Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Troll Control on July 13, 2010, 12:44:09 PM
-
Programs provide an opportunity for pedophiles to prey on your children. The lack of background checks, oversight and accountability are a pedophile's dream and a child's nightmare.
A pedohphile program owner (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=21937&p=265745&hilit=hot+tub#p265731) with Lon Woodbury's "stamp of approval" for the utmost "safety" of the girls in his "care" is sentenced to 45 years in prison for raping and molesting said girls. This is just a single example of dozens.
PARENTS BEWARE that just because some program proponents say programs are safe and even run businesses to promote them like Lon Woodbury does, doesn't mean your kid will not be the victim of dangerous pedophiles who lurk around these facilities in the employ of them, in fact.
When program pimps openly state that they view your child as a "product" what makes you think they give a damn about anything other than money? Think about it.
-
Stepping back a little I think the key is to insure that place you are sending your child does background checks whether it be a program, public school system or daycare. Pedophiles do not differentiate or care where the operate.
In our public school system we are seeing a new case being brought to court every week.
Get ready for a shock. According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – the most in-depth investigation to date – nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees.
Full article (http://http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389)
...
-
I believe that study has been discussed already and was shown to include predominantly cases of inappropriate language.
^^That Guy^^, the program owner pimped by Lon Woodbury as "safe" was charged with 167 individual cases of child sexual assault.
Oregon authorities closed an Aspen Education program, Mount Bachelor Academy (the "sister school" of the Academy at Swift River), citing an abuse rate of "100%" concluding in their investigation that the children were subjected to "ritualized sexual abuse" at the hands of the staff and at least one child was raped with the rape going unreported to the authorities, a crime in and of itself.
Think about it. Authorities, not some "Fornits poster extremist," published this in their report - 100% of children were abused by MBA. This same "program" is run at all Aspen Education facilities. They abuse thousands of children, by legal definition, as charged by state authorites. And that's just one company.
If you were to apply the model of the study cited previously (widely discredited, BTW) to the programs out there you'd get a rate of 90% plus, without doubt. There is no comparison whatsover to be made between programs and public schools. Programs are far more dangerous to children because they practice systematic abuse of children whom they view as "products" with "no rights" as shown by the recent extictification of MBA (and others) by state authorities for pervasive and systemic child abuse.
-
A pedohphile program owner with Lon Woodbury's "stamp of approval" for the utmost "safety" of the girls in his "care" is sentenced to 45 years in prison for raping and molesting said girls. This is just a single example of dozens.
No shit!? Bout time. This makes my day! Thanks for spreading the news!
-
Sometimes these sick, twisted pedos do get what's coming to 'em. Probably in the form of an unimaginably large, swastika-tattooed Aryan Nation-type gentleman they will soon become ever so intimitely acquainted with...
-
Stepping back a little I think the key is to insure that place you are sending your child does background checks whether it be a program, public school system or daycare. Pedophiles do not differentiate or care where the operate.
In our public school system we are seeing a new case being brought to court every week.
Get ready for a shock. According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – the most in-depth investigation to date – nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees.
Full article (http://http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389)
...
:roflmao:
For the uninitiated, Lon child fucker Woodburry was The Voice of the troubled parent industry until Mike Crawford, Psy, used his intellect, moral compass and straight honesty to corner the shady bastard into effectively shutting down his troubled parent advice forum. I can't even tell you how much it brightens my dark day to hear that that dirty bastard has finally gotten condemned by the powers that be. Wooo hooooo! Who wants to go on visiting day to just point and laugh and say not a god damned thing?
Bout damned time! Ya think maybe they're done ignoring, laugint and fighing yet? Wooo hoooo! Score!!!!
-
Oregon authorities closed an Aspen Education program, Mount Bachelor Academy (the "sister school" of the Academy at Swift River), citing an abuse rate of "100%" concluding in their investigation that the children were subjected to "ritualized sexual abuse" at the hands of the staff and at least one child was raped with the rape going unreported to the authorities, a crime in and of itself.
