Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Eliscu2 on October 02, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
-
Please Vote.
-
Welcome back!
-
Public School kids are not incarcerated, they go home at night, so I'll have to say programs are more abusive, but the attitude in both types of institutions is distressingly similar. My high school's administration seemed to have a policy of silently condoning bullying, generally siding with the bullies. This caused me, and most of my friends, to start thinking of school as a place to be avoided. Skipping school got me sent to LIFE, where the sanctioned bullying was out in the open. I think that our whole society is biased against youth. Young people are constantly bullied by adults who do not understand the world today's young people are growing up in. Adults tend to project their own fears and weaknesses onto the young. This was clearly evident in LIFE, where we would routinely be accused of behavior that we had never even heard of before, like homosexual prostitution or incest.
-
Interesting question. Abuse is bad no matter where it occurs. To the person being abused I don’t think a program is any worse than being abused in a public school or at home. I believe as far as safety goes a program would be the safest environment for a child to be. The chances of a child getting abused in a program would be much lower in my opinion. They are exposed to less peers and potential bullies, the ratio of staff to child is higher so there is more oversight in programs than in public school. Kids in programs don’t have to worry about being bullied over the internet or worry about the other kids texting each other against you. Programs don’t allow a lot of idle time or down time for kids to get into trouble. It is much more structured and the kids are kept busy doing other things besides ganging up on each other.
...
-
Interesting question. Abuse is bad no matter where it occurs. To the person being abused I don’t think a program is any worse than being abused in a public school or at home. I believe as far as safety goes a program would be the safest environment for a child to be. The chances of a child getting abused in a program would be much lower in my opinion. They are exposed to less peers and potential bullies, the ratio of staff to child is higher so there is more oversight in programs than in public school. Kids in programs don’t have to worry about being bullied over the internet or worry about the other kids texting each other against you. Programs don’t allow a lot of idle time or down time for kids to get into trouble. It is much more structured and the kids are kept busy doing other things besides ganging up on each other.
...
So says the guy who not only was never incarcerated in a program, but has a vested finacial interest in contuing to abuse children in programs. I was locked up in a program for about a year, and I spent the rest of my education in public schools.
Public schools are far safer, they have much greater transperancy, and much more accountability, The staffing requirements are much stricter and the people are far more qualified. And even if that wasn't enough, the fact is that all of the isolated abuse incidents that do occur in public school are dealt with as soon as they are brought to light. In the child abuse programs WHooter readily supports they are quietly swept under the rug, and often times the staff in question remains employed.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The actual/potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
Teachers are not that much more qualified on the whole, they are under paid and overwhelmed in numbers (in classrooms).
Just ask the teachers in this country, look it up on google, violence in schools is off the charts, school teachers abusing kids sexually is out of control, restraining children has finally been regulated, there are more police and gun control measures in schools the ever before.
If this makes schools safer then programs, ok.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Robert, stay on the topic. If you want to debate another point open another thread. Felice was asking a specific question not asking for a debate.
-
And I answered it. Ask for help if you need it son, or just slow down on the Miller's.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
Teachers are not that much more qualified on the whole, they are under paid and overwhelmed in numbers (in classrooms).
Just ask the teachers in this country, look it up on google, violence in schools is off the charts, school teachers abusing kids sexually is out of control, restraining children has finally been regulated, there are more police and gun control measures in schools the ever before.
If this makes schools safer then programs, ok.
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts ever on Fornits. It defies even basic common sense. Danny, dude, please come on. You are being Whooters lap dog here and making yourself look really bad in the process. You know that is ridiculous. A typical public school is far safer for a kid than a typical treatment program. Any person capable of normal thought and reasoning knows this to be true.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
Teachers are not that much more qualified on the whole, they are under paid and overwhelmed in numbers (in classrooms).
Just ask the teachers in this country, look it up on google, violence in schools is off the charts, school teachers abusing kids sexually is out of control, restraining children has finally been regulated, there are more police and gun control measures in schools the ever before.
If this makes schools safer then programs, ok.
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts ever on Fornits. It defies even basic common sense. Danny, dude, please come on. You are being Whooters lap dog here and making yourself look really bad in the process. You know that is ridiculous. A typical public school is far safer for a kid than a typical treatment program. Any person capable of normal thought and reasoning knows this to be true.
Shaggys, you never even posed an argument. You ridiculed another poster for being ignorant and then you stated that people should be born with the knowledge that one place is safer than another. Whats up with that?
In my opinion Just based on common sense alone the safest place for a child would be the place where they are exposed to the least risk. Programs are closed systems which reduces the chances of any outside people coming in contact with the child to abuse them. There is very little unsupervised down time also.
Public schools are less structured with large class sizes and expose the child to unmonitored periods on the bus, walk home, weapons in other kids possession, home alone until the parents get there to name a few.
So on paper (normal thought and reasoning) the safer choice would be in a program.
...
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
Teachers are not that much more qualified on the whole, they are under paid and overwhelmed in numbers (in classrooms).
Just ask the teachers in this country, look it up on google, violence in schools is off the charts, school teachers abusing kids sexually is out of control, restraining children has finally been regulated, there are more police and gun control measures in schools the ever before.
If this makes schools safer then programs, ok.
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts ever on Fornits. It defies even basic common sense. Danny, dude, please come on. You are being Whooters lap dog here and making yourself look really bad in the process. You know that is ridiculous. A typical public school is far safer for a kid than a typical treatment program. Any person capable of normal thought and reasoning knows this to be true.
The programs of 2010 as opposed to public schools, you would be wrong Shaggy. I will not argue programs of yesterday anymore.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
Teachers are not that much more qualified on the whole, they are under paid and overwhelmed in numbers (in classrooms).
Just ask the teachers in this country, look it up on google, violence in schools is off the charts, school teachers abusing kids sexually is out of control, restraining children has finally been regulated, there are more police and gun control measures in schools the ever before.
If this makes schools safer then programs, ok.
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts ever on Fornits. It defies even basic common sense. Danny, dude, please come on. You are being Whooters lap dog here and making yourself look really bad in the process. You know that is ridiculous. A typical public school is far safer for a kid than a typical treatment program. Any person capable of normal thought and reasoning knows this to be true.
Shaggys, you never even posed an argument. You ridiculed another poster for being ignorant and then you stated that people should be born with the knowledge that one place is safer than another. Whats up with that?
In my opinion Just based on common sense alone the safest place for a child would be the place where they are exposed to the least risk. Programs are closed systems which reduces the chances of any outside people coming in contact with the child to abuse them. There is very little unsupervised down time also.
Public schools are less structured with large class sizes and expose the child to unmonitored periods on the bus, walk home, weapons in other kids possession, home alone until the parents get there to name a few.
So on paper (normal thought and reasoning) the safer choice would be in a program.
...
Why this is so hard to understand baffles me.
-
To all concerned: Abuse in the public school system is statistically non-existant when compared with abuse in teen residential treatment centers. Simply google it to find out for yourself. I will not participate in this mindless discussion. Whooters agenda here is abundantly clear for all to see. To even participate in such a ridiculous discussion is to give it some measure of credibility. Score another point for Whoot. You should be real proud of yourselves Whoot and Danny, real proud. ::puke::
-
To all concerned: Abuse in the public school system is statistically non-existant when compared with abuse in teen residential treatment centers. Simply google it to find out for yourself. I will not participate in this mindless discussion. Whooters agenda here is abundantly clear for all to see. To even participate in such a ridiculous discussion is to give it some measure of credibility. Score another point for Whoot. You should be real proud of yourselves Whoot and Danny, real proud. ::puke::
Shaggy you won't google it because you are lazy and a bully. If you can't have it your way then screw it. You are wrong on this one point, what is the big deal.
No, your big deal is everything has to be a competition. You have to be right no matter what.
We can't have a conversation because you will drag it to the school yard and want to fight about it. So what if Whooter, Max and myself don't agree with you, there are thousands of others who don't either, they just don't bother posting here.
-
To all concerned: Abuse in the public school system is statistically non-existant when compared with abuse in teen residential treatment centers. Simply google it to find out for yourself. I will not participate in this mindless discussion. Whooters agenda here is abundantly clear for all to see. To even participate in such a ridiculous discussion is to give it some measure of credibility. Score another point for Whoot. You should be real proud of yourselves Whoot and Danny, real proud. ::puke::
Shaggys, all I said is that you never posed a valid argument or stated why you believe programs are more abusive. We are having a discussion. If people could just "google it" and find out that programs are more abusive I am sure you would have provided a link to show us. Then we could all agree with you and move on. But that hasn't been done yet so we need to continue to hash it out with our opinions and facts, life experiences that we can provide.
...
-
I did, yet you couldnt respond to it.
