Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 05, 2003, 09:30:00 PM
-
When you look back at the first article that appeared regarding Dundee Ranch, you will see that it was written by New York Times freelancer Tim Weiner. Sensationalism sells. So far, NONE of the parents or teens he supposedly spoke with have made themselves known. Is HE friend or foe to writing the truth? What he wrote trickled down to Tico Times and People magazine and hundreds of newspapers across the country and the world. My best guess is that more reporters will be held accountable for false reporting including Tim Weiner. In this instance, his report hurt many, many people.
"Blair, 27, resigned May 1 after he was found by the Times to have "committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud." The newspaper announced it would form a committee to review newsroom policies, including hiring practices, the use of unidentified sources, the use of freelancers and byline and dateline practices."
Read on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18661-2003Jun5?language=printer)
***********************************************
New York Times Executives Resign
Executive Editor, Managing Editor Quit in Wake of Blair Scandal
By Sara Kugler
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 5, 2003; 1:22 PM
NEW YORK -- New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned Thursday amid the turmoil sparked by the Jayson Blair journalistic fraud scandal.
"This is a day that breaks my heart," Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told hundreds of staffers at an emotional morning meeting in the newspaper's third-floor newsroom.
The Times announced that Joseph Lelyveld, 66, the paper's former executive editor, had been named interim executive editor and would assume Raines' responsibilities. No one will be named interim managing editor, the Times said.
Sulzberger thanked Raines and Boyd for putting the interests of the newspaper first. The Blair scandal wasn't mentioned at Thursday morning's staff meeting, but it had started a weeks-long period of turbulence at the Times.
:wave: Blair, 27, resigned May 1 after he was found by the Times to have "committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud." The newspaper announced it would form a committee to review newsroom policies, including hiring practices, the use of unidentified sources, the use of freelancers and byline and dateline practices.
The two top editors had been the focus of much of the criticism, particularly for allowing Blair to cover the Washington-area sniper case when the metropolitan editor had previously raised concerns about the reporter's mistakes.
As shock waves reverberated over the Blair revelations, Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporter Rick Bragg resigned May 28. The newspaper had suspended Bragg over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelancer.
"We know this has been a difficult period," Raines said to the Times staff in an e-mail announcing Bragg's resignation. Bragg declined to comment on the resignations Thursday.
Raines and Boyd each made statements during Thursday's meeting, drawing prolonged applause from the staff members, some of whom were in tears.
Boyd spoke of his commitment to diversity and was briefly interrupted by applause. Retired Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Sr. - father of the current publisher - also attended the meeting, standing silently throughout.
"Everybody is upset about what happened," said Dee Wedemeyer, an editor.
According to the Times Web site, Raines told his former staffers: "Remember, when a great story breaks out, go like hell."
Minutes after the meeting, he left the building.
"They have made enormous contributions during their tenure," Sulzberger Jr. said of Raines and Boyd, "including an extraordinary seven Pulitzer Prizes in 2002 and another this year. I appreciate all of their efforts in continuing the legacy of our great newspaper."
The editors quit more than a month after Blair resigned from the newspaper, later telling the New York Observer that he "fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism" with his reporting.
An initial investigation found fraud, plagiarism and inaccuracies in 36 of 73 articles Blair wrote between October and April. The Times detailed the fraud over four full pages in its May 11 edition, but the controversy was not quelled.
In an e-mail to staffers on Thursday, Sulzberger Jr. said "with great sadness," he agreed with the editors' decision to leave.
"Given the events of the last month ... Howell and Gerald concluded that it was best for The Times that they step down."
Raines became executive editor just days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The following April, the Times received a record seven Pulitzer Prizes - five for its coverage of the terrorist attacks and another for coverage of the war in Afghanistan.
He had been criticized for what some saw as his autocratic management style.
"You view me as inaccessible and arrogant," he told staffers at a May 14 meeting. "You believe the newsroom is too hierarchical, that my ideas get acted on and others get ignored. I heard that you were convinced there's a star system that singles out my favorites for elevation."
Before becoming executive editor, Raines had been editor of the editorial page for eight years and previously headed the newspaper's bureaus in Washington and London when he was named executive editor to replace the retiring Lelyveld.