The 100% abuse was a persons opinion I believe. This was not concluded or settled on as far as I know. If you have a study that concludes 100% of kids in aspen schools (1,000's) are abused I think we would like to see that one. That would be an interesting read The information I posted was taken from a study. I dont think there is a study which is done that isn't protested by someone (especially the person or group which is hurt by the results) If a study shows 10% of our public school kids are being abused then the head of the public school system better jump and try to challenge that report. I think we all know this. They are not going to stand by and let the report go unchallenged.
But until such time as the report is deemed flawed "by all concerned" (or by consensus) then it stands.
...
-
:roflmao:
For the uninitiated, Lon child fucker Woodburry was The Voice of the troubled parent industry until Mike Crawford, Psy, used his intellect, moral compass and straight honesty to corner the shady bastard into effectively shutting down his troubled parent advice forum. I can't even tell you how much it brightens my dark day to hear that that dirty bastard has finally gotten condemned by the powers that be. Wooo hooooo! Who wants to go on visiting day to just point and laugh and say not a god damned thing?
Bout damned time! Ya think maybe they're done ignoring, laugint and fighing yet? Wooo hoooo! Score!!!!
antigen, your post was confusing, I think you might have misread the earlier piece. It wasnt Lon Woodbury who is in jail its a guy named Steve Gage who ran a center for girls. This occured about 10 years ago. Here is a piece from the article.
Gage sentenced to 45 years
By Eric Dolson
February 2, 2001
Steven Gage will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.
Gage, 43, the former proprietor of Royal Haven Equestrian Center for Girls near Sisters, was sentenced to 45 years behind bars on 27 counts of theft, criminal mistreatment and sex abuse of teenage girls under his care.
Now that I read the article it brings up a big question... Who does background checks on the guys responsible for doing background checks????
...
-
Stepping back a little I think the key is to insure that place you are sending your child does background checks whether it be a program, public school system or daycare. Pedophiles do not differentiate or care where the operate.
In our public school system we are seeing a new case being brought to court every week.
Get ready for a shock. According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – the most in-depth investigation to date – nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees.
Full article (http://http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389)
...
Too bad the program industry doesn't bother trying to find out what the rate is. Then again it would be quicker to find the percentage of kids who weren't.
-
So, no link to the actual study, then, Whooter? Your link goes to an article (in "Worldnetdaily.com" no less, a known hack site that doesn't actually do "journalism" but rather pushes a right-wing, evangelist agenda) but I haven't seen any study.
And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA. All Aspen "troubled teen" programs run the same millieu as MBA, there fore, since MBA's program was deemed to be "child abuse" by state child protection investigators, it's a rather logical conclusion that any program using that methodology (e.g. all Aspen programs), is also guilty of child abuse. Thousands of kids have gone through Aspen's child abuse program, so therefore thousands have been abused.
-
So, no link to the actual study, then, Whooter? Your link goes to an article (in "Worldnetdaily.com" no less, a known hack site that doesn't actually do "journalism" but rather pushes a right-wing, evangelist agenda) but I haven't seen any study.
Here is the link to the original.
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc
for some reason the link will not take... just cut and paste this in.
And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA. All Aspen "troubled teen" programs run the same millieu as MBA, there fore, since MBA's program was deemed to be "child abuse" by state child protection investigators, it's a rather logical conclusion that any program using that methodology (e.g. all Aspen programs), is also guilty of child abuse. Thousands of kids have gone through Aspen's child abuse program, so therefore thousands have been abused.
Do you have a link to the professional organizations which conducted the investigation and where it concluded that all kids in MBA were abused and therefore all kids in Aspen programs are abused. It sounds like an interesting discussion
...
-
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc
she extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000.
The figures suggest "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," said Shakeshaft, according to Education Week.
Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade, says the report.
...
-
So it's safe to say that programs should be done away with, for the most part. Not much good comes of them, does it? Parents have too much money if they can afford to send a kid to one anyway, as they're usually an expensive rip-off. It would be good if most of them were just out-and-out shut down, as regulating them never seems to fully work... and you don't want to be half-assed when it comes to regulating places where abuse runs so rampant.