The fact is that these staffers you claim provide more accountability and oversight are never actually monitored themselves, and whatsmore as we've shown time and time again many of them are never qualified or properly licensed.
The reason these programs avoid licensure is because they don't want oversight or transperancy. Public schools have plenty of it from multiple angles. You can't win that argument John. Public schools are safer because they have far more transperancy and oversight. Programs seek to regulate themselves and leave it at that.
-
I did, yet you couldnt respond to it.
The fact is that these staffers you claim provide more accountability and oversight are never actually monitored themselves, and whatsmore as we've shown time and time again many of them are never qualified or properly licensed.
The reason these programs avoid licensure is because they don't want oversight or transperancy. Public schools have plenty of it from multiple angles. You can't win that argument John. Public schools are safer because they have far more transperancy and oversight. Programs seek to regulate themselves and leave it at that.
Yes, public schools have plenty of it but as we can all see it doesn't make a difference. So please don't get to excited about your claim. We all understand that programs are not licensed and so forth some of this has to do with insurance costs and taxes. Financial expenses they would not like to pass on.
I really can not argue to muc
-
I did, yet you couldnt respond to it.
The fact is that these staffers you claim provide more accountability and oversight are never actually monitored themselves, and whatsmore as we've shown time and time again many of them are never qualified or properly licensed.
The reason these programs avoid licensure is because they don't want oversight or transperancy. Public schools have plenty of it from multiple angles. You can't win that argument John. Public schools are safer because they have far more transperancy and oversight. Programs seek to regulate themselves and leave it at that.
Yes, public schools have plenty of it but as we can all see it doesn't make a difference. So please don't get to excited about your claim. We all understand that programs are not licensed and so forth some of this has to do with insurance costs and taxes. Financial expenses they would not like to pass on.
I really can not argue to muc
Really? So you think a tuition of literally thousands of dollars per month per kid on substandard living conditions, and unlicensed/unqualified hacks and the argument against proper licensure and oversight is insurance cost and taxes? So what you're saying is the the bottom line comes before safety.
I appreciate your honesty. You've proven that not only are public schools safer, but that programs care more about money than a childs safety.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
OMG! Have you ever lived in a small Midwestern cornfield? :rofl:
Oversight??? um...more like dukes of hazzard meets Hitler.
Most of the people are blood or other related in some way.
I guess it would all depend on social-economics and school redistricting too. ::evil::
-
Licensing and oversight has proven to be ineffective in that we still see abuse occurring everywhere in our public school system. The child who is bullying another child doesn't care if the school is licensed or not. The thousands of people and potential predators who are exposed to these children everyday as they walk home to and from school are not effected by a school license etc, etc.
Programs literally have a closed system where the child is insulated from outside harm. The employees are required to undergo backgound checks. The student to staff ratio is 10 times better. Kids are exposed to a highly structured environment which protects them better from bullying and other forms of abuse.
Any of us who read the news each day can see that our public school system is failing us as a safe place to send our children.
...
-
Licensing and oversight has proven to be ineffective in that we still see abuse occurring everywhere in our public school system.
Given that the percentage and liklihood of abuse is much higher in programs versus public schools it would seem to suggest you are once again wrong. Abuse from peers is going to happen on some level in any concentrated environment. It is the fact that not only is it systematic in programs, but it openly encouraged and inherent to the program itself that makes them unsafe. The fact that you claim you are seeing abuse occuring in our public schools only further proves the point. You only know about (and exaggerate) instances from public schools because they are properly licensed and oversight is rampant. It's the same reason why programs don't want the gov't, parents, or the media looking over their shoulder. It just brings to light too much truth.
The child who is bullying another child doesn't care if the school is licensed or not. The thousands of people and potential predators who are exposed to these children everyday as they walk home to and from school are not effected by a school license etc, etc.
They care when they get caught. In a closed enviornment like a program they are free to act on their insticts and abuse a child. In a public school illegal acts come to light and are dealt with. In a program they are swept under the rug. I notice you didnt address my comments regarding the fact that a child is free each day to report abuse. A kid in a program cannot.
Programs literally have a closed system where the child is insulated from outside harm. The employees are required to undergo backgound checks. The student to staff ratio is 10 times better. Kids are exposed to a highly structured environment which protects them better from bullying and other forms of abuse.
Outside harm? What about in house? I'd be interested to hear where you are getting your information regarding employees in programs being forced to undergo backround checks, and why if that's true are so many unqualified people hired? So much of the abuse comes from the staff and program structure itself. How do you shield from that in a program where they prefer zero accountability? Again John, you can't win this argument. Transparency, oversight, and accountability only lead to a safer environment for everyone involved. The fact that these programs you work for abhore it only proves that public schools are safer.
Any of us who read the news each day can see that our public school system is failing us as a safe place to send our children.
Really? Go ahead and post up the links to three articles in todays news detailing an instance of abuse in public schools in America. They need to have been written today, about public schools, and only discussing schools in the United States of American. Let me know what you find John. I'll look forwar to reading what you post and discussing the matter further.
-
Pardon me, I would hate to be the voice of reason here, but I think the only thing we can agree upon is that it's just not safe to be a kid anywhere. Hell ,they make you get a license to drive a car or even own a dog.Programs? Schools? Hospitals? We need better parents.There was a time when "family values" was more than just a political or religious catchphrase.
-
Licensing and oversight has proven to be ineffective in that we still see abuse occurring everywhere in our public school system. The child who is bullying another child doesn't care if the school is licensed or not. The thousands of people and potential predators who are exposed to these children everyday as they walk home to and from school are not effected by a school license etc, etc.
Programs literally have a closed system where the child is insulated from outside harm. The employees are required to undergo backgound checks. The student to staff ratio is 10 times better. Kids are exposed to a highly structured environment which protects them better from bullying and other forms of abuse.
Any of us who read the news each day can see that our public school system is failing us as a safe place to send our children.
...
This is utter bull crap... You never hear of a public school system being abusive, However you hear about program abuse daily... Oh major king of spin, quit trying to rationalize your support of programs...
-
I did, yet you couldnt respond to it.
The fact is that these staffers you claim provide more accountability and oversight are never actually monitored themselves, and whatsmore as we've shown time and time again many of them are never qualified or properly licensed.
The reason these programs avoid licensure is because they don't want oversight or transperancy. Public schools have plenty of it from multiple angles. You can't win that argument John. Public schools are safer because they have far more transperancy and oversight. Programs seek to regulate themselves and leave it at that.
Yes, public schools have plenty of it but as we can all see it doesn't make a difference. So please don't get to excited about your claim. We all understand that programs are not licensed and so forth some of this has to do with insurance costs and taxes. Financial expenses they would not like to pass on.
I really can not argue to muc
Really? So you think a tuition of literally thousands of dollars per month per kid on substandard living conditions, and unlicensed/unqualified hacks and the argument against proper licensure and oversight is insurance cost and taxes? So what you're saying is the the bottom line comes before safety.
I appreciate your honesty. You've proven that not only are public schools safer, but that programs care more about money than a childs safety.
Oh, I am sorry Robert I did not know that you live in this vacume of righteousness, the do gooder who never makes a decision based on finances where it might effect the population at hand.
Ya know you sound more like a politician everyday, what would you promise Robert. Difference between you and I Robert, I live in the real world and accept the ugliness everyday, no I don't condone abuses. I just know they occur (Self Will) and there is very little anybody can do to stop one person from being cruel. I do know that programs today on the whole are much safer then they were 20-30 years ago, have all the wicked people been stopped No and they never will be. Do we need more accountability yes, always, this should never stop evolving.
Oh, back to public schools, walk through Mississippi (northern), NYC, Dorchester Mass., Brockton Mass, ect......
Schools are safer, what planet do you live on.
-
Licensing and oversight has proven to be ineffective in that we still see abuse occurring everywhere in our public school system. The child who is bullying another child doesn't care if the school is licensed or not. The thousands of people and potential predators who are exposed to these children everyday as they walk home to and from school are not effected by a school license etc, etc.
Programs literally have a closed system where the child is insulated from outside harm. The employees are required to undergo backgound checks. The student to staff ratio is 10 times better. Kids are exposed to a highly structured environment which protects them better from bullying and other forms of abuse.
Any of us who read the news each day can see that our public school system is failing us as a safe place to send our children.
...
This is utter bull crap... You never hear of a public school system being abusive, However you hear about program abuse daily... Oh major king of spin, quit trying to rationalize your support of programs...
Botch, try looking at it this way. We are not having a argument about who's penis is bigger and we are just trying to determine if public schools harbor abusive acts. I think you would be able after further study acknowledge that public schools have abusiveness. That is all I am saying with the caveat that since public schools populations are much bigger they have more abuses, hence not safer then programs.