He won a Pulitzer Prize for feature writing in 1992 for a memoir he wrote for The New York Times Magazine about his childhood friendship in Alabama with his family's black housekeeper.
Boyd, 52, was named managing editor in 2001. He had been deputy managing editor for news from 1997 to 2001, and assistant managing editor from 1993 until 1997. He joined the newspaper in 1983
Lelyveld retired in 2001 after serving as executive editor for seven years. During his tenure, the Times won 12 Pulitzer Prizes, introduced color to its pages, added new sections and expanded its national circulation.
© 2003 The Associated Press
-
The New York Times was not the first article written on Dundee. The first article was written back in October by the Times Picayunne. The second, third and fourth article were written by the Tico Times, one in October, one in January and one in March. The New York Times article was not written until May. Then the People Magazine article followed in June.
The parents and teens that spoke with Tim Weiner are known.
You need to get your facts straight before you make your statements. Just because you may not know certain facts does not mean they are not known to others.
-
One more thing, you said his article has hurt alot of people. Quite the contrary, his article has opened the eyes of alot of people. His article has saved alot of kids from abuse. The truth about what was happening at Dundee is what HURTS!
[ This Message was edited by: on 2003-06-05 18:55 ]
-
When will WWASP supporters stop making excuses? Denial is not ok when your child is at risk. And about his article hurting people? WWASP is hurting people, thank God for people like Tim for allowing our country to hear the truth.
-
Also, Tim Weiner is *not* a freelancer and many of the teens interviewed by him used their real names and have posted on this very forum.
-
[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-16 19:23 ]
-
Dear anon program parent,
While reading your post, I had an epiphany! What with all the bad news in the world these days, sometimes it's hard to keep a bright outlook. But, now that I see how you do it, I think anyone can do it too. For those readers who mised the trick, here it is broken down.
Every newspaper, magazine and broadcaster makes mistakes. I know that's harder to believe than last year's campaign promises, but it's true! Check and see. Every paper I've checked so far has a corrections and retractions section somewhere. Just like every good pencil has an eraser.
Since they all carry inacurate information sometimes, we don't really have to believe anything they say, do we? For example, I've been in a funk since around St. Paddy's Day last year over the war in Iraq. But I've never actually seen any firsthand evidence of war in Iraq. I've only heard it on tv and radio and read about it in the newspapers. For all I know, they're all just making it all up because sensationalism sells. Same goes for the DC sniper, domestic terrorism, unemployment, SARS, AIDS and a whole littany of other worries. Thanks to the wisdom and brilliance of my new friend here, I can simply disregard all of it out of hand because the papers are full it!
I know my life is going to be so much better now that I've found the secret to living in a perfect world! Thank you so much for making my life so better.
BTW, here are some other articles about WWASP and/or Dundee. Gosh! That sure is an awful lot of mean, spiteful, inacurate reporting, huh? There seems to be a whole RASH of it and it's been going on for years now! Good thing we don't have to believe any of it, huh?
http://fornits.com/anonanon/peaars.cgi? ... 0&months=0 (http://fornits.com/anonanon/peaars.cgi?query=wwasp+or+dundee&results=0&months=0)Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.
-
I spoke with Tim Weiner several times as he gathered information for his initial article. I provided him with source material (about 6" worth!). He used this as a starting point in a few directions, but NEVER quoted my stuff...only went directly to the source for an interview. Mr. Weiner, based in Mexico City and covering Mexico and Central America as a Times staffer, also produced an excellent piece in the same May 9 edition about Bahia de Kino, a very tough but supportive and successful school. How come you're not complaining about THAT, Ms. Anonomous? Mr. Weiner has two Pulitzer Prizes, one about internal workings in the CIA, and he said he had never worked with such a difficult and hard-to-break-into subject. He has also never been sued as a reporter, and went to great lengths to only print what he could support with testimony...even stating specifically which interviews were by phone.