Here's to a world without programs! :cheers:
-
So it's safe to say that programs should be done away with, for the most part. Not much good comes of them, does it? Parents have too much money if they can afford to send a kid to one anyway, as they're usually an expensive rip-off. It would be good if most of them were just out-and-out shut down, as regulating them never seems to fully work... and you don't want to be half-assed when it comes to regulating places where abuse runs so rampant.
Here's to a world without programs! :cheers:
If we base our decision on the research we should close the public school system down first.
...
-
So it's safe to say that programs should be done away with, for the most part. Not much good comes of them, does it? Parents have too much money if they can afford to send a kid to one anyway, as they're usually an expensive rip-off. It would be good if most of them were just out-and-out shut down, as regulating them never seems to fully work... and you don't want to be half-assed when it comes to regulating places where abuse runs so rampant.
Here's to a world without programs! :cheers:
If we base our decision on the research we should close the public school system down first.
That too is overrated and should be re-worked.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/)
-
So it's safe to say that programs should be done away with, for the most part. Not much good comes of them, does it? Parents have too much money if they can afford to send a kid to one anyway, as they're usually an expensive rip-off. It would be good if most of them were just out-and-out shut down, as regulating them never seems to fully work... and you don't want to be half-assed when it comes to regulating places where abuse runs so rampant.
Here's to a world without programs! :cheers:
If we base our decision on the research we should close the public school system down first.
That too is overrated and should be re-worked.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/)
Ha,Ha,Ha
...
-
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.
It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review. Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute. Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .” (emphasis added) The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” Id. “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.
Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here. This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid. So there goes that angle.
Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."
I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions. The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages. Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."
-
Ha,Ha,Ha nice try, He cant endorse it because of what it says about his education system!! How many studies did the tobacco industry endorse that said tobacco causes cancer? Lol It is an independent study that they paid for and he cannot bury it. So it needs to be released.
He stated the interchangeability of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse was confusing. So this needs to be considered when drawing conclusions.
.....Finally, despite some of the above reservations about this study, the Department believes that this topic is of critical importance and that releasing the report is clearly in the public’s interest.
So the guy made his point to be known but he did release the report. It is not invalid.
So where is the report that states MBA abused 100% of the kids and all of the kids in Aspens programs.
...
-
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.
It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review. Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute. Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .” (emphasis added) The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” Id. “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.
Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here. This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid. So there goes that angle.
Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."
I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions. The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages. Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."
What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms. Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse. While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.
Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed. We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.
-
Let's face the facts.....most programs suck. They're in it for the money and have the "ends justify the means" mentality. Isn't it about time parents took responsibility for their kids instead of shipping them off to be "fixed"?
-
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.
It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review. Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute. Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .” (emphasis added) The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” Id. “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.
Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here. This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid. So there goes that angle.
Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."
I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions. The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages. Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."
What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms. Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse. While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.
Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed. We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.
He noted his concerns but released the report. If he felt it was invalid he could not have released the report by law. If you feel the tobacco companies were right when they said all those studies saying smoking caused cancer were invalid then just toss it aside and light up a Winston!!! lol
You dont have to accept the report,DJ, if it bothers you so much. Its a free world, you can close your eyes to the problem and pretend everything is fine and kids are not being abused or subjected to sexual misconduct in the public school system.
...
-
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Purchase Order ED-02-PO-3281. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.
It is important to note some of the Department’s reservations about the findings in the literature review. Specifically, the author focuses in large measure on a broad set of inappropriate behaviors designated as “sexual misconduct,” rather than “sexual abuse,” which is the term used in the statute. Specifically, section 5414(a)(3) of the ESEA requires the Secretary of Education to conduct “[a] study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools. . . .” (emphasis added) The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” Id. “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. Id.
Looks like Whooter has been shining everyone on a bit here. This is the only commissioned study I have ever read where the commissioner specifically states right in the opening remarks that the study is not valid. So there goes that angle.
Whooter claims this study reflects "sexual abuse" which it clearly does not, as explicitly stated. It does however cover "sexual misconduct" which, as defined, would set the program rate at 100% because of the program's inappropriate sexual disclosures and sexualized role playing, which under the guidelines of this report would be considered "sexual abuse."