-
Oh, I am sorry Robert I did not know that you live in this vacume of righteousness, the do gooder who never makes a decision based on finances where it might effect the population at hand.
Ya know you sound more like a politician everyday, what would you promise Robert. Difference between you and I Robert, I live in the real world and accept the ugliness everyday, no I don't condone abuses. I just know they occur (Self Will) and there is very little anybody can do to stop one person from being cruel. I do know that programs today on the whole are much safer then they were 20-30 years ago, have all the wicked people been stopped No and they never will be. Do we need more accountability yes, always, this should never stop evolving.
Oh, back to public schools, walk through Mississippi (northern), NYC, Dorchester Mass., Brockton Mass, ect......
Schools are safer, what planet do you live on.
I live on planet Earth. Again ask for help if you need it son.
The difference between you and I Danny is that while I acknowledge the ugliness that exist in the world, I don't feel that it should be tolerated. If it's within my power to do something about, I will. I would certainly never put the bottom line before making sure a child was abused. The fact that you would suggests that you're a pretty horrible person, and it's probably best that you never have any children. You're pretty sick.
-
That is all I am saying with the caveat that since public schools populations are much bigger they have more abuses, hence not safer then programs.
You're making an assumption based strickly on population numbers, not likliehood or percentages. You're also still ignoring the fact that public schools embrace transparency making them safer, while programs avoid it. Do you have any actual data to support your claim though? I'm also still waiting on those news articles from you.
-
That is all I am saying with the caveat that since public schools populations are much bigger they have more abuses, hence not safer then programs.
You're making an assumption based strickly on population numbers, not likliehood or percentages. You're also still ignoring the fact that public schools embrace transparency making them safer, while programs avoid it. Do you have any actual data to support your claim though? I'm also still waiting on those news articles from you.
Public schools are transparent, my god Robert, where are you coming from. Ya, school administrations are about as transparent as your congress, please give me a break. No if a child, parent or parents complain about something it is not always addressed especially if it will cost money or make the school admin's look bad. Programs are no different then any other organization dealing with populations of kids. As they have evolved they have gotten better.
-
That is all I am saying with the caveat that since public schools populations are much bigger they have more abuses, hence not safer then programs.
You're making an assumption based strickly on population numbers, not likliehood or percentages. You're also still ignoring the fact that public schools embrace transparency making them safer, while programs avoid it. Do you have any actual data to support your claim though? I'm also still waiting on those news articles from you.
Public schools are transparent, my god Robert, where are you coming from. Ya, school administrations are about as transparent as your congress, please give me a break. No if a child, parent or parents complain about something it is not always addressed especially if it will cost money or make the school admin's look bad. Programs are no different then any other organization dealing with populations of kids. As they have evolved they have gotten better.
-
Programs are no different then any other organization dealing with populations of kids.
Is that your final answer? lol
-
Programs are no different then any other organization dealing with populations of kids.
Is that your final answer? lol
Frodie, what you should be tired of is acting like a reporter from Fox News. Instead of posting my whole comment, you take a excerpt and quote that.
Well here is my answer, "YES" for now.
-
This is utter bull crap... You never hear of a public school system being abusive, However you hear about program abuse daily... Oh major king of spin, quit trying to rationalize your support of programs...
Here is just one example:
Here is a public school which is accredited, licensed, does background checks, is regulated. Yet this school teacher managed to rape 70 children in 2 years. None of the children reported it, used an abuse hotline, told their teachers or parents when they got home. He admitted to it and says he is sorry.
Upon hearing this the school system decided to keep paying this guy indefinitely because he is such a nice guy. So they wont even fire him.
Link to Article (http://http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30/texas-teacher-accused-taping-sex-children/)
An El Paso, Texas, high school dance teacher was jailed without bond Thursday on charges of sexual exploitation of minors and possessing child pornography, allegedly including 200 videotapes of himself having sex with as many as 70 children, some of whom were elementary school age.
...
-
I should have known my comments on parenting would draw no intrest here,for two reasons.
1. It's just logical. Better people make better people.
2. it's not one side attacking another. Which is all anybody does here.
-
Pardon me, I would hate to be the voice of reason here, but I think the only thing we can agree upon is that it's just not safe to be a kid anywhere. Hell ,they make you get a license to drive a car or even own a dog.Programs? Schools? Hospitals? We need better parents.There was a time when "family values" was more than just a political or religious catchphrase.
We would have to determine the root cause. I am not sure better parents would be the answer in all of the cases. Better education would help to reduce the number of placements. But what about the rest? Maybe go back to the days where one person stayed home, but how can society do that? The cost of living is based on two incomes now.
We would have to change what is presented on TV, taught in our schools, the availability of drugs.
A lot has changed since the days of old family values. I think there would always be a need for a few placements and these schools would still exist.
...
-
Pardon me, I would hate to be the voice of reason here, but I think the only thing we can agree upon is that it's just not safe to be a kid anywhere. Hell ,they make you get a license to drive a car or even own a dog.Programs? Schools? Hospitals? We need better parents.There was a time when "family values" was more than just a political or religious catchphrase.
We would have to determine the root cause. I am not sure better parents would be the answer in all of the cases. Better education would help to reduce the number of placements. But what about the rest? Maybe go back to the days where one person stayed home, but how can society do that? The cost of living is based on two incomes now.
We would have to change what is presented on TV, taught in our schools, the availability of drugs.
A lot has changed since the days of old family values. I think there would always be a need for a few placements and these schools would still exist.
...
LOL....Whooty ::OMG::
Yes g-d forbid mommy and daddy make a budget and downsize themselves...oh and define "family values" this sounds like spin!
-
LOL....Whooty ::OMG::
Yes g-d forbid mommy and daddy make a budget and downsize themselves...oh and define "family values" this sounds like spin!
I think it goes beyond just downsizing or getting on a tighter budget. Society is now designed around two incomes. The average worker could not afford to support a wife and three kids.
In 1960 a school teacher made about $5,000 a year and you could buy a new 3 bedroom home for $8,000 to $10,000. Now School teachers make $50,000 a year but housing is 4 to 6 times the salary ($200,000 to $300,000) and thats a small home. Then you compare cost of transportation, education food etc. It just isnt easily doable to support a family unless you are a director of a company or higher.
The average school teacher could not support a family of 3 kids in a three bedroom home as it is today. Once the women started working the prices went up to support demand. If both husband and wife worked in the 1960's they were looked down upon but they had lots of money to throw around because society was structured around only one income.
If we could get back to that and have one parent stay home it would go a long way in helping out our kids. But I dont see it happening.
...
-
LOL....Whooty ::OMG::
Yes g-d forbid mommy and daddy make a budget and downsize themselves...oh and define "family values" this sounds like spin!
I think it goes beyond just downsizing or getting on a tighter budget. Society is now designed around two incomes. The average worker could not afford to support a wife and three kids.
In 1960 a school teacher made about $5,000 a year and you could buy a new 3 bedroom home for $8,000 to $10,000. Now School teachers make $50,000 a year but housing is 4 to 6 times the salary ($200,000 to $300,000) and thats a small home. Then you compare cost of transportation, education food etc. It just isnt easily doable to support a family unless you are a director of a company or higher.
The average school teacher could not support a family of 3 kids in a three bedroom home as it is today. Once the women started working the prices went up to support demand. If both husband and wife worked in the 1960's they were looked down upon but they had lots of money to throw around because society was structured around only one income.
If we could get back to that and have one parent stay home it would go a long way in helping out our kids. But I dont see it happening.
...
So sending your kid to Public School in Hellpaso is one alternative(Mom stays home with Gun)....how safe is Foster Care? :flip:
-
So sending your kid to Public School in Hellpaso is one alternative(Mom stays home with Gun)....how safe is Foster Care? :flip:
I dont follow you. I was saying on say a teachers salary it would be difficult to raise a family of three kids and support a wife staying home. The public school would not matter because it is free the same as it was in 1960. But the cost of living is just so much higher now as compared to back then.
Do you think most families can afford to have one spouse stay home?
...
-
I should have known my comments on parenting would draw no intrest here,for two reasons.
1. It's just logical. Better people make better people.
2. it's not one side attacking another. Which is all anybody does here.
Hey I apologize, I happen to take everything you say rather serious. This topic though baffles me. Because as a country we are getting worse at raising are young kids. It seems today that kids are a inconvenience and parents lack tolerance.
In many cases kids are just left on their own to fend for themselves. I have acquaintances right now in my life that do this, their son and daughter are 13 and 14 respectively, they brag about how responsible they are. They are not, they struggle mightily in school and with their peers.
Last but not least None Ya this is not on topic, really.
-
This is utter bull crap... You never hear of a public school system being abusive, However you hear about program abuse daily... Oh major king of spin, quit trying to rationalize your support of programs...