On the strugglingteens.com website, there is a Letter to the Editor by Donna Hamel about her "success" with Casa by the Sea. She has revised it recently, (along with a couple of "Gee, the Program is great for my kid" support letters written by compliant parents only days after the Dundee mess hit the fan) and complains Mr. Weiner spoke to her and her now-released daughter at length, yet quoted only the most sensational snippet. Well...her daughter (quoted) told how she was Level 4 and instantly demoted to Level 1 for hugging a crying companion, lonely at Thanksgiving. WWASP punishes compassion, and rewards obedience. I think this is pretty darn sensational too...and I remember that incident more than endless vague exortations from Mrs. Hamel about building self-esteem and taking responsibility for actions, etc. Show me platitudes and show me anectdotes...I'll believe the anectdotes, especially if I KNOW they're researched and true. Mrs. Hamel also blathers on about The Director (Dace Goulding) never being contacted by Mr. Weiner, even though he set up a phone interview appointment. Mrs. Hamel believes the director's statements to her about setting up this arrangement, saying he is a wonderful fellow and her daughter just loves him and he has very nice parents himself. Mr. Weiner talked with me by phone just after he sent his article to the NYT for editorial review before printing. He stated he could not get an interview with the director. Now, who do you believe...NY Times reporter, 2 Pulitzers, tons on the line here...or a WWASP staffer who also says he never met the High Impact torture victim or his parents, the incident which closed down this facility? This director lies like a rug, and you want me to disregard the newspaper reporter with an entire career of integrity behind him?
BTW, after walking a tightrope about forwarding negative information to my daughter who has incarcerated our grandaughter in Casa for 7 months now, I emailed the Times piece without comment. That unleashed a violent tirade of email attacks on me for not supporting the Program and undermining the brilliant future this child faces once she is allowed to speak to peers, finally receive a monthly phone call from home, put in more expensive time learning how to berate peers in "group", and "building her self-esteem". We are permanently cut off from her, at least until she is 18. Drinking the Kool-Aid, this parent has lost reason on forging her daughter's future.
Believe what the newspapers say if the only other option is to blindly follow what WWASP wants you to know. The antidote to secrecy is exposure. Hopefully, the bright light will save new children from years of anguish.
-
One might also note that WWASP is *not* suing the New York Times. To my knowledge, they never sued the Rocky Mountain News or any other major news organization that has written negative stories about them. They have, however, gone after small websites which don't have the resources to fight back. This suggests that they recognize that the law is not on their side if it's a fair fight between orgs with equally deep pockets.
-
Spots. I'm sorry you feel your grand daughter is being abused in some way. I haven't spent a lot of time reading through this entire forum, nor researching all the articles out there. I'm not familiar with the strugglingteens site, but will check it out. I acknowledge you for all the research you've put into needing to rescue your grand daughter. Does your granddaughter WANT to be rescued? Your view is very real to you, mine is very real to me. That's what it's all about, right? Freedom of speech. I didn't read enough of the posts to see the parents Tim Weiner actually spoke with are on this forum. I mistook Mr. Weiner's status as a freelancer due to his unprofessionalism in not researching another side of the story before writing it.
Bottom line is that I support the facts and the abuse that was happening at Dundee Ranch was the abuse of power from a local government official The abuse was not from staff, but from the 30 students who trashed the place. These are the same kids that abused their parents (and themselves) which resulted in their admission to Dundee Ranch Academy. The abuse came from a former director who was asked to leave or be fired for her incompetence. The abuse is from these 30 (out of 200) students who continued to abuse their parents by writing to them about how they were being abused. There were parents there who were visiting their kids and because there were "always" parents there visiting there kids, wouldn't you think they would see abuse?? They did witness some of the students attempting to verbally abuse the staff! Go figure!
When a student writes to a parent claiming abuse, an intelligent parent will not close their eyes to this possibility, but take action to see if their kid is yet again making up stories to get what they want, or if it is true. My personal knowledge is that the kids who write to their parents that they are being abused do so because it feeds on the parent's fears. If they make it sound real, then the parents that believe it will come and bring them home from the big bad program. The kids know the rules and they know the consequences, and the consequences are not abusive. Did they follow the rules at home? Did they agree to consequences when they were home? In a troubled teen they may feel ALL consequences are abusive..at home, at school, at any place that has rules...they've abused their rights...go figure, again!
