Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Carey on January 02, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
-
Wow, you two had info on my unfiled deposition, the day after I gave it. How? Sue? Sue's attorney? WWASP's attorney?
Do I really need to ask. No, I don't. Not only does this latest thread in posts show that you are her voice, along with the evidence in my emails it further substantiates that you are Sue's instrument. You are helping her to do her dirty work. You and Sue K. would not have been able to speak about any of that information without it being provided to you via Sue.
I forget though, Sue can do what she accuses others of doing and it is a whole different story. She sends kids to unregulated programs in which children have been injured just like WWASP has done. She released information on my deposition and I released info on her deposition. (The funny part about this second example is that I did not feel a need to sue to shut her up...she however, did feel a need to sue to shut me up and she even stooped to the level of using her own child to do so. A child who has never even been mentioned until this latest suit. Hmmm...why?)
Why do you think it is ok for her to do certain things, but not me? She got you by the nuts or something? Don't tell me you are not trying to defend her because you know you are. Everyone knows you are. I know you are tied up in her legal battles. Why else would you be so upset about it and so personally involved?
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 12:56 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 13:04 ]
-
Carey O -
What makes you think anyone has a copy of your deposition?
I don't believe anyone does or has said they did.
Surely that bit posted was just satire. Surely you weren't actually as lame as all that.
I would sure like to see it, every last word of it when you get your copy.
I would think you'd be the first.
Also, if your still in a money crunch, maybe you could sell copies of the vedio.
I'd just love to see that.
-
Carey,
You are heading for the deep end again. That's why I quit conversing with you earlier!!!
Nuts...NOT! Fighting her battle...NOT! She has attorneys for this case, she doesn't need me for anything involving "w vs. p?. Either that or she hasn?t asked me to do anything. That is just your assumptions of this whole case. You have no facts to back up any of your allegations you continue to accuse me of.
YOU know I'm tied up in her legal battle!!! What a farce, that sure is a new one on me...I couldn't even tell you what her lawsuit is entirely about. I don't even care what her suit is about. I'll explain this once again...I have a beef with an organization, not you, not anyone else. How simple can that be NOT to understand? However, I have in my quest run across many of the individuals of which some you don?t get along with. So be it...get over it...
I have an opinion just like you on all of these issues, but I don't force feed them to anyone. Just like your idol states..."agree to disagree"...move on.
I believe if you'll look back in your archives of emails...remember the ones you sold to wwasp's, I probably informed you of my family's dealings with wwasp & that's about it. I have a quest of my own to contend with. When I'm ready for the public to know about it...believe me...you'll be the first to know. Along with everyone else on this forum.
FYI; I found your deposition info. via common carrier at my office door one morning. It appeared to be some form of a mailing list?it may have been wwasp, or Sue, or either of the attorney's, not sure since it has been awhile.
I hope all of this info. Assists you in your quest. Best regards & kindest wishes,
Lee
-
Spots and Lee, would you like to tell us, us being all of the readers here, where did you get your information on my deposition from? It is a very simple question. Why can't you answer?
Lee, don't leave us now. Spots, I know you are out there. Where did your information come from? Now Spots, I know you claim to have nothing to do with Sue, looks like that is not quite the truth now doesn't it. There were only four people in that room, two attorneys and Sue and myself. Come on, both of you, no BS, just answer the question. You provided details, how did you come by them?
Anon, you don't have the answers, they do.
-
FYI; I found your deposition info. via common carrier at my office door one morning. It appeared to be some form of a mailing list?it may have been wwasp, or Sue, or either of the attorney's, not sure since it has been awhile.
No, your information came directly from the mouth of Sue. You were posting information in regard to it the same night it which I had given it. You continued to post about it the very next day on the thread in question. Excuse, me, you or Nancy I should have said, along with Sue K. began to post information on my deposition. What is really sad is you were posting based on gossip...you had not even seen it. Gossip straight from the horses mouth.
And you are not fighting for and defending Sue and PURE? Then why would you post in regard to my depo, especially given the fact that you had not even seen it. Is that what you are about. Saying and repeating things you have heard and accepting them as fact. Just "trust the program" does that ring a bell. Must not ring very loudly for you.
-
We must be tawkin about the 12.5 you took in exchange for the Trekker's collective heads on a platter to wwasp.
So it's gossip; or was until you confirmed it and began to try and defend it.
If anything you did or said that has been reported is incorrect, you can prove it when you post your deposition; in it's entirety.
We await your vindication. . .
-
Anon, you are missing the point, or are you?
The point being, they were sharing what they heard about my deposition. Where did they hear it from and who were they posting it for...SUE. That was the point.