Here is just one example:
Here is a public school which is accredited, licensed, does background checks, is regulated. Yet this school teacher managed to rape 70 children in 2 years. None of the children reported it, used an abuse hotline, told their teachers or parents when they got home. He admitted to it and says he is sorry.
Upon hearing this the school system decided to keep paying this guy indefinitely because he is such a nice guy. So they wont even fire him.
Link to Article (http://http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30/texas-teacher-accused-taping-sex-children/)
An El Paso, Texas, high school dance teacher was jailed without bond Thursday on charges of sexual exploitation of minors and possessing child pornography, allegedly including 200 videotapes of himself having sex with as many as 70 children, some of whom were elementary school age.
...
Whooter I'm genuinely impressed, it's so rare that you ever even attempt to back up one of your claims. Unfortunatly however this one doesn't fit the parameters. See we were looking for instances of abuse from public school staff to their students at school or duing school functions. This guy didn't abuse his own students or even students at his own school. The kids he did abuse attended a different school. That being the case this really has nothing to do with public school safety.
I am glad to see that you're trying though. Keep up the good work buddy!
-
How do we stop people like this?
What amazes me is that this guy Alferez moved around from school to school within the El Paso school district and managed to raped, videotape kids for almost a decade. His resume indicates he has been working within the El Paso school district as far back as 2003.
Link (http://http://www.kvia.com/news/25230182/detail.html)
Prior to being hired each time he was subjected to and passed an extensive bad ground check. He has admitted to the allegations in court yet the school district is still paying him.
If I were a parent in El Paso I would be asking the school district to stop payment and put this money aside to be put towards helping some of these kids and their families.
...
-
I'm confused by the questions on this poll. If I'm reading it properly I'm being asked which abuse is worst, abuse in a public school or abuse in a program? I guess my answer would be it doesn't really matter where it takes place, abuse is abuse and it is a horrible thing no matter where it takes place.
So is this recent feud about location or is it another rehash of the absurd numbers argument? Because if it is a rehash of the numbers argument I don't have much to say about that other than abuse is tragic no matter what the location and the kids who get abused in public schools have just as much empathy and so forth from me as the kids abused in programs. I just happen to chose to focus on programs, but if presented with a chance to help out a kid who is abused in a public school he/she will certainly have whatever I can contribute.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Yep.....that's a huge difference between public schools and programs. If a kid is abused in a public school (as I was, although not nearly as bad as in Straight because my father did something about it and the teacher was fired and his license permanently revoked), the kid has the opportunity to report it and it's taken seriously. If a kid is abused in a program, they're accused of lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. It's not taken seriously because the program would lose a paying client. Public schools don't lose money if the abuse becomes public.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Yep.....that's a huge difference between public schools and programs. If a kid is abused in a public school (as I was, although not nearly as bad as in Straight because my father did something about it and the teacher was fired and his license permanently revoked), the kid has the opportunity to report it and it's taken seriously. If a kid is abused in a program, they're accused of lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. It's not taken seriously because the program would lose a paying client. Public schools don't lose money if the abuse becomes public.
Well I think both programs and public schools can lose if abuse occurs. The school district and program can be sued.
As far as reporting the abuse that is really after the fact (the abuse has already occurred). In a program the child can walk to the nearest store and phone the police, or run away and notify police, report it to a staff member, tell their parents when they speak to them. There are many options to notify authorities. The person is immediately fired and a letter is sent to the other parents informing them of what occurred in the program.
But then this is after the fact, you cannot undo abuse for the child that was abused.
...
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Yep.....that's a huge difference between public schools and programs. If a kid is abused in a public school (as I was, although not nearly as bad as in Straight because my father did something about it and the teacher was fired and his license permanently revoked), the kid has the opportunity to report it and it's taken seriously. If a kid is abused in a program, they're accused of lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. It's not taken seriously because the program would lose a paying client. Public schools don't lose money if the abuse becomes public.
Well I think both programs and public schools can lose if abuse occurs.
My main concern is the kids.....not the program's appearance.
As far as reporting the abuse that is really after the fact (the abuse has already occurred). In a program the child can walk to the nearest store and phone the police, or run away and notify police, report it to a staff member, tell their parents when they speak to them.
And people like you will tell them that they're lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. They're rarely believed, even when a kid ends up dead.
There are many options to notify authorities.
Not for kids in programs.
-
My main concern is the kids.....not the program's appearance.
My main concern is the kids too, not just trying to make the readers believe your sole experience reflects all programs. I believe if you really did have the best interest of the kids in the forefront you would be more honest and not try to trick readers into believing the programs of today are the same as straight in the 1980’s
And people like you will tell them that they're lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. They're rarely believed, even when a kid ends up dead.
And people like you will minimize the kids who are abused outside of programs because it doesn’t meet your agenda.
Not for kids in programs.
Kids in programs can notify staff, run to the local store and call authorities, talk to their parents.
...
-
My main concern is the kids too, not just trying to make the readers believe your sole experience reflects all programs. I believe if you really did have the best interest of the kids in the forefront you would be more honest and not try to trick readers into believing the programs of today are the same as straight in the 1980’s
I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm pointing out the important similarities, like using LGATs, isolation etc.
And people like you will minimize the kids who are abused outside of programs because it doesn’t meet your agenda..
No I don't. Abuse is abuse but at least kids in school have recourse to report the abuse. Program kids don't.
Kids in programs can notify staff, :roflmao: run to the local store and call authorities, talk to their parents.
And, again, they'll be told that they're lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. They wouldn't dare tell their parents because they know the punishment they'll receive if they do.
-
Whooter you've got to be kidding. The child can just "run away and notify police"? It took me five months to escape from the program I was in. If I had tried to claim abuse, I would have had to show proof of abuse that might have happened months ago. It would have been my word against the program. Every kid in the program is still under duress and therefore very unlikely to corroborate the story of a "cop-out".
-
Whooter you've got to be kidding. The child can just "run away and notify police"? It took me five months to escape from the program I was in. If I had tried to claim abuse, I would have had to show proof of abuse that might have happened months ago. It would have been my word against the program. Every kid in the program is still under duress and therefore very unlikely to corroborate the story of a "cop-out".
Yup, cuz they know what will happen to them if they do. Programs have complete and total control over the kids thru re-education and thought reform. Program kids have zero access to the real world and some don't even realize they're being abused because they're told over and over again that they deserve what they're getting. Public schools do not.
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
CNN One-fifth of children between the ages of 10 and 18 have been victims of cyberbullying or have participated in it, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center. Get tips on how to handle cyberbullying http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53) and watch the “AC360°” special report in collaboration with Cartoon Network: “Stop Bullying: Speak Up,” starting tonight at 10 ET.
In a wired world, children unable to escape cyberbullying
on.cnn.com
Jason, 13, knows he is an easy target for bullies at his middle school in Long Island, New York.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
In a wired world, children unable to escape cyberbullying
By Stephanie Chen, CNN
October 4, 2010 11:39 a.m. EDT
Teens speak out about bullying
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Cyberbullying occurs when harassment or cruel comments are made in cyberspace
* About 20 percent of children have experienced cyberbullying or been the bully, survey says
* Some states have passed laws to address problem, but courts still have to catch up, experts say
* NIH study: Cyberbullying causes higher levels of depression than face-to-face bullying
Editor's note: Bullying is in our schools, and now it's online. Why do kids do it? What can be done to put an end to it? Don't miss an "AC360°" special report in collaboration with Cartoon Network: "Stop Bullying: Speak Up," starting tonight at 10 ET on CNN.
(CNN) -- Jason, 13, knows he is an easy target for bullies at his middle school in Long Island, New York.
His diminutive stature hinders him from retaliating against the taller, heavier boys who tease him. He prefers to wear skinny jeans and black zip-up hoodies, fashion choices that induce comments like "emo" or "gay" from classmates. He has an affinity for comic books and Xbox games such as "Halo" and "Call of Duty," and for pursuing these hobbies, other kids call him a loser.
Jason says he has been ostracized and was once punched in the neck at school, but the peer torment does not end when he enters the comfort of his home, on the weekends or during summer vacations. Last year, he says he became a victim of cyberbullying -- vicious, viral and incessant attacks through text messages, e-mails and Facebook posts that have both replaced and supplemented traditional schoolyard bullying.
Read about a New Jersey college student who committed suicide after being harassed with the internet
"It's really horrifying the next day after the message has been sent around, and you're the laughingstock of the school," Jason says. "You have no idea why or what's funny."
Video: A year-long look at bullying
October marks National Bullying Prevention Month, a topic that has made headlines lately. Last week, authorities found the body of Tyler Clementi, a New Jersey college student, who committed suicide after two other students allegedly placed a camera in his dorm room without his knowledge and then broadcast his sexual encounter online.