Very FEW parents choose a specialty boarding school first. Like me, they may have tried counseling, parenting classes, scare tactics (visiting a juvenile center), attempted to talk with them, given them our love, sent them to relatives for a change of environment....plus much more, and nothing worked or got worse. I no longer chose to continue to accept the choices and the behavior that created the chaos at home. I needed help just as much as my kid did. There are MANY other programs besides WWASP out there. The reason I chose a WWASP program was because it's based on results, not time, with a positive peer culture. It involves the whole family in the process through workshops (both parent and parent/child) local support groups, family therapy, home visits...and it has a phenominal after-care program to aid in the continued success once the residential part of the stay is over. My family is successful, and it's been a couple of years since my kid has been home.
I know this is long and it sounds like I'm defending WWASP. It goes deeper than that, I'm choosing to share another side of what this site is intended for. My purpose is to support the facts in the real world. If abuse is proven, then yes, it needs to be shut down and be held accountable. I am not a supporter of abuse in any way.
-
You are right, it does seem that WWASP targets only those who are in competition with them. But then, that makes sense.
When they target others who do what they do because of slander, they can make an argument in thier favor, the argument being that their competitors want their business.
However, when they go up against the reality of right and wrong, pure and simple, or when they go up against those who are standing up for others who are not able to stand up for themselves, then they don't stand a fighting chance.
It is really sad to see children's lives being bought and sold like a product in this for profit industry.
-
Question: If parents are told that *all* accounts of abuse are manipulation, how can true accounts of abuse be verified?
Answer: They can't be-- which is why a system that calls all accounts of abuse manipulation is inherently abusive.
Genuinely good care for children or anyone else who is less powerful than those running the system must be *accountable* -- there must be a system for evaluating abuse claims that is independent of those who would like to stifle all of them because that suits their financial interests.
This is why hospitals have a patient ombudsman or patient advocate. THey recognize that patients are less powerful and less likely to be believed than physicians and that it is often in the physicians' interest to downplay genuine patient complaints. This is also why regulation is needed and why centers which seek to avoid regulation are inherently suspect.
This is also why jails allow private communication between lawyers and inmates and uncensored contact with the press. It is why there are civilian complaint review boards to monitor police. It is why there are numerous picky regulations for the care of the mentally ill and the disabled.
If you were a sadistic pedophile, what better place to work than one which says that all kids are liars, that all accounts of abuse are manipulation and that parents should never believe their own children? You could do whatever you wanted with total impunity because any time a kid complains, it would never be believed.
A normal standard for checking kids' stories is that they are similar with each other-- when you've got several witnesses giving the same account, that generally implies that it is true, especially when they have never met or spoken with each other previously. But WWASP tries to say this means the kids' have a huge secret conspiracy to make up the same stories to get sent home.
Why do parents who spend their whole lives teaching their kids not to speak to strangers and worrying that a sex offender may live next door suddenly believe that people who work with kids with no regulation and no checks on their power are inherently more trustworthy than their own children?
-
On 2003-06-06 11:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"One might also note that WWASP is *not* suing the New York Times. To my knowledge, they never sued the Rocky Mountain News or any other major news organization that has written negative stories about them. They have, however, gone after small websites which don't have the resources to fight back. This suggests that they recognize that the law is not on their side if it's a fair fight between orgs with equally deep pockets."
Oh yeah, I'm not sure if or how WWASP(S) is or was affiliated with the Catherine Freer program, but one of their reps tried to get me to pull a copy of a printed article because, they said, the article containted some inaccuracy. I told them to sue the paper if they think they have a claim or that I'd do a little research and add a note clarifying the info in question. I think it had to do with one of those routine shuffling of the staff they do when the shit hits the fan. Well, needless to say, they backed off.
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford
-
On 2003-06-06 12:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Question: If parents are told that *all* accounts of abuse are manipulation, how can true accounts of abuse be verified?
Answer: They can't be-- which is why a system that calls all accounts of abuse manipulation is inherently abusive.
...
Why do parents who spend their whole lives teaching their kids not to speak to strangers and worrying that a sex offender may live next door suddenly believe that people who work with kids with no regulation and no checks on their power are inherently more trustworthy than their own children?
