PURE & WWASPS

[Nihilanthic]

I just skimmed over this and I didnt get all of it but yeah, I'm wondering too:

How does Sue automagically know the programs are not "wwasps like"... why wont she say upfront what the referred-to programs are, and why is it the website is full of warnings about bad programs, we need reform and regulation, bla bla bla...

But we're STILL in the dark about the inner workings  of the programs... or even THEIR NAMES AND LOCATIONS! LOL.

I'm smelling something fishy here. Even if they are totally great, WHY the secrecy here?

If her experience with WWASPS was so damn bad... why not do EVERYONE a favor and demonstrate that these programs are not bad, and how they work, let us see the inside, etc.

If she has nothing to hide and the website for PURE indicates how it really does operate... why not just show? Even WWASPS shows which programs it has!

Sheesh!

He who laughs lasts
--Crazy Mac

[granny19]

I agree that all the secrecy is very suspect. It seems that most of the websites are becoming less informative. Only a few months ago you could download a lot more information on the various program websites, sometimes even their contracts. I agree that if P.U.R.E. is so eager to help parents make informed decisions, they should at least identify the programs they support so parents could check them out on their own. I am beginning to think there is no such thing as a worthwhile program, even the real delinquents would be better off in state or county juvenile facilities, at least they would have access to legal representation, medical care and maybe even some counseling with a person who went to college.

[Anonymous]

I hate to belabor the point, but you folks haven't seemed to understand  - there is no such thing as a PURE program.

I don't think the ed cons like Lon or Tom provide a list of programs they refer to. I know they have adds up all over their sites; but apparently, this does not mean they refer to the promoted programs. I mean, according to Lon, anyway. Try calling and asking any of these folks to give you the list of programs they refer to.
I got a feeling it won't go over so well.

I can't recall ever seeing a list like you are suggesting PURE should provide. If they don't accept Program advertising, More power to them, I'd say.

Yes, Teen Help lists all the programs they refer to - and they are all WWASP/S programs. You'll not catch them referring to any that aren't.

But there is no such thing as a PURE program.
As I understand it, the parents are given a list of programs to consider;  and they then do the follow up and decide which one might be best suited.  Unlike the wwasp/s situation, They aren't owned by PURE or Sue or her kinfolk.

Why does it make you all crazy wanting to know which Programs PURE refers too? Does it bother you not knowing which program Lon or Tom or Scott, and on and on, refer to? Don't you think you deserve their list of referred to programs as well? Its really kind of strange, this obsession with PURE.

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-24 15:27:00, Anonymous wrote:

Why does it make you all crazy wanting to know which Programs PURE refers too? Does it bother you not knowing which program Lon or Tom or Scott, and on and on, refer to? Don't you think you deserve their list of referred to programs as well? Its really kind of strange, this obsession with PURE.

It's really not so strange at all. Everybody knows what Lon Woodbury is all about. He doesn't present himself as saving anybody from these programs. He's right up front w/ the fact that he's all for them. People do discuss which programs those are. That's a good thing. I'm glad people are watching that corner. They're certainly welcome here to discuss Lon.

Sue, on the other hand, presents herself as opposing abusive rehab, so long as it belongs to WWASP/S. So when someone came on here a long time ago w/ questions and information about her own dealings w/ Sue, all hell broke loose. Suddently the whole damned forum turned into a parent group come-down rap on this person. It was a total smear campaign. Then the litigation and rumors of litigation started to fly, all geared toward preventing any discussion of these allegedly safe and effective programs.

Now we're seeing the same damned thing again on the Montel show; PURE advertised as an alternative to the abusive WWASP, but no info. at all about what those alternatives really are.

I'm fairly certain that one of them is Whitmore Academy in Nephi, Utah--Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks.

Here, read up on it and make what you will of what's going on there:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewforum.php?forum=35&329

Now I've heard it from several different people that all or most of the 30 or 40 kids at the Whitmore were refered by Sue. Is that true? I don't know. Anybody want to confirm or deny it?

If it turns out to be true and if some of the alegations of what goes on in the Sudweeks mansion are true, then I think that's a matter of some importance. And I think people who come around here looking for info and those who watch the Montel show ought to have a heads up before taking Sue's advice w/o question.

If it's not true, will someone please tell us?

Why is that so hard for you to understand? What's your interest? Why do you believe Sue is sending kids off to safe and effective programs? Having been through what you have, how can you just take it on faith like that?

for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence.