Tips on handling cyberbullying
1. Don't Respond: Confronting a cyberbully can worsen the circumstances.
2. Collect evidence: Save related e-mails, messages and postings as proof should you need to get the law or school involved.
3. Determine the source: Try to find out the bully's identity and what information he or she knows about you.
4. Report incidences: Laws vary by state, so contact local law enforcement first.
5. Protect your information: Parents should make sure a child's social networking profile doesn't reveal any contact information.
Source: Champions Against Bullying
Video: Kids: My life as a bully's victim
RELATED TOPICS
* Internet
* Bullying
* Depression
Kids are more digitally connected than ever, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which reported that children devoted an average 7½ hours a day to their gadgets. The proliferation of cell phones, iPods and Facebook brings a complicated challenge for parents, teachers and students: The constant exposure to technology and the web amplifies opportunities for children to bully each other online.
Have you been bullied? Share your experiences
One in five youths between age 10 and 18 have been a victim of cyberbullying or participated in cyberbullying, according to a survey of 4,400 children conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center, an organization tracking the internet bullying trend. This figure is conservative, because children are often afraid to come forward to their parents, bullying experts say.
Cyberbullying can take on various forms, from a middle-schooler firing a hurtful text message to high school teens harassing a boyfriend or girlfriend online. The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying -- a term practically nonexistent more than a decade ago --- as what "happens when teens use the internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."
"It's a daily nightmare," said Alexandra Penn, founder of Champions Against Bullying, a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California, that provides resources for reducing incidences of traditional and internet bullying in schools. "There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide."
Internet bullying results in depression, suicides
Jason, the New York middle-schooler, tried following the crowd last year.
When gray shorts and red T-shirts became trendy, he wore them to school. Still, the bullies haunted him online. They called Jason, an honor student, dumb. They made fun of his thin frame.
Jason, who has a Facebook account, says he contemplated abstaining from the social network. But he says that would have been useless, because bullies continued to write negative comments about him in mass group messages behind his back.
"There's nothing I can really do," he said.
Sameer Hinduja, a co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, says the most common form of bullying consists of hurtful comments or online rumors. A majority of the bullying is also done anonymously, experts say, because these kinds of bullies like hiding behind a computer screen. Cyberbullying can also be a cruel cycle. Many kids who cyberbully have been bullied at some point.
"Many adults think bullying has to do with sexual predators online, but the biggest concern is peer harassment and conflict and some of the issues that have just blown up with adolescent drama," Hinduja said.
Read: Why did Tyler Clementi die?
Recent research shows that cyberbullying can cause higher levels of depression in a child than traditional bullying. Compared with face-to-face bullying of schoolchildren, a child who had experienced cyberbullying from someone anonymous "may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack," according a study from the National Institutes of Health. The study relied on surveys from more than 7,000 students.
Bullying experts say cyberbullying has lasting effects on children and teens. Messages posted on the internet are often permanent and difficult to remove. With one click of a mouse, comments can reach hundreds or thousands of students.
While rare, suicide can be the result of online harassment. In 2003, Ryan Halligan, a 13-year-old middle school student in Vermont, killed himself after he was bullied online.
"The kids said, 'You know, you're finally going to stop complaining,' and my son [said], 'Yes, tonight's the night, I'm going to do it. You'll read about it in the papers tomorrow,' " John Halligan, Ryan's father, said to CNN in 2005. "And the kids said, 'It's about f'ing time.' "
Cyberbullying evolves, challenges hard to tackle
While a decade ago, cyberbullying primarily affected youths between age 11 and 15, the number of children facing harassment through a digital device is growing.
"We are seeing cyberbullying happening at broader age ranges and for longer periods of time," said Parry Aftab, who started the group Wired Safety, one of the first advocacy organizations to address online abuses in the mid-1990s. "It's exploding."
Even second-graders use innocent social networking sites such as Webkinz -- where children can purchase cyberpets and chat with each other online -- as a bullying tool, she says. For example, Aftab has heard about children threatening to post mean comments in a chatroom or steal the other child's account information.
Susan McVeigh, a spokeswoman at WebKinz, says bullying can occasionally occur on the site, but the company monitors the chat rooms carefully.
"When you get thousands of kids, the first thing they want to do is push the boundaries," she said . "It's the site's responsibility to push back and say that's not in the spirit of the site."
States and schools are responding to the problem, but there is a long way to go, because the new technology continues to reach children daily, cyberbully experts say. In August, schools and police in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, set up a text tip line so students can report cyberbullying incidences, according to CNN affiliate WHDH. In 2007, Arkansas passed a law that allowed school officials to take action against cyberbullies who commit acts off school property.
Some advocacy groups say they are concerned about what happens when the cases enter the courts.
"The legal system is going to do some scrambling to catch up with what new technologies do to make it possible," says Andrea Press, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia who came out with the book "The New Media Environment."
Private companies are taking action, too. Facebook, the largest social networking site, with more than 500 million members, says it is also aggressively trying to curb cyberbullying, using pop-up warnings and canceling the accounts of people who cyberbully or use hate speech.
"For us, the experience on the site is the core," said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer at Facebook. "We want to protect and improve, and something like this is repulsive."
Despite the laws and policies that address cyberbullying, some experts say children need to take action among their friends. Many children are afraid to come forward in fear of retaliation. Also, teens may stay quiet because they believe they "need to learn to deal with it," according to a psychological study from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2008.
Until a few weeks ago, Jason's mother was unaware that students attacked her son online.
"It's just hard in general, because I feel like my hands are tied," she said. "I don't know what to do. I don't want anyone to retaliate against him. I don't want him to get into trouble."
As Jason started eighth grade this year, the cyberbullying has subsided, probably because the kids found someone new to pick on, he says.
"Before all this happened, I would try to change myself," he said. "Now I see that I like myself and I enjoy myself, and I think that if they don't like me, they don't appreciate me, then I'm strong enough to say I don't need to talk to that person."
-
He was tired of being tormented to hell.
-
I'm confused by the questions on this poll. If I'm reading it properly I'm being asked which abuse is worst, abuse in a public school or abuse in a program? I guess my answer would be it doesn't really matter where it takes place, abuse is abuse and it is a horrible thing no matter where it takes place.
So is this recent feud about location or is it another rehash of the absurd numbers argument? Because if it is a rehash of the numbers argument I don't have much to say about that other than abuse is tragic no matter what the location and the kids who get abused in public schools have just as much empathy and so forth from me as the kids abused in programs. I just happen to chose to focus on programs, but if presented with a chance to help out a kid who is abused in a public school he/she will certainly have whatever I can contribute.
Haven't had much to praise you for lately but I must say this is some of your best passionate writing to date. Che I applaud and commend you on your empathy. You really are a rational man, thanks.
This is a conversation over "moment". :cheers:
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Yep.....that's a huge difference between public schools and programs. If a kid is abused in a public school (as I was, although not nearly as bad as in Straight because my father did something about it and the teacher was fired and his license permanently revoked), the kid has the opportunity to report it and it's taken seriously. If a kid is abused in a program, they're accused of lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. It's not taken seriously because the program would lose a paying client. Public schools don't lose money if the abuse becomes public.
This is another one of Annes fabrication, all you have to do is do a survey of the country and you will find this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
Your not reading and listening, Anne. It is always more important to you to argue and prove your right, no matter what.
-
My main concern is the kids too, not just trying to make the readers believe your sole experience reflects all programs. I believe if you really did have the best interest of the kids in the forefront you would be more honest and not try to trick readers into believing the programs of today are the same as straight in the 1980’s
I'm not trying to trick anyone. I'm pointing out the important similarities, like using LGATs, isolation etc.
And people like you will minimize the kids who are abused outside of programs because it doesn’t meet your agenda..
No I don't. Abuse is abuse but at least kids in school have recourse to report the abuse. Program kids don't.
Kids in programs can notify staff, :roflmao: run to the local store and call authorities, talk to their parents.
And, again, they'll be told that they're lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. They wouldn't dare tell their parents because they know the punishment they'll receive if they do.
Anne, if you were not more interested in tooting your own horn and playing the big shot here, you could see that kids are being abused in public schools more now then ever and they do not feel there being heard or being taken care of. Just freaking read, dag gummit.
-
Public Schools are far and above programs for abuse. The potential for abuse from peers, older kids, teachers, bus drivers, ect is there.
For everyone who believes kids can not be censored in public schools are wrong, especially with parents that have lost trust with their kids.
Parents are much more involved with kids in programs today then when most of us here went 20-30 years ago.
So because you believe the potential for abuse is higher, not actual incidents, that in your mind means programs are safer?