"
Damn! Talk about hitting the nail on the head!
BTW, if WWASP has been processing about 2k kids a year through it's network for the past 7 years, then there should be around 14k happy young adult graduates who will step up and counter the claims of abuse, right? So then... how come it's always the parents getting all bent out of shape and making absurd claims in the shrillest of tones and based on the most tortured logic, just to try and keep believing they're the good guys?
It's enough to make you stop and wonder at the mighty awsome power of self delusion.
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
-
On 2003-06-06 11:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous, you said: "Spots. I'm sorry you feel your grand daughter is being abused in some way...Does your granddaughter WANT to be rescued?"
How would I know? All communication coming and going is edited. I read between the lines of the 30% of what she wrote us that made it through, and, yes...she wants out...and no, not because she's a little shit who objects to any rules. This is a hateful environment, meant to terrify adolescents into complete submission.
You said: "Freedom of speech."
You enjoy freedom of speech. WWASP internees do not. This is a basic right, and not to be suspended even if your kid refused to come home from school when he was supposed to, or decided to rebel and fail his sophomore year.
You said: "...Mr. Weiner's... unprofessionalism in not researching another side of the story before writing it."
He did research it, very thoroughly. I know he traveled all over Mexico for more than 4 weeks, and devoted nearly full time to this article. In fact, he did include some quotes from "satisfied" participants.
You said: "the abuse of power (was) from a local government official" INFORMING AMERICAN CITIZENS OF THEIR RIGHTS CONCERNING FALSE IMPRISONMENT?
You said: "The abuse was not from staff, but from the 30 students who trashed the place". TRASHING THE PLACE DOES NOT FALL UNDER MY DEFINITION OF ABUSE.
You said: The abuse came from a former director who was asked to leave or be fired for her incompetence. YOU HAVE ALREADY SUGGESTED YOUR RESEARCH ON THIS ISSUE IS SHALLOW. READ AMERBLY KNIGHT'S LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY. SHE WAS NOT INCOMPETENT; SHE WAS FRUSTRATED THAT HER ATTEMPTS AT REFORM WERE THWARTED. SHE WAS REPLACED AS DIRECTOR BY THE 26YO SON OF A WWASP ORIGINAL INVESTOR WITH AN ECONOMICS DEGREE FROM BYU.
You said: "Very FEW parents choose a specialty boarding school first. Like me, they may have tried counseling, parenting classes, scare tactics (visiting a juvenile center), attempted to talk with them, given them our love, sent them to relatives for a change of environment....plus much more, and nothing worked or got worse." WRONG. WWASP PARENTS SEEM TO TAKE ACTION SOONER, WITHOUT THE HORRENDOUSLY DRAINING AND EXPENSIVE VISITS TO FACILITIES, ED CONSULTANTS, 1000'S OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. ALL RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTERS ARE A CRAP-SHOOT, BUT LOOKING INTO CREDENTIALS, MEETING "THE REAL STAFF" YOUR KID WILL LIVE UNDER, TALKING WITH OTHER STUDENTS, PHONING YOUR KID NO MORE THAN 2 WEEKS INTO A PROGRAM, WORKING ON THE WHOLE FAMILY *AS A WHOLE FAMILY*, NOT IN DIFFERENT CANNED SEMINARS..IS IMPERATIVE. AS A PSYCHIATRIST WAS QUOTED IN THE NYT ARTICLE, TOO MANY PARENTS TAKE MORE CARE SELECTING A NEW CAR THAN A NEW HOME FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
You said: "The reason I chose a WWASP program was because it's based on results, not time,...A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT, MEANING THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? "...with a positive peer culture." AM I NOT CORRECT IN ASSUMING THE DAILY "GROUP" IS A CIRCLE WHEREIN EACH KID READS DEEP SECRET THOUGHTS WRITTEN THE NIGHT BEFORE AND THE OTHER DYSFUNCTIONAL KIDS GET TO TEAR IT APART?
My family is successful, and it's been a couple of years since my kid has been home. I AM TRULY GLAD YOU HAVE HAD SUCCESS.
