of various forms of fallacious arguments.  Having read it with considerable interest,  I surmise that "choice between  cash or faux martyrdom"  falls into the category of the "fallacy of the excluded middle"

To justify a particular act by saying that one's ONLY choices are making money or being a martyr (whether of the righteous or the faux variety) ignores the obvious fact that humans possess free will -- They can choose to make money without sacrificing principles AND MOREOVER,  acting contrary to ethical principles is under compulsion is vastly more excusable than running to do evil for personal profit.

Now what ethical principle is violated  by "renting" one's computer hard drive for $12,500?  Let me cite one very basic formulation of the Golden Rule:"That which is hateful to you,  do not do to your neighbor." (R. Hillel, circa 100 AD)

Was this transaction hateful? Sure seems so. Even your post concedes that people other than PURE will or may be adversely affected by the content of the hard drive ("Too bad they didn't understand the risk") . Even if  similar information was available from alternate sources,  clearly WWASP thought it was economically beneficial to their operations to obtain it from Ms. Bock at the agreed price.  

From the standpoint of evidence law, in order to even hope to get the court or jury to consider a given communication, a litigant has to be able to show some sort of "chain of custody" of the writing.  In other words,  WWASP would presumably need some human being to verify that,  indeed, all the emails on the hard drive were exactly as received from the named authors.  

Of course, with mere computer files, the opportunity for addition, alteration, enhancement  or other "sexing up" of the content is an extraordinary problem . (Compare the ordinary computer file with, say,  a written document, the veracity of which could be authenticated by a handwriting expert).  Adding a financial incentive obviously gives the owner of a computer hard drive a certain motivation to,  shall we say,  give the customer  what they want.  

PURE already is in a lawsuit.  Having other individuals threatened with getting sucked into frivolous -- but too expensive to defend -- lawsuits is harmful in itself. I have seen nothing on this site in the last 7 months which gives me any comfort that WWASPS disposition to employ intimidation and bullying tactics is limited to their treatment of the inmates.

[Cayo Hueso]

On 2003-12-15 18:43:00, Anonymous wrote:

"So you're in bed with Carey Ginger.  That's OK.  You know you sound more and more like a victim then a survivor?"

Come on now....this has gotten out of hand.  Countless times I've read thru some of these posts and seen Ginger say that she thinks that Carey made a mistake but because she didn't feel that Carey had evil motives that means she's "in bed" with her.  Agree to disagree and move on.  It seems that even Frod and I moved on from the other war, Frod and Ginger can come to common ground on this without agreeing on every point.  

I was away from these sites for a while and now that I've come back it seems that survivors have split off into different camps.  It's really sad to see.  There are an awful lot of us out there, all of us dealing with this stuff in varying degrees and stages and in different ways.  Any time you get any group of people together there are going to be disagreements, but 99.999999999% of us agree that "the programs" were/are fucked up places that did incalculable damage to who knows how many kids.  THAT seems to me to be the real issue.

Hope I don't get blasted for "defending" Ginger, which I was neither doing nor did there seem to be a need to, she holds pretty well on her own.  Just commentary on what I've seen since I've been back.

--quote

[Froderik]

:nworthy:

[Cayo Hueso]

On 2003-12-15 19:49:00, cayohueso wrote:

"

On 2003-12-15 18:43:00, Anonymous wrote:


"So you're in bed with Carey Ginger.  That's OK.  You know you sound more and more like a victim then a survivor?"

Come on now....this has gotten out of hand.  Countless times I've read thru some of these posts and seen Ginger say that she thinks that Carey made a mistake but because she didn't feel that Carey had evil motives that means she's "in bed" with her.  .

--quote

"

woops...that was supposed to end with a question mark...

Countless times I've read thru some of these posts and seen Ginger say that she thinks that Carey made a mistake but because she didn't feel that Carey had evil motives that means she's "in bed" with her? :roll:

The weavers of linen and hempen cloth, ... may exercise their trades without paying any fine.
-- Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (chapter X, part II) notes:

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-15 19:39:00, scottT wrote:

I am quite surprised that you now seem to consider the "renting" of a hard drive for $12,500 to be a morally neutral sort of commercial transaction.

Well, you seem to insinuate that I miss the point of what was on the drive. I don't. I get it. And if it were a totally voluntary matter, I would not consider it a morally neutral transaction. But we both know it's not. We both know it was coerced.