I guess you have to actually read it before drawing any conclusions. The Dept. of Ed. throws out the results in the first few pages. Mark this one "debunked by the commissioner."
What it actually says is that the study was commissioned to examine sexual abuse, but instead looks at "sexual misconduct" AND conflates the two terms. Thus, the Dept. of Ed. says right in the report, that it does not cover the proper topic, plays loose and fast with the terms and is confusing to readers because it does not examine what the law covers, sexual abuse. While it says that sexual misconduct is an important topic, it explicitly says that this study uses the terms interchangably and improperly.
Unfortunately the study doesn't measure what the commissioner asked for and it is clear that it is not endorsed by the Dept. of Ed. We can only go by what's in the report, not Whooter's fantasies about why the report is deemed invalid by the Undersecretary.
DJ, did you really think that the Dept.of Education was going to endorse these finding.....lol. These are the facts the DOE can spin it anyway it wants, as you can.
-
THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.
-
THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.
I hear ya, lets light up Marlboro!! Those studies dont mean crap lol
...
-
And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA.
So was it one guy who said this? Was it the conclusion of a commission of some type? Was there a report developed like I submitted? Did the person (people) have a background in the area? Degree? Did they interview 100% of the kids?
Toss a link up and lets take a look at it.
...
-
THese fucking studies are bullshit anyway.....back to the facts: programs suck, as do the people who push them.
Here, here. :cheers:
-
And, no, the 100% abuse rate was not an opinion, it was part of the investigation report of MBA.
So was it one guy who said this? Was it the conclusion of a commission of some type? Was there a report developed like I submitted? Did the person (people) have a background in the area? Degree? Did they interview 100% of the kids?
Toss a link up and lets take a look at it. Anything to back it up?
...
-
“Because all MBA students must participate in the prescribed program, the experience of these five students is substantially consistent with that of other children who are or were enrolled at the school. Consequently, in many ways these five youth are exemplars of the program’s treatment of its students as a whole.”
Links to three source docs found here. (http://http://www.cafety.org/solutions-and-successes/791-aspen-education-group-mount-bachelor-academy-closing)
-
“Because all MBA students must participate in the prescribed program, the experience of these five students is substantially consistent with that of other children who are or were enrolled at the school. Consequently, in many ways these five youth are exemplars of the program’s treatment of its students as a whole.”
Links to three source docs found here. (http://http://www.cafety.org/solutions-and-successes/791-aspen-education-group-mount-bachelor-academy-closing)
so no study? No research was done? No conclusion by any commission? Just a link to Cafety...
Nice job, DJ, very credible. So Cafety thinks that all Aspen kids are abused and you consider that to be a long term clinical study which has been peer reviewed?
Hmmm, so basically you have the opinons of a few people you have lunch together.
I am sure Aspen is doing damage control on that one!! lol
...
-
You're a dope, Whooter. The link goes to Cafety and right on that page there are three links to the actual report ("source docs"), which you don't want to acknowledge exists. It even says "download the reports here." I'm sure everyone else found it just fine.
See more on Aspen Education's systematic child abuse policies here. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30803#p369828)
-
You're a dope, Whooter. The link goes to Cafety and right on that page there are three links to the actual report ("source docs"), which you don't want to acknowledge exists. I'm sure everyone else found it just fine.
I am sure there are. Its like me linking to the New York Times home page and telling you they wrote an article. If you have a study or commission conclusion that states 100% of the kids have been abused why not quote the source?
Post the quote and supply the link if you feel this is a true statement otherwise just come out and say it is your opinion or someone elses. No shame in that, we are just asking you to be honest.
...
-
What are you trying to hide for Aspen Education? It makes you look very foolish. I already posted the link in another thread and linked you to it, but I see you somehow missed that one, too. :beat:
-
What are you trying to hide for Aspen Education? It makes you look very foolish. I already posted the link in another thread and linked you to it, but I see you somehow missed that one, too. :beat:
Well, okay, I checked your link:
Shocking report by Oregon state authorities detailing systematic child abuse by Aspen Education (http://http://www.cafety.org/images/stories/documents/MBA/mba_emergency%20suspension_2009.pdf)
:eek: :poison:
searched the report for the words "abused" , "Shocking", "Systemic", "Abuse" or "100%" and nothing comes up. You must be talking about another document.