...Oh, and I'm going to owe Ginger $$$ for bandwidth VBG. I'll never change this mother's mind, but I need to vent. If it were just the adult's differing opinion...too bad the kids suffer in the process.
-
Anon, how many unannounced visits did you make to your child when he was at the WWASP facility? Were you able to visit any time you wished just because you missed him or whatever? When he was at level 1, could you just pop over to take him out for a soda? When he was at level 2, could you drop by to take him to a movie. Oh, that's right he had to EARN those things. Like he had to earn the right to look someone in the eye. Good Grief, newborns have that right and where is it written that you could lose such a right?
He had follow the "rule" about not speaking at certain times and certainly could not say anything critical of the facility. Apparently, you are not familiar with our constitution which guarantees freedom of speech no matter how stupid or nonsensical it is. And teenagers can say some pretty inane things. They do grow up and learn.
Finally, it is apparent that you do not know about the scientific method. To prove that something is good or right, you need to do a double blind study. Unfortunately, with one problem teenager this cannot be done, because you cannot send him to a WWASP program and also have him stay at home to see which way was best. Hopefully for you, your child is very caring, because a more vengeful child would sooner or later discover what really happened to him. Then you might lose him or at least lose his trust in you.
My ex-friend sent her daughter to Cross Creek Manor. While she was there, she was ill alot. Since she was healthy at home, one could wonder if physical abuse by poor nutrition, inappropriate clothing and /or temperature control in the buildings, ill-advised physical activity or inactivity, and sleep deprivation caused her health problems. And psychological abuse can effect health too.
Was your child ever ill while at WWASP? Did you drop everything and go to make sure your child was properly cared for? Did you make sure they dispensed the necessary medications regularly and properly? My ex-friend did not do those things, and because of that, I do not consider her a fit parent.
-
I visited my son at Level 1 - didn't trust him to not run away if I took him out. That was my choice, not the program. He had the flu once and a cold once. He was taken to the doctor as a precaution both times. He had regular dental visits and a physical once. Played baseball on the team in town, did a few car washes and visited local organizations and hiked in the mountains several times, plus a lot of other fun activities. Throughout his stay he gained weight, worked out at a gym and was healthier than he was in the previous 2 years. He caught up in his academics and surpassed 1/2 a grade. And yes, I arrived unannounced on several occasions and was met with open arms. Where did you get this information? WWASP "recommends" certain level priviledges, however, it is ultimately up to us if we agree or not. I didnt give up parental rights.
What I'm getting is that information on this site is not coming from those of us that have enjoyed the pleasure of what really goes on. I only share what I have first hand knowledge of.
I'm open to sharing my view, and I suppose I'm also open to the attacks - Could be my word isn't as good as the newspapers?
-
Spots - The mail is not edited. The letters I received from my son in the beginning were so bad I wished they had been edited. The language,the blame, the anger, were all right there in pen and paper. You don't need to convince me of your view. You love your grand daughter, that's what's counts.
-
[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-16 19:26 ]
-
Anon, I agree with Karen. My ex-friend did not see her daughter for 8 months. She wanted to see her sooner, but she could not, and she would not buck the rules. Any facility that would not allow unannounced visits probably has something to hide. Therefore, I do not believe you when you stated that you saw your son when he was on level 1.
My ex-friend's daughter had bouts of pneumonia, a very serious illness. She never went to see if she received proper care. I tell you, if my child was in such a facility because I was fooled by it's slick advertising, I would be there to see that my child was properly cared for the first time she came down with something like pneumonia. The second time she became ill with pneumonia, she would be out of there! My ex-friend,like you, equated pneumonia with simple flu and the common cold.
-
:flame: SINCE YOU DONT WANT TO SAY WHO YOU ARE, I WONT EITHER!! I SPOKE TO TIM, MY CHILD WAS AT DUNDEE, SOOO PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, :evil: LETS FACE IT, YOU DONT KNOW WHO TALKED TO TIM! YOU JUST ASSUME HE MADE IT UP!! WRONG!!!! WERE YOU THERE? OR DO YOU JUST BELIEVE YOU DID THE BEST FOR YOUR CHILD!!!!!! YOU NEED TO LOOK AT FACTS RE WWASP!!! YOU DONT SEE HAVARD ACCUSED OF ABUSE!!!!! AND THEIR SCHOOLS SHUT DOWN!!! YOU MY FRIEND (NOT) ARE WAY WRONG!!!!!!