God I hope that the last few days haven't been so discouraging that you are considering putting your archives up on EBay for the BMS's and EdCon's to salivate over!!

Oh, for the love of Pete! And here I thought you were somewhat intelligent. Why would anyone pay anything for information that is available for free? No subpoena, no filing fees, just take it. It's all there.

If you're talking about the log files, as you note, it wouldn't stand up in court as hard evidence. The meat is hanging out there for anyone to see. The data tying it to an individual is worthless without the records from the individuals' ISPs, which would be fairly expensive. And, even at that, it's not proof. It's dubious, at best. I don't think I'll be getting any offers.

"choice between cash or faux martyrdom" falls into the category of the "fallacy of the excluded middle"

Please elaborate. What's the excluded middle in this case?

PURE already is in a lawsuit. Having other individuals threatened with getting sucked into frivolous -- but too expensive to defend -- lawsuits is harmful in itself. I have seen nothing on this site in the last 7 months which gives me any comfort that WWASPS disposition to employ intimidation and bullying tactics is limited to their treatment of the inmates.

Oh, I quite agree. If you recall, over the last 7 months, the topic that Carey was most eager to discuss was why she thinks all of the parents who send their kids to these programs should be held accountable. I and a few others tried hard to explain why that was such a bad idea. But some others, for reasons I can only imagine, seemed hell bent on proving her right. Are these the people you now dunn her for not protecting? The same ones who refused to help her get her boys out of Dundee when they had the affidavit she needed right in their files?

Look, I don't think it was a good idea to turn over the data. I know people come around. My own dad did, after all. But did any of you people give Carey any reason to believe you were worth protecting? And what, exactly, are you protecting? Is this really about telling the truth about WWASP? Do you honestly expect me to believe that WWASP initiated this suit for the purpose of making true testimony about what they do a matter of public record? Or are they suing people who are poaching business for their own, competing Ed CON business?

Nice work, folks!

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
-- F. P. Jones

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[Anonymous]

Ginger, it appears to me that Frod, in his lust to stick it to Carey, has relied mostly on the use of bully tactics to achieve his goal. Personally, I do not believe this is an effective way to "make friends and influence people" nor do I believe most others do either as evident by the backlash of posts essentially telling the guy to clean up his act or get lost.  Since Frod has made it very clear that he is in this game for purely personal reasons and could care less how unwelcomed his filthy thoughts and actions truly are, I see no distinction between him and pond scum.  Now having said that, let me also say that just as I do not "hate" pond scum, I do not hate Frod.  But let's be honest, the guy has issues.
As for Carey and this pathetic crusade to demonize her without being privvy to ALL THE FACTS, it appears that without Frod and a handful of people with a self-serving agenda of their own, this issue would be a non-issue.

For the sake of argument, I propose folks read the defintion of RED HERRING.  That's what the "carey-sucks-club" really is and always has been.  Anyone that has doubts only needs to consider who has the most to gain by shielding themselves from the same kind of scrutiny this lady has faced for the past 7 months.  

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

[scottT]

Dear Ginger,  

You asked regarding "choice between cash or faux martyrdom" falls into the category of the "fallacy of the excluded middle' Please elaborate. What's the excluded middle in this case?"

In this situation, the "middle" which the "cash or martyrdom" dichotomy excludes is a range of possible courses of action which involve both making money while avoiding involvement in reprehensible behavior.

The point I was trying to make is that by your actions, you have shown yourself to be a person who knows,  in her heart,  what is ethical and  what is unethical.  You have been willing to risk a degree or martyrdom,  even if it means a possible risk to your monetary interests. For that reason I hold you in high esteem, and consider that your conduct is an example for the rest of us.

By comparison, you say Carey acted under threat of coercion?  Hmmm. In this case,  the "coercion" seems to consist of WWASP declining to pay her full asking price. This also provides an instructive example --  an example of how not to act.

[Anonymous]

Or, in very simple terms, Ginger talks lots of garbage, Frod has a more than a few valid points (emotional issues aside) and it would be so nice if Carey would stop posting anonymously (cowardly hussy).  I think that sums it up!

[scottT]

No, not THAT simple.  The post to which I was responded sounded more hard nosed and bottom line oriented than her real-life actions (eg., maintaining this web site) prove her to be. To her everlasting credit.

I suppose if I had been forced to read 999 posts worth of ca-ca and wee-wee over the last 4 days I would probably start saying stuff I didn't mean too.