You are of course ignorning the fact that no matter how much more parents are involved with kids in programs then they were in the past (they're not, youre wrong again) it doesnt change the fact that communication is always restricted whenever the programs deem it approrpriate. In public schools even if a situation arose where a school would not allow a child to use a phone for an entire school day, or go home early (impossible situation that is not going to happen) at the end of the day a child is free to go home and report to their parents any incidents that occur. Programs prefer zero oversight, and zero accountability. For that reason alone public schools are safer. They have oversight and accountability to the hilt.
Yep.....that's a huge difference between public schools and programs. If a kid is abused in a public school (as I was, although not nearly as bad as in Straight because my father did something about it and the teacher was fired and his license permanently revoked), the kid has the opportunity to report it and it's taken seriously. If a kid is abused in a program, they're accused of lying/manipulating/exaggerating etc. It's not taken seriously because the program would lose a paying client. Public schools don't lose money if the abuse becomes public.
This is another one of Annes fabrication, all you have to do is do a survey of the country and you will find this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
Again, read for comprehension. What I said was that the public school believed me and fired the teacher and his license was revoked and Straight didn't believe me. Are you really this idiotic?
And how is a survey of the country going to prove or disprove anything I said. It happened, whether you want to believe it or not.
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
CNN One-fifth of children between the ages of 10 and 18 have been victims of cyberbullying or have participated in it, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center. Get tips on how to handle cyberbullying http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53) and watch the “AC360°” special report in collaboration with Cartoon Network: “Stop Bullying: Speak Up,” starting tonight at 10 ET.
In a wired world, children unable to escape cyberbullying
on.cnn.com
Jason, 13, knows he is an easy target for bullies at his middle school in Long Island, New York.
**************************************************************************************************************************************************
In a wired world, children unable to escape cyberbullying
By Stephanie Chen, CNN
October 4, 2010 11:39 a.m. EDT
Teens speak out about bullying
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Cyberbullying occurs when harassment or cruel comments are made in cyberspace
* About 20 percent of children have experienced cyberbullying or been the bully, survey says
* Some states have passed laws to address problem, but courts still have to catch up, experts say
* NIH study: Cyberbullying causes higher levels of depression than face-to-face bullying
Editor's note: Bullying is in our schools, and now it's online. Why do kids do it? What can be done to put an end to it? Don't miss an "AC360°" special report in collaboration with Cartoon Network: "Stop Bullying: Speak Up," starting tonight at 10 ET on CNN.
(CNN) -- Jason, 13, knows he is an easy target for bullies at his middle school in Long Island, New York.
His diminutive stature hinders him from retaliating against the taller, heavier boys who tease him. He prefers to wear skinny jeans and black zip-up hoodies, fashion choices that induce comments like "emo" or "gay" from classmates. He has an affinity for comic books and Xbox games such as "Halo" and "Call of Duty," and for pursuing these hobbies, other kids call him a loser.
Jason says he has been ostracized and was once punched in the neck at school, but the peer torment does not end when he enters the comfort of his home, on the weekends or during summer vacations. Last year, he says he became a victim of cyberbullying -- vicious, viral and incessant attacks through text messages, e-mails and Facebook posts that have both replaced and supplemented traditional schoolyard bullying.
Read about a New Jersey college student who committed suicide after being harassed with the internet
"It's really horrifying the next day after the message has been sent around, and you're the laughingstock of the school," Jason says. "You have no idea why or what's funny."
Video: A year-long look at bullying
October marks National Bullying Prevention Month, a topic that has made headlines lately. Last week, authorities found the body of Tyler Clementi, a New Jersey college student, who committed suicide after two other students allegedly placed a camera in his dorm room without his knowledge and then broadcast his sexual encounter online.
Tips on handling cyberbullying
1. Don't Respond: Confronting a cyberbully can worsen the circumstances.
2. Collect evidence: Save related e-mails, messages and postings as proof should you need to get the law or school involved.
3. Determine the source: Try to find out the bully's identity and what information he or she knows about you.
4. Report incidences: Laws vary by state, so contact local law enforcement first.
5. Protect your information: Parents should make sure a child's social networking profile doesn't reveal any contact information.
Source: Champions Against Bullying
Video: Kids: My life as a bully's victim
RELATED TOPICS
* Internet
* Bullying
* Depression
Kids are more digitally connected than ever, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which reported that children devoted an average 7½ hours a day to their gadgets. The proliferation of cell phones, iPods and Facebook brings a complicated challenge for parents, teachers and students: The constant exposure to technology and the web amplifies opportunities for children to bully each other online.
Have you been bullied? Share your experiences
One in five youths between age 10 and 18 have been a victim of cyberbullying or participated in cyberbullying, according to a survey of 4,400 children conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center, an organization tracking the internet bullying trend. This figure is conservative, because children are often afraid to come forward to their parents, bullying experts say.
Cyberbullying can take on various forms, from a middle-schooler firing a hurtful text message to high school teens harassing a boyfriend or girlfriend online. The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying -- a term practically nonexistent more than a decade ago --- as what "happens when teens use the internet, cell phones, or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."
"It's a daily nightmare," said Alexandra Penn, founder of Champions Against Bullying, a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California, that provides resources for reducing incidences of traditional and internet bullying in schools. "There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide."
Internet bullying results in depression, suicides
Jason, the New York middle-schooler, tried following the crowd last year.
When gray shorts and red T-shirts became trendy, he wore them to school. Still, the bullies haunted him online. They called Jason, an honor student, dumb. They made fun of his thin frame.
Jason, who has a Facebook account, says he contemplated abstaining from the social network. But he says that would have been useless, because bullies continued to write negative comments about him in mass group messages behind his back.
"There's nothing I can really do," he said.
Sameer Hinduja, a co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, says the most common form of bullying consists of hurtful comments or online rumors. A majority of the bullying is also done anonymously, experts say, because these kinds of bullies like hiding behind a computer screen. Cyberbullying can also be a cruel cycle. Many kids who cyberbully have been bullied at some point.
"Many adults think bullying has to do with sexual predators online, but the biggest concern is peer harassment and conflict and some of the issues that have just blown up with adolescent drama," Hinduja said.
Read: Why did Tyler Clementi die?
Recent research shows that cyberbullying can cause higher levels of depression in a child than traditional bullying. Compared with face-to-face bullying of schoolchildren, a child who had experienced cyberbullying from someone anonymous "may be more likely to feel isolated, dehumanized or helpless at the time of the attack," according a study from the National Institutes of Health. The study relied on surveys from more than 7,000 students.
Bullying experts say cyberbullying has lasting effects on children and teens. Messages posted on the internet are often permanent and difficult to remove. With one click of a mouse, comments can reach hundreds or thousands of students.
While rare, suicide can be the result of online harassment. In 2003, Ryan Halligan, a 13-year-old middle school student in Vermont, killed himself after he was bullied online.
"The kids said, 'You know, you're finally going to stop complaining,' and my son [said], 'Yes, tonight's the night, I'm going to do it. You'll read about it in the papers tomorrow,' " John Halligan, Ryan's father, said to CNN in 2005. "And the kids said, 'It's about f'ing time.' "
Cyberbullying evolves, challenges hard to tackle
While a decade ago, cyberbullying primarily affected youths between age 11 and 15, the number of children facing harassment through a digital device is growing.
"We are seeing cyberbullying happening at broader age ranges and for longer periods of time," said Parry Aftab, who started the group Wired Safety, one of the first advocacy organizations to address online abuses in the mid-1990s. "It's exploding."
Even second-graders use innocent social networking sites such as Webkinz -- where children can purchase cyberpets and chat with each other online -- as a bullying tool, she says. For example, Aftab has heard about children threatening to post mean comments in a chatroom or steal the other child's account information.
Susan McVeigh, a spokeswoman at WebKinz, says bullying can occasionally occur on the site, but the company monitors the chat rooms carefully.
"When you get thousands of kids, the first thing they want to do is push the boundaries," she said . "It's the site's responsibility to push back and say that's not in the spirit of the site."
States and schools are responding to the problem, but there is a long way to go, because the new technology continues to reach children daily, cyberbully experts say. In August, schools and police in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts, set up a text tip line so students can report cyberbullying incidences, according to CNN affiliate WHDH. In 2007, Arkansas passed a law that allowed school officials to take action against cyberbullies who commit acts off school property.
Some advocacy groups say they are concerned about what happens when the cases enter the courts.
"The legal system is going to do some scrambling to catch up with what new technologies do to make it possible," says Andrea Press, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia who came out with the book "The New Media Environment."
Private companies are taking action, too. Facebook, the largest social networking site, with more than 500 million members, says it is also aggressively trying to curb cyberbullying, using pop-up warnings and canceling the accounts of people who cyberbully or use hate speech.
"For us, the experience on the site is the core," said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer at Facebook. "We want to protect and improve, and something like this is repulsive."
