Spots here is the question, plain and simple.

[Cayo Hueso]

I'm not necessarily trying to find out who lied.  I asked you a question so that I could learn a little more about this discussion.  It interested me and I wasn't sure about who was who and who stood for what so I asked for some clarification.  That's all.

We did not inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it form our children.


http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/haida/hapindxe.html' target='_new'>Haida

[Deborah]

***What you don't have is any history with those involved***

Not necessary to point out that Spots answered your questions OR to ask what your agenda is.

***(other than of course them monitoring through you Barbe's board/listserv)***

I'm curious what you were attempting to say here. Could you rephrase it or in some way make it intelligible.

***I am asking Spots the question because she does. She knows what this hoopla has suppose to have been about from the very beginning.***

That's just great. She answered the questions you posed. Now, is your repeatedly asking the same questions a lame attempt at calling her a liar?

***It was suppost to have been about exposing those who have been accused of abuse.***

Sweetie, please tell the rest of us idiots what you think the absolute best way to go about this is. Please. Some of us are dying to know.

***It has obviously changed. I am asking Spots to tell us why.***

Any evidence to back this up?

***I am asking how this class action will do anything other than put money in the pockets of dissatisfied consumers.***

If it does nothing more, that is okay by some. If I'd given money to them, I'd want it back and then some, for the trouble and grief.

Again, we keep hearing your criticism, but no suggestions about a different course of action. Stop bogarting. Share with us how YOU think this should be going down.

[Anonymous]

***I don't think it appropriate that President Bush would respond to a question asked directly of Clinton, such as why he lied in the White House, is quite the same as Clinton himself responding to a question asked of him. If I asked Clinton why he lied, I want his answer to the question not Bushs.***

Give us a break Carey. You make a lousy DA. Spots answered the question.

Spots...I don't believe any plaintiff in this suit has stated that the primary goal of this action is to stop abuse. There are as many reasons as there are plaintiffs for joining this suit, and I suspect bringing down the vehicle of their torment (WWASPS) is paramount in their minds. However, a civil suit does not work that way. One cannot go into court and "shut down" a business by claiming they abuse. That is not the function of a civil court. That is a legislative or criminal action. Publicity is a strong weapon, as is depleting the coffers of the defendent by winning a large judgement against them. But a civil suit is a very good way to implement one's vision, and there is nothing wrong with going this direction. Remember, Al Capone was finally beaten by the Feds for evading income tax...not murder, mayhem, and racketeering... but evading income tax, a proveable Federal offense. Same end result; clever method to enforce the public's will.***

She obviously didn't say what you were fishing for... that this lawsuit will not save the kids in the fashion you so desire. So what?
This is just like your bullshit speil on Ryan and the movie, "must depict the absolute truth as you perceive it; must not be classified fiction; blah blah blah".

I have a better idea too. Shut up. Email Spots privately if you want to continue to badger her and avoid questions posed to you.

I do not feel the need to answer for Spots and didn't. My comments and questions were directed to you, which you ignored... "missed". I would not be commenting if you weren't spamming the board again. You're a broken record.

While we're on the subject, how will the money you took quietly from WWASP "help the abused kids"?

[Anonymous]

Did Carey take money quietly?  If she took money quietly, then how do you know she took it at all?

[Cayo Hueso]

On 2004-03-09 08:34:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Spots has not answered the question.



How will a quiet settlement help children who are being abused in a program that is rampant with abuse according to those behind the law suit?



Is the answer it won't....not our problem. We are just wanting money?



If what these plaintifs say is true, how will a quiet settlement help children who are still in these programs? Has all their preaching and trashing of other parents, those who still beleive in the program (in an attempt to make them see they need to save their children) all of a sudden become none of their concern as long as they get compensation, money, paid off to be quiet about it. In other words, pay us off and we will be quiet about it"

I realize you asked this question of Spots, but I'd like to offer an answer.  I personally would not agree to a settlement if I couldn't disclose why I brought the suit in the first place...BUT THAT'S ME.  I don't begrudge anyone doing so.  I've worked in the legal field for quite some time and I know how these things work.  It would be a quicker and easier way to bring publicity to 'the cause' to NOT agree to a non-disclosure clause, but the suit absolutely still has value in bringing these people down.  Hit them in the pockets, that's the only place you're going to hurt them.  If enough people sue, even if they settle, even if they settle with a non-disclosure, it will have an effect.  It won't happen as fast, but it will happen.  People may have their own private reasons for wanting to settle quickly.  They may have mounting medical bills from all the damage done by the program and are in need on the finances to get real help.  It this Anon is, in fact, Carey...isn't that one of the reasons you stated for accepting money from WWASP?  I'm not making a judgement on that, just a comparison to this situation.

In the interest of furthering this discussion, can we move on?  I don't know Spots, I don't know if she's going to answer your question but you now have a reasonable, plausible answer for it.  If Spots answers later then you can take her answer up with her, but you have a valid response to your question on the field now...can we move on?

May 12-13: Sowed Hemp at Muddy  hole by Swamp. August 7: Began to separate the Male from the Female at Do - rather too late.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188301123X/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>George Washington (Diary)

[Anonymous]

I think the point has been made, well made....