...
-
So just for the record ,so far at least, we can conclude that there was no investigative body, commissioned study which concluded that MBA abused 100% of the kids. This is why I insist on links to support DJ's comments. Based on the fabricated PM's he was caught presenting I think it is important to ask for proof. There is just such a hard push to discredit these therapeutic programs and little to no evidence that they do harm and many studies that support they are successful that sometimes people like DJ are driven to fabricate statements to make these places look bad.
I am not judging you DJ and have not concluded that you lied again, the door is open anytime you want to present the studies. We will just leave it at that.
...
-
What are you trying to hide for Aspen Education? It makes you look very foolish. I already posted the link in another thread and linked you to it, but I see you somehow missed that one, too. :beat:
Well, okay, I checked your link:
Shocking report by Oregon state authorities detailing systematic child abuse by Aspen Education (http://http://www.cafety.org/images/stories/documents/MBA/mba_emergency%20suspension_2009.pdf)
:eek: :poison:
searched the report for the words "abused" , "Shocking", "Systemic", "Abuse" or "100%" and nothing comes up. You must be talking about another document.
...
I guess your "search" wasn't very effective. Here's what people with normally functioning brains found in the first few pages:
Shocking report by Oregon state authorities detailing systematic child abuse by Aspen Education (http://http://www.cafety.org/images/stories/documents/MBA/mba_emergency%20suspension_2009.pdf)
:eek: :poison:
search the report for the words "abused" , "Abuse" or "100%" and nothing comes up. You must be talking about another document.
The following showed up on the first page; I didn't even get any further. I believe the word "abuse" is mentioned three times in these two paragraphs:
Findings:
DHS finds that 8 allegations of abuse are substantiated against MBA and one allegation of abuse is substantiated against the Executive Director of MBA in violation of OAR 407-045-0820(1)(f), (g) and (h). Moreover, DHS finds that MBA is in violation of the following licensing rules: OAR 413-215-0076; OAR 413-215-0606; OAR 413-215-0681; OAR 413-215-0051; OAR 413-215-0676; OAR 413-215-00651; OAR 413-215-0661; OAR 413-215-0681; OAR 413-215-0056; OAR 413-215-0021; and OAR 413-215-0046.
DHS finds that MBA's abuse and neglect of students and violations of the licensing rules described below, establishes that MBA poses a serious danger to public health or safety, that conditions exist that immediately endanger the health or safety of children at MBA and that MBA should not be permitted to continue operating as a therapeutic boarding school for children and should immediately discontinue providing therapeutic, educational and residential services as follows...[/list]
This can't be swept under the rug. It's an official state investigation report. Just repeating "we can conclude no abuse took place" isn't going to make this go away.
-
So many programs have been nailed for committing acts of negligence and abuse already. Anyone who would trust the word of those who share an interest in these places is ignorant to say the least....don't believe them!! They make the places look like vacation resorts when they're really horrible places, like Tranquility Bay, etc. Most of them are a sham, a scam, and anything but good for a kid's mental or physical health! BUYER BEWARE!!!!
-
This can't be swept under the rug. It's an official state investigation report. Just repeating "we can conclude no abuse took place" isn't going to make this go away.
I am aware of the report, DJ, and abuse was reported and substantiated. I am not disputing this and they should be shut down. But you made the statement:
"Authorities, not some "Fornits poster extremist," published this in their report - 100% of children were abused by MBA."
I am wondering if there was another report or if you just made this up.
...
-
So many programs have been nailed for committing acts of negligence and abuse already. Anyone who would trust the word of those who share an interest in these places is ignorant to say the least....don't believe them!! They make the places look like vacation resorts when they're really horrible places, like Tranquility Bay, etc. Most of them are a sham, a scam, and anything but good for a kid's mental or physical health! BUYER BEWARE!!!!
Parents: Don't fall for the lies!!!!