Despite the laws and policies that address cyberbullying, some experts say children need to take action among their friends. Many children are afraid to come forward in fear of retaliation. Also, teens may stay quiet because they believe they "need to learn to deal with it," according to a psychological study from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2008.
Until a few weeks ago, Jason's mother was unaware that students attacked her son online.
"It's just hard in general, because I feel like my hands are tied," she said. "I don't know what to do. I don't want anyone to retaliate against him. I don't want him to get into trouble."
As Jason started eighth grade this year, the cyberbullying has subsided, probably because the kids found someone new to pick on, he says.
"Before all this happened, I would try to change myself," he said. "Now I see that I like myself and I enjoy myself, and I think that if they don't like me, they don't appreciate me, then I'm strong enough to say I don't need to talk to that person."
Worth another look.
...
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
It still doesn't explain why he said this....this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a (sic) best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying". In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
It still doesn't explain why he said this....this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a (sic) best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying". In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.
Anne, why are you misquoting me?
...
-
Keep the quotes proper, Anne:
Anne Bonney, Samara, CT, Froderik, Ursus, RobertBruce etc all sexually abuse their own kids and they just get mad when I expose them as sexual predators like I did to Ajax13. I have to expose their double standards.
DUDE, enough already with your "you all abuse your own kids" crap! Cut the attacks, Whooter. This is below the belt.
That is libelous.
How dare you defend Whooter, DB.
I hear you, Samara. This is what Whooter does when he gets frustrated - he starts calling people "child rapists" and accuses them of sexually abusing their own offspring (see "ajax13" et al). He's scum, plain and simple.
This accurate quote sums up the poster "Whooter." When he doesn't get his way he starts calling everyone a pedophile.
-
Keep the quotes proper, Anne:
Anne Bonney, Samara, CT, Froderik, Ursus, RobertBruce etc all sexually abuse their own kids and they just get mad when I expose them as sexual predators like I did to Ajax13. I have to expose their double standards.
DUDE, enough already with your "you all abuse your own kids" crap! Cut the attacks, Whooter. This is below the belt.
That is libelous.
How dare you defend Whooter, DB.
I hear you, Samara. This is what Whooter does when he gets frustrated - he starts calling people "child rapists" and accuses them of sexually abusing their own offspring (see "ajax13" et al). He's scum, plain and simple.
This accurate quote sums up the poster "Whooter." When he doesn't get his way he starts calling everyone a pedophile.
Why are you back to using multiple log in names, Dysfunction Junction/ Troll Control? I thought you were going to start just using one?
...
-
Why do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of sexually molesting their children, Whooter? Is it one of your "issues"??
When I changed my name to Troll Control, "Dysfucntion Junction" was up for grabs. I thought it was you using it. Anyway, explain the constant charges of sexual molestation when you get mad.
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
It still doesn't explain why he said this....this whole comment she made to be a total farce or at best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying". In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.
My apologies Anne, for reading something into your post that wasn't there. I did not show fair and balanced reading.
Because when you speak of your experiences of Straight and you compare them to the industry it is not fair reporting. Every program does not fit your scenario at Straight but yet you try to cram it in there, it seems every time you talk it is always a smack a the TTI. You can not possibly know everything you infer.
Should I go on......
Oh, one more thing, it seems every Monday you have this big story (experience) to share concerning the hot topic over the weekend. Hhhhmmmmmm.........
IDK I could be acting to hard on ya, Anne.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I'm confused by the questions on this poll. If I'm reading it properly I'm being asked which abuse is worst, abuse in a public school or abuse in a program? I guess my answer would be it doesn't really matter where it takes place, abuse is abuse and it is a horrible thing no matter where it takes place.
So is this recent feud about location or is it another rehash of the absurd numbers argument? Because if it is a rehash of the numbers argument I don't have much to say about that other than abuse is tragic no matter what the location and the kids who get abused in public schools have just as much empathy and so forth from me as the kids abused in programs. I just happen to chose to focus on programs, but if presented with a chance to help out a kid who is abused in a public school he/she will certainly have whatever I can contribute.
Haven't had much to praise you for lately but I must say this is some of your best passionate writing to date. Che I applaud and commend you on your empathy. You really are a rational man, thanks.
This is a conversation over "moment". :cheers:
Joel thanks, we already established that.
-
Well I think both programs and public schools can lose if abuse occurs. The school district and program can be sued.
As far as reporting the abuse that is really after the fact (the abuse has already occurred). In a program the child can walk to the nearest store and phone the police, or run away and notify police, report it to a staff member, tell their parents when they speak to them. There are many options to notify authorities. The person is immediately fired and a letter is sent to the other parents informing them of what occurred in the program.
But then this is after the fact, you cannot undo abuse for the child that was abused.
A. The child cannot 'walk to the nearest store' many of these places are out in the middle of nowhere for that exact reason. Further if a child tries to leave and is seen he is immediatly tackled to the grown and locked up in isolation indefinitely.
B. The child cannot phone the authorities because he does not have access to a phone. Many of the phones that are within reach have access codes placed on them to prevent just such a thing from occuring.
C. The child is free to tell the staff member who didn't abuse them and hope that particular staff member doesn't accuse him of lying or manipulating.
D. The child is restricted from speaking with their parents. Letters/emails are censored and will not be sent out until approved. Phone calls are monitored and terminated the moment a child tries to speak out. Visits can be taken away if theres a concern the child might not get with the party line.
E. Can you provide examples of abusive staff members being fired? My experience has shown they are neither not reprimanded at all, or are simpyl rehired a short time later.
F. What lettes did you recieve regarding incidents concerning your sons or their fellow inmates? There were situations that occured involving me personally during my incarceration at HLA that my own parents weren't told about, let alone other peoples kids.
-
So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused. The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.
...
-
In my program, which has its own subforum here on Fornits, we did have a few "abusive" staffers if you want to call it that. None were fired because they were actually very effective. Some were given a a couple of days off "to cool down" after some intense encounters, but they always came back. I view this as a good thing because the kids need some continuity in their lives. So what if a staff member smacked a kid to get his attention? It's nothing our fathers wouldn't do in the same situation. It's really no different than your mom hitting you with the wooden spoon, is it? I think Fornits puts too much emphasis on this type of caring touch and tries to demonize all programs that use it and label it as "abusive" when nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, a staff member might have to give a kid a good knock upside his head, but if it's done for the right reasons, because they care about kids, I really see nothing wrong with that at all. Plus you know that staff member would be right there the day he was allowed back to work with a candy bar or a pice of cake or something to cheer the kid up and show them it was for their own good. The Fornits Mob tries to paint this as "abuse" and it's laughable, really.
-
Cyberbullying
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying)
http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53 (http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53)
It still doesn't explain why he said this....this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a (sic) best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.
I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying". In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.
Anne, why are you misquoting me?
Apologies if I did. It was an honest mistake made from posting from my phone.
-
So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused. The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.
No, "we" don't see that at all. You've been asked several times to quit using "we" the way you do. It's another slick marketing trick. Don't pretend to speak for any of "us".
-
So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused. The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.
No, "we" don't see that at all. You've been asked several times to quit using "we" the way you do. It's another slick marketing trick. Don't pretend to speak for any of "us".
No one has asked me to stop using the word "we". You just jump out and try to change the subject or derail a thread because you dont like the direction it is going. Why do you have to put a "marketing" spin on everything? What it is that you think people are marketing here on fornits?
...
-
No one has asked me to stop using the word "we".
I have plenty of times and I believe at least 2 or 3 others have as well.
You just jump out and try to change the subject or derail a thread because you dont like the direction it is going.
Nah, that's your job.
Why do you have to put a "marketing" spin on everything? What it is that you think people are marketing here on fornits?
I think you make your living off of marketing for programs.
-
I think you make your living off of marketing for programs.
So you wont have a problem if I post that I think you never went to straight or that you make up stories that are not true or embellish stories.
Is it okay as long as I "think" it is true?
...
-
Whooter, please stop using the word 'we' as if you are speaking for all of us here on fornits, as if you could. And I think Anne hit it on the head, you are obviously a gifted salesman, why would you spend so much time here if it was not connected to your income somehow?
-
So what if he does? He has said very openly before that he thinks all kids would benefit from programs and he promotes them so all kids have opportunities to reach their full potential. If a kid is off track and not flourishing, then he needs a program. Whooter makes no bones about the ones he refers to. They're great programs and every single kid is put back on track and they all go to college. What's wrong with that? So what if they were charged with "abuse" before and shut down. The fact that they come back just shows they are needed. The methods work. Just because you view them as "abusive" doesn't mean kids don't need them. One kid's "abuse" is another kid's "helping hand". It's really up to the parents anyway. You think they haven't read the reports online? They have. And they still choose to use those programs anyway. Whooter sets the record straight when state agencies make misleading claims in their abuse reports. He explains these events to parents and reassures them that it really is just the kids manipulating to get out of the program and not actually abuse. He lets the parents know they shouldn't believe the kids until they have completed the program and are back on track again. I think everyone knows that program kids lie. Don't get mad at Whooter and me because we say it. Kids that claim they are being abused can't be believed. That's Whooter's message and any objective person knows it's true.