-
PEOPLE MAGAZINE POSTED NAMES SO IF IT CAME FROM HIM, HE MUST HAVE KNOWN WHO THEY WERE! :lol:
-
:flame: YOU SAY 30 STUDENTS TRASHED THE PLACE!! WRONG ABOUT 30 STUDENTS TRASHING THE PLACE! THE 30 LEFT AT THE BEGINING, MOST OF THE ONES TRASHING WERE STILL THERE TRASHING, THE 30 LEFT GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!!
-
one word, delusional
-
dental visit? our so-called family rep said that seeing the dentist is a "privilege", that at level one my son didn't qualify for that privilege. i asked every time we spoke, what rules had been broken, this week, that would prevent him from calling home. The last time i spoke to her, she was riffling through her paperwork on the other end of the line, and found, oh, it was for masterbation. That was it. I was out the door. I had heard enough, seen enough reports and heard enough accounts of the crazy wacked out shit that goes on there. Abuse! thats an understatement. why don't you go read http://www.nospank.com (http://www.nospank.com) and see what you are risking, by trusting these people and giving them permission to "restrain" your child? Ask Paul Choy's parents how they feel about restraints.
-
baseball? car washes? dental visits? lots of fun activities? pleasure? :???: my son did NONE of these things. He said they weren't even allowed to shovel snow. I guess when you want to go OUTSIDE those prison walls other than to walk in circles in this little courtyard (yes, i saw the courtyard) so badly, even the idea of shovling snow seems fun.
what facility was your son at?
-
my son told me on his first day there, he didn'tknow you couldn't smile there that was wrestled to the ground and sat upon for smiling, that the fucker who did that to him had his stomache pressed so hard against his face that he couldn't breathe. take a look, please, look at nospank.com, see what could happen. Gee, sounds like so much fun and pleasure there, at the wwasp facility, boy, i ought to maybe check myself in there :scared:
-
my apologies, its nospank.net/camps/htm. no it is not specifically regarding wasp, but i have heard from too many kids their description of "restraint",
restraint is restraint,regardless of where it happens and we all know how kind and loving the wasp staff are
-
Its not restraint the way a normal human being would think of it. They just call it restraint to sanitize what it really is. What they call restraint is torture and a form of physical abuse.
Restraint is when you hold back a person from harming themselves or others. Torture is crushing someone beneath you until they are near passing out or forcing a person into an unnatural position for long periods of time.
The starvation makes them weak, the emotional abuse makes them weak, the sleep deprivation makes them weak, but in the end its all just to make it a little easier to enforce their will on a kid through physical torture.
-
Thank you for expounding on what it means to be restrained. I think that most parents, as I, when they are told about possibility of needing to "restrain" your child, they think about a psychotic person, crazed out of their, attacking others, being strapped to a hospital bed, that was the image in my mind. Gosh, now way would my son need that. They don't think it means being caught smiling, so your thrown to the ground, sat on, with someone's knee pressed against your head. There is a high risk of asphyxiation, especially b/c they are physically weak and emotionally bankrupt.
-
'Bout this
//The starvation makes them weak, the emotional abuse makes them weak, the sleep deprivation makes them weak, but in the end its all just to make it a little easier to enforce their will on a kid through physical torture.//
I think it has more to do with making their minds more weak and pliable, to more easily facilitate the "behavior modification."
Also, in my opinion, this is why they cut the students off from all outside contact, including their family (especially the family) because its an important factor in the psychological breakdown needed to accomplish the desired modification .
I also think this is why the brutality is so prevalent. It increases the stress levels - which also helps with the kind of psychological reworking they are trying to accomplish.
This is why I keep going on about how important it is the media and others understand about the seminars; what they actually are; How they work and what they do to a persons mind.
I think all of the above takes place largely to facilitate the effectiveness of the seminars.
That, plus clearly, some of the staff are sadist, who enjoy their work a bit to much.