--Thomas Jefferson

[Anonymous]

Woodbury apparently charges parents for his advice so he gets his money from the parents. He is working for them. At least you know who and what he is. Take him or leave him. PURE claims to be working for the parents but gets its money from the schools.  They are actually agents of the schools and earn a living getting finders fees. They have an obvious but undisclosed stake in parents choosing one of the schools that they work for. It is that simple and if parents do not know that PURE is working for the programs and not them it is that dishonest.  You simply can't have it both ways.

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-23 11:16:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"//So, I just thought I'd try to cut through all the sniping, not take anyone else's word for anything and go straight to the sources and just ASK. //



And this is exactly what I suggest you do. "

Me too. I expect you'll get about the same response I have, but who knows? Give it a shot.

so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
--stephen Hawking, English scientist

[BuzzKill]

Hi Ginger.

Ya know, I understand your concern. I admit (repeatedly) that PURE is controversial. I am really only trying to provide a character reference for a friend. She is not what some others would make her out to be. As I've explained, I'd like readers of Fornits who aren't familiar with the parties and the controversy to see a point of view not otherwise found on this forum. Maybe to try and explain some of the  mis-conceptions.

I don't think it is odd or suspicious that PURE does not make public the programs they refer to. I think this is more or less normal. I suspect the programs themselves want it this way, due to the Kook factor mentioned in an earlier post.

As for this:
 So when someone came on here a long time ago w/ questions and information about her own dealings w/ Sue, all hell broke loose. Suddently the whole damned forum turned into a parent group come-down rap on this person. It was a total smear campaign. Then the litigation and rumors of litigation started to fly, all geared toward preventing any discussion of these allegedly safe and effective programs.//

I have a very different point of view on these events; what caused the upset and the assocated problems. That other person wasn't just talking about Sue and PURE. In fact, from my point of view, that wasn't the problem at all. Of corse, from Sue's point of view , her unrelenting slander was grounds for civil action; but my beef was something very different - and I think you know that. In no case, was anyone trying to stop discussion of any program.

I'm not taking anything on Faith, Ginger - I believe what I believe b/c I know Sue. I believe if there are problems in a programs she refers to, she would want to know; and I believe she'd be responsible about it.

This is not the same as saying, I am sure there are no problems. There can be all kinds of problems, from truly insignificant to very serious.

If you honestly think you have evidence of serious problems in a program you think she might be using  - I'd hope you would tell her and not just gloat over the fact.

I was as surprised by the Montel thing as anyone. I feel any 'call for info' plug should've gone to ISAC. I actually wonder if the producers gooft up? But even so, I think your over reacting. Its not as big an issue as your imagining.

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-24 18:28:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"I don't think it is odd or suspicious that PURE does not make public the programs they refer to. I think this is more or less normal. I suspect the programs themselves want it this way, due to the Kook factor mentioned in an earlier post.

Oh, you mean us chattering pigs? Yeah, the kook factor. Or here's another reasonable explanation. Some of the people who frequent these forums have a huge amount of insight into various methods and practices within the troubled parent industry. Collectively, we're former clients, relatives of clients, parents, supporters, critics, people emplyed in the industry, some just nebbish neighbors of the beast... You name it, you can find just about any imaginable perspective can be found here.

Now, when I'm really interested in finding out all I can about a particular place, I ask around here. It works pretty well. So I can't imagine why Sue or anyone else wouldn't give it a shot. I think it has less to do w/ the risk of prank phone calls and more to do with really not wanting to know.

I'm not taking anything on Faith, Ginger - I believe what I believe b/c I know Sue.

Karen, do you understand what is meant by "taking it on faith"? Cause that's it right there. You have faith in Sue and so you believe what she tells you. The basis of your belief that these programs are good is based entirely on your faith in Sue. Is that accurate? If so, OK. That's the answer to the question then. Aside from that faith in Sue, you have no other basis to believe anything one way or another about these unnamed programs. Is that inacurate?

If you honestly think you have evidence of serious problems in a program you think she might be using  - I'd hope you would tell her and not just gloat over the fact.

I don't know if she reads these forums or not, but I think we're discussing one of those programs in another forum (linked above) Would you be kind and mention it to her next time you hear from her and see if she's got an opinion on the matter?

For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist

[BuzzKill]

// Or here's another reasonable explanation. Some of the people who frequent these forums have a huge amount of insight into various methods and practices within the troubled parent industry.//

Oh I do agree. But there IS also A kook factor. I don't equate Chattering Pigs to Kooks; but your right, some might. However, I think you know the kind of harassment I am talking about, is something quite beyond the typical Chattering pig stuff.  But honestly - that's just a guess.