-
You may not be dead or in jail , but you are insane!
-
Whooter, please stop using the word 'we' as if you are speaking for all of us here on fornits, as if you could. And I think Anne hit it on the head, you are obviously a gifted salesman, why would you spend so much time here if it was not connected to your income somehow?
I use "we" because I am summarizing the posts on the thread. I enjoy posting on fornits. Why do you have to relate everyone's actions to something financial? Just because you have a question about me doesnt mean you can assume an answer. If you feel you can then the rest of us should be able to assume things about you too and post them here. Doesnt that seem fair?
...
-
Yeah, I'm insane. So what if people who post here make their living from programs. It's honest work. Whooter only represents the top-quality ones that are nothing like you old geezers had at Straight or wherever you went. Times have changed, none-ya.
-
So what if he does? He has said very openly before that he thinks all kids would benefit from programs and he promotes them so all kids have opportunities to reach their full potential. If a kid is off track and not flourishing, then he needs a program. Whooter makes no bones about the ones he refers to. They're great programs and every single kid is put back on track and they all go to college. What's wrong with that? So what if they were charged with "abuse" before and shut down. The fact that they come back just shows they are needed. The methods work. Just because you view them as "abusive" doesn't mean kids don't need them. One kid's "abuse" is another kid's "helping hand". It's really up to the parents anyway. You think they haven't read the reports online? They have. And they still choose to use those programs anyway. Whooter sets the record straight when state agencies make misleading claims in their abuse reports. He explains these events to parents and reassures them that it really is just the kids manipulating to get out of the program and not actually abuse. He lets the parents know they shouldn't believe the kids until they have completed the program and are back on track again. I think everyone knows that program kids lie. Don't get mad at Whooter and me because we say it. Kids that claim they are being abused can't be believed. That's Whooter's message and any objective person knows it's true.
Holy crap! Where do I start? Every single kid is put back on track and they all go to college? Every single kid? I don't recall him (or anyone else) mentioning any programs with 100% success rate.
What possible motivation would a state agency have to make misleading claims in a program abuse case? Parents shouldn't believe kids until they've completed the program? So if they are abused, tough shit? They deserved it? You think that 'everyone knows program kids lie'? It is becoming increasingly clear to 'everyone' that PROGRAMS LIE. Also, do I need to point out that you just admitted to still using drugs and drinking? How does your program feel about that? I bet they do not approve and therefore you are not in good standing with them and, therefore, according to you, YOU MUST BE LYING!
-
Not just a failure Max, you are also a hypocrite.
-
Yeah, I'm insane. So what if people who post here make their living from programs. It's honest work. Whooter only represents the top-quality ones that are nothing like you old geezers had at Straight or wherever you went. Times have changed, none-ya.
He represents programs?? Really? Because he's been denying that for years now, telling us he's just a simple program parent looking to share information. It sounds like you and Whooter have become quite close for you to have this inside knowledge of him.
-
Not just a failure Max, you are also a hypocrite.
Really? How so? Please enlighten us.
-
Just go back and read his posts. He has said many times that 100% of the kids go to the college of their choice. Some kids from ASR have posted here saying their academic credits were no good and they couldn't get into college, but Whooter showed they were lying about that and that 100% go to the college of their choice, just as ASR advertises. Just because some disgruntled kid says the program didn't help him or that the academics suck doesn't make it true. Whooter has access to information the Fornits extremists don't.
And, as I said, my program is no longer operating so of course they have no comment either way about my progress. I don't see how doing drugs or drinking makes me a "failure" at all. Even Whooter, who knows a lot more about programs and success than you losers, still drinks and does drugs and he's rich. Doesn't sound like a failure to me. Not at all. As long as his kids are sober, who cares if he gets high or drunk? One has nothing to do with the other.
Have we all just been punked???
-
Anne,do you seriously believe that just because someone gets high or drunk they aren't successful?
-
Anne,do you seriously believe that just because someone gets high or drunk they aren't successful?
Of course not. Why would you think that? But by program standards they sure aren't.
-
Anne,do you seriously believe that just because someone gets high or drunk they aren't successful?
Max, we believe that about you because that is the position of the programs that you support so vigorously, and, you claim, saved your life. Speaking for myself, I never thought that drug use alone made you a failure, whether you are an adult or still in your formative years. Many of the kids in my program ( including me ) were there because their parents were terrified of their marijuana use.
-
Well I was in a program because I was a troubled teen who needed to get back on track. The program did that for me. I didn't like it, but it was what I needed. It saved my life and without it I would be in bad shape to say the least. Yeah, I still have my slips. I got high yesterday. And the day before. Pretty much for the last week or two. And I got blackout drunk on Saturday night. But that doesn't mean the program wasn't successful. I just failed to use the tools they gave me.
-
Well I was in a program because I was a troubled teen who needed to get back on track. The program did that for me. I didn't like it, but it was what I needed. It saved my life and without it I would be in bad shape to say the least. Yeah, I still have my slips. I got high yesterday. And the day before. Pretty much for the last week or two. And I got blackout drunk on Saturday night. But that doesn't mean the program wasn't successful. I just failed to use the tools they gave me.
I think we're being punked.
-
Why is it that just because I am a successful graduate and you aren't that I am somehow dishonest? Really, just look at yourselves. Drooling with delight that you may someday be able to discredit my story. Well, keep trying. Nothing you say changes the fact that the program made me a success. I would have never made it this far without it. Like I said, I have some slips, but so what? At least I'm honest about it.
-
Why is it that just because I am a successful graduate and you aren't that I am somehow dishonest?
I've already told you that I successfully graduated Straight.
Drooling with delight that you may someday be able to discredit my story.
No, we just don't like hypocrites.
Nothing you say changes the fact that the program made me a success.
How? What was the process by which they did that?
I would have never made it this far without it. Like I said, I have some slips, but so what? At least I'm honest about it.
No one here gives a shit if you have 'slips' or not, but according to program think, you're not one of their success stories.
-
Even Whooter, who knows a lot more about programs and success than you losers,
Laws
1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it, rather than start a new one.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
3. No outing of home addresses or phone numbers without a person's consent. This includes linking to such information.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum, with an appropriate name.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry. Sockpuppets will be outed.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off). You can make your point with civility. Responding to an insult with an insult is not a justification.
7. Impersonation of another poster or living person is not allowed, unless it is obvious parody. The standard is this: if a stupid person could mistake the identity to be that of the parodied, it's a violation. You may either agree to have such an account labeled as "parody" or have it deleted.
8. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.
-
.
-
Could someone please tell me what goes on in the drama box? And what is The secret handshake that gets you in?
-
Could someone please tell me what goes on in the drama box? And what is The secret handshake that gets you in?
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
Let me guess. Anne will not correct a group-thinker, only the people who disagree. Gotta love this place.
-
so you don't know either
-
Right on Max! Don't fall for None-Ya's diabolical attempt to find out what the password is to the drama box. How do you cope with all the insidious dishonesty you find here? And why?
-
Right on Max! Don't fall for None-Ya's diabolical attempt to find out what the password is to the drama box. How do you cope with all the insidious dishonesty you find here? And why?
Coping with it is easy. I ignore 99% of what you people post and I only really read Whooter and Danny's posts.
-
So nobody knows. Or it's invite only?
-
So nobody knows. Or it's invite only?
hey buddy, I won't tell you again, "Knock It Off"
-
So nobody knows. Or it's invite only?
hey buddy, I won't tell you again, "Knock It Off"
:beat: :sue: :roflmao:
-
I just tried Knock It Off and that didn't work either.
-
Right on Max! Don't fall for None-Ya's diabolical attempt to find out what the password is to the drama box. How do you cope with all the insidious dishonesty you find here? And why?
Coping with it is easy. I ignore 99% of what you people post and I only really read Whooter and Danny's posts.
Oh, so you admit to ignorance. Good to know.
-
Ignorance? I read the posts of people like Danny and Whooter who know what they're talking about and have worked in programs. That makes me educated not ignorant.
-
Ignorance? I read the posts of people like Danny and Whooter who know what they're talking about and have worked in programs. That makes me educated not ignorant.
:rofl: :rocker: :rofl:
-
Could someone please tell me what goes on in the drama box? And what is The secret handshake that gets you in?
It's deprecated in favor of Open Free for All. I may merge Drama Box's posts into OFFA.