It has not been about saving children from abuse...It has been about parents who are nothing more than dissatisfied consumers.  How else could they get their money back other than to cry abuse.

If the abuse is as rampant as they say, it is a real tragedy for those teens left behind the walls of the "program."  It either has to be that these plaintifs are people who have no soul and do not care for the lives teenagers who are suffering OR they are people who have cried wolf.

Remember these were people who were and have claimed to have all kinds of evidence of child abuse.  The wanted their evidence to be kept and preserved for use in court.  Did/do they have the evidence and are they going to agree to keep it from the public OR was there never ever any real evidence?

[Cayo Hueso]

The point has been made??  Where, when??  You asked a question as to what good would it do to settle the suit with a non-disclosure agreement.  I gave you an extremely reasonable answer and all you come up with is 'the point has been made'?  Please show me where and when.

Same program rhetoric, the ones who complain are just lying, or disgruntled, or IN DENIAL :roll:  :roll:

It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep
the rest  in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of  all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means  for retaining their advantages.
--Thomas Jefferson to John  Taylor, 1798

[Anonymous]

First you are assuming one and only one Anon is posting.  That assumption is incorrect.

Second, who has said that all those who claim abuse are liars?  I do not remember that having been said.

The point has been made....

If the rampant abuse is/has occured...

If those claiming the abuse has occured have also claimed to have evidence of the abuse...

Yet are now willing to take a monetary settlement and walk away quietly without disclosing the evidence....

Then they are either...

Cold hearted people who are only out for themselves....

Or

They have never had any real evidence from the beginning....


You don't settle cases invovling abuse quietly.  Abuse is not a case to be settled in civil court.

[Cayo Hueso]

I happen to personally agree.  That's MY opinion.  I don't feel I have the right to tell someone else how to handle their case, especially after seeing what kind of an effect settlements DO have, even in cases involving abuse, even in cases involving abuse that have non-disclosure agreements.  I've also seen quite a few good reasons for the plaintiffs to accept the settlement.  Guess my point is that every case is different, every plaintiff is different.  I would NOT settle MY case if I were to have brought one, but that's ME.

Someone DID say that...I quote "It either has to be that these plaintifs are people who have no soul and do not care for the lives teenagers who are suffering OR they are people who have cried wolf."

I don't agree with that statement.
 

It really puzzles me to see Marijuana connected with Narcotics - Dope and all that crap?it's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an Assistant - a friend.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002ORZ/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>Louis Armstrong

[Cayo Hueso]

BTW, if I get the Anons mixed up, you'll pardon me....it's difficult to keep you guys straight.  You can register a name without giving away who you are.  Just so we, with names, know WHICH anon to address.

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there;  lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid.  She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well;  but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?tag=circlofmiamithem&keyword=mark+twain&mode=books' target='_new'> Mark Twain

[Anonymous]

I don't feel I have the right to tell someone else how to handle their case, especially after seeing what kind of an effect settlements DO have, even in cases involving abuse, even in cases involving abuse that have non-disclosure agreements.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you.   In this case I don't.  These people have posted this case publically, they have made it public interest, trying to sway the publics interest.  To settle it quietly now is slapp in the face to those who are looking for the truth.

[Cayo Hueso]

I can agree with some of that, but I don't think it means that they are either uncaring or after money.  There are many things that go on behind the scenes of a lawsuit, there are many, many motivations, ways to go about it, outcomes, needs etc.  To blanketly label anyone who settles is, I think given my background with it, is unfair.  Like I said, I wouldn;t do it, but does that mean that every suit that is settled is just bullshit??  That seems to be what is being said here...if you settle it means you don't care or you have strictly financial motives.

If life were fair, Dan Quayle would be making a living asking 'Do you want fries with that?'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6302294274/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>John Cleese

[Anonymous]

Are we talking about rampant abuse?

You can not look at this suit as though it is some kind of car accident in which plaintifs need to be compensated.

This case is and has been about abuse.  These plaintifs are claiming that abuse is the norm in these programs.   If what they have been saying is true and they agree to settle quietly, then how are they any different than those who they are calling abusers.  If they mean what all they have said, if there is any truth in what they have said, how can they accept money and then close their mouths to what they profess to be rampant, that of wide spread abuse?

[Anonymous]

The best, most effective way to fight child abuse is out in the open, not behind "closed doors".  

The real question is when the proposed class-action lawsuit became a direct-action and why? Perhaps one of the Anons, Spots or someone else who can answer this question, will do so, however, it is more likely they will not.  After all, this is THEIR DEAL, nobody else's.

 :smokin:

[Cayo Hueso]

I don't know enough about the suit to answer any of that.  I said that from the outset, I was interested in this discussion and started asking questions.  I was met with something like 'I'm not responding to you because you're not spots'.  I'm trying to find out more about EXACTLY what this is about.  I don't feel like digging through page after page of posts to find out, so I asked.

I was asking some anon, not sure which, if they believed that abuse happened in these programs.  That's when the line about 'they're either after money or they don't care' came up.  

So, do you believe that abuse happens in these programs?  What do you consider 'rampant' enough to be considered a problem??

Personally, I believe the very basis of these programs is abusive.  PERIOD!!

for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.    
--Alexander Hamilton