Fornits

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => EdCons and referring organizations and agencies => PURE Bullshit and CAICA => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 22, 2007, 04:44:14 PM

Title: SUE SCHEFF: "JUST ME"
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2007, 04:44:14 PM

http://suescheffinfo.blogspot.com/ (http://suescheffinfo.blogspot.com/)

Who are these people that have "no clue the depth of their insanity."?

Does Scheff actually write these blogs?  If so, then in my mind, she is the one in need of a reality check because it appears to me she has no clue the depth of her "self'absorption" and what a turn-off that can be to many people who simply do not view her the same way she sees herself.  

(See the Fornits "Rocket to Ruin" Thread)

 :rofl:

Title: SUE SCHEFF: "JUST ME"
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2007, 05:56:00 PM

Scheff invites the readers to go to the source (her) and read her blogs for the "truth?"

It has been documented that this Blog shows Scheff's support of the closed down Whitmore Academy; and Scheff's praise of its owners who have had legal problems in 3 countries--Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

 How does Scheff expect reader to find the truth  when she uses the following words some 25 times---while bashing Whitmore parents in an effort to support a defunct program and prasing known criminals?

These words support the truth?
"heard"  "if"  "was told"  "obviously"  "understand"  "almost like"  "would have"   "probably"  "may" (2)  "maybe" (2)  "wonder" (2)  "seemed" (3)
"hearsay" (2)  "could have" (2)  "in my opinion" (2)

Then Scheff invites the reader to "stayed tuned for the next installment" of a blog about a closed down facility?

Let's "stay tuned" to Scheff's legal battle withCarey Bock; and see how things go if Carey Bock gets her day in court and a REAL TRIAL.

Title: SUE SCHEFF: "JUST ME"
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2007, 06:05:47 PM

Scheff's own DISCLAIMER at the end of her "Whitmore Academy- My Experiences" doesn't give the readers a lot of confidence that this blog is filled with a lot of "TRUTHS" either, in my opinion.

Scheff's DISCLAIMER reads:
The blog "does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliablility of any of the information  contained on this blog."
The disclaimer goes on to deny any responsibility for "any libelous information contained in this blog."

Guess it's too bad people didn't know to write a "disclaimer" after they supposedly said Scheff was a con, fraud, and liar; IF anyone actually called Sue Scheff such names, that is.