//I think it has less to do w/ the risk of prank phone calls and more to do with really not wanting to know. //
On this point we just disagree. It makes no since to think Sue wouldn't want to know. But, I don't think you can expect Sue or anyone to look to Fornits as a source of fair and unbiased reporting. The rampantness you so value does damage the credibility of the information found here - at least in the opinion of many.  I value *some* of the info from *some * of the people - but I do a lot of filtering. Not everyone want to bother with filtering.

//Karen, do you understand what is meant by "taking it on faith"? //
I think we disagree on the definition of Faith. I feel my knowledge of Sue elevates my view as something based on, well, knowledge. Faith, to me, means believing something you have no actual experience of - Like an after Life. I suppose my knowledge of Sue gives me Faith that she would behave a certain way.

//I don't know if she reads these forums or not, //
No, she doesn't make a habit of reading Fornits.
Yes, I will pass the info along.
I did ask what you were talking about, with the Whitmore thing, and we did talk about it. I also talked about them with others interested. I haven't read the threads in a long time, but I now recall you and the boy Chris debating the merits of the situation there. I don't know, but I got the impression, you might be overly concerned. If there is more I am unaware of, my apologies. I will look the thread over again tomorrow. I will pass along concerns.

But ya know Ginger, I can't imagine you ever being comfortable or satisfied with any program of any kind. I understand far better than I once did, why - but you must know - your voice is still in the minority, and decent safe programs are needed as an alternative to the more abusive and neglectful model that is so common.  

"And just how can you tell their safe?"

Ah well - 'roun an 'roun the argument goes. . .

[Anonymous]

i am in the prosess of getting the list of the PURE programs now. I will post the entire list along with what is knowns about every school. How about a website showing all the WWASP schools and all goes on in them and then on the other side of the page list all the PURE schools and show all that goes on in them and then let everyone decide who is better or are they the same?

[Nihilanthic]

Sorry to chime in like this, but faith is absolutely meaningless.

Give us facts to substantiate things. Simply becuase YOU trust her or YOU believe in her doesnt mean shit. Programmies have TONS of *FAITH* in their program, and what does it amount to? NOTHING!

Try to give actual knowledge here, because only that will satisfy us. Its rather hypocritical for her webpage to be the way that it is, and yet offer so little (NONE) insight into the programs names, locations, modalities, criticisms, methods, etc.

Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
--Freidrich Nietzsche, German philosopher

[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-01-25 01:37 ]

[Antigen]

On 2005-01-25 00:36:00, Anonymous wrote:

"i am in the prosess of getting the list of the PURE programs now. I will post the entire list along with what is knowns about every school. How about a website showing all the WWASP schools and all goes on in them and then on the other side of the page list all the PURE schools and show all that goes on in them and then let everyone decide who is better or are they the same?"

Great! How are you verifying the list? That's been a difficult matter so far. I have a few people telling me that Sue refers people to Whitmore. Should I believe them? I don't know.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense

--Buddha

[Anonymous]

Sue could be as well-meaning as Mother Theresa was, and if she's sincerely misguided or sincerely wrong about something, she could do a lot of harm without meaning to.

That's why while a character reference maybe makes me feel a little better about her probable *intentions* as a person, it doesn't make me at all likely to trust her referrals.

She could be a nice lady and still be wrong.

I think it's an error of judgement not to list the programs they refer to, and which kinds of problems they refer to which program for.

I think it's an error of judgement not to list their criteria in evaluating whether a particular program meets their standards, and what their standards are, and how they determine whether a specific program does or doesn't meet the criteria.

I could list the *basics* of what I would require (for full recommendation) in a program's staffing, facilities, food service, educational support if *I* were running a referral service.

If I can come up with a plausible list off the top of my head, why can't Sue be more open?

She may well have her reasons, but her lack of openness is my reason for not having confidence in her judgement.

Timoclea

[Nihilanthic]

Anyone who knows anything about this troubled parent industry knows that the secrecy of the programs is one of the biggest problems.

If Sue is out to fix anything, why not start by taking some of the most OBVIOUS of steps?

What DOES she have to hide?

Every man has a property in his own person.
This nobody has any right to but himself.
The labor of his body and the work of his
 hands are properly his.


--John Locke

[Anonymous]

Are pure's approved programs approved because they meet certain objective criteria?  Are those criteria published?  Do they have specific educational criteria? Are the teachers licensed?  Is there a separate and distinct treatment plan for each adolescent?  Are the counsellors licensed? Do the operators have an objective history over many years that ought lead to trust? Are there clear rules with respect to minimum sleep?  Are the patients free to pursue their own religious beliefs?  
If their is no list of programs and no list of objective criteria don't we have to conclude that the programs are selected based on their willingness to pay finders fees (bounty) plus Sue's "good feeling" about the owners- the same good feeling that Pure's supporters have about Sue.