-
So what.
Unless your saying it was inaccurate.
We await your proof.
-
Yeah, you miss the point alright.
I will wait to hear from Sue K. or Lee. You obviously don't have the answer to my question.
-
On January 1, 2004, at 6:36am, Carey Bock said:
"Where the information came from is not important. What it tells us about Sue is."
This quote was in relation to the postings about why Sue Scheff sent her daughter to CSA.
Uuuhhhmmm...Ms. Bock is currently in a tizzy about where I got my information about her payment from WWASPS, demanding in strident tones that I reveal my connection with PURE, since she is positive that that is my "source". I am under no obligation to say where I got my information [it was not from Sue Scheff, nor PURE, nor from a Trekker group, as Ginger has verified with her greater wisdom of which ISP's send info, etc.]. I feel the most important thing here...the thing which Carey slids right by...is not where I got this truthful information, but that she has verified that IT IS TRUTHFUL INFORMATION. How can you keep bringing attention to this basically unflattering information by constantly referring to where it came from? If it is the truth, does anyone really care or remember who "leaked" it? Serious damage is being done politically every day by folks leaking un-true info, which the public tends to believe, even if eventually proven false. In this case, the INFORMATION IS CORRECT, and frankly I don't think anybody gives a rip about how it got publicized. Jeez, Carey, drop it, for your own good.
BTW, the reason I posted this information was partly a desire for revenge, due to the fact that Ms. Bock has run roughshod over this entire forum, twisting every possible post down her own crooked road, out-shouting other useful information valuable to parents considering incarcerating their children in WWASPS. With the intelligent, passionate, and "let's go to the root of the problem" that Antigen, Deborah and others have been adding these last weeks, we still have to contend with the prominent "Who Told On Me?" from Carey. You only have the attention of the curious for a limited amount of time; don't blow it on petty tantrums.
-
Wrong. Where you got your information from is very relevent. You just don't get how relevent. It shows how the "group" works. Sue can't speak publically so she uses you guys to do her dirty work.
-
Good God, Lee and Spots. Take a break. Read a book (or the volumes of legal documents pertaining to PURE). Have a beer, or any other kind of cold beverage, just as long as you chill out for awhile. You are boring me to tears.
:cry2:
-
On 2004-01-02 14:06:00, turbinekat wrote:
You have no facts to back up any of your allegations you continue to accuse me of.
Except, of course, that both of you are listes on PURE's website as volunteers, you have acknowledged that you know about it and, by inaction, if not just evasion, you apparently think that that's perfectly approriate.
But I'm still puzzling over this one. Why do you so often refer to people noticing this as an accusation? Is there something bad about being affiliated w/ PURE?
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford
-
Unless you think Carey posesses the mighty awsome power to warp time and cause packages to arrive through couriors in a matter of time that defies the laws of physics, I think the gal has made a pretty good argument to support her conclusion.
Why change the subject now?
Ya' know, we can always go on Ricki Lake.
:rofl:
On 2004-01-02 15:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"We must be tawkin about the 12.5 you took in exchange for the Trekker's collective heads on a platter to wwasp.
So it's gossip; or was until you confirmed it and began to try and defend it.
If anything you did or said that has been reported is incorrect, you can prove it when you post your deposition; in it's entirety.
We await your vindication. . ."
I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
--Clarence Darrow
-
On 2004-01-02 17:27:00, spots wrote:
"On January 1, 2004, at 6:36am, Carey Bock said:
I am under no obligation to say where I got my information [it was not from Sue Scheff, nor PURE, nor from a Trekker group, as Ginger has verified with her greater wisdom of which ISP's send info, etc.].
Spots, believe me when I tell you I like you and respect you. You have touched my heart when you've spoken from yours about your grand-daughter. I don't know what you look like, but I seriously think of you as being very much like my kind, gentle, apparently psychic and, thanfully, benevolent grandmother. She passed on when I was very small, but I remember what it was like to have one.
But you're missing something here. Of course I'm not about to try and coerce you to answer the question. That's not my place. It really isn't! I didn't really think up my terms of use as I have them written. When I decided to open these forums, I refreshed my memory on accepted policy for unmoderated, unedited, interactive discussion. That's about the state of it.
That doesn't mean there are no other rules. There are many, subtle rules of discussion that overlap on eachother. There's just no authority, other than your own sense of reason, to enforce them.
If you are going to post as fact what you've heard about Carey's deposition, why you should not be the least bit put off if she does the same with Sues. It doesn't matter what I think. I don't play that role. But you have to admit, the gal has a point. Why is it OK for someone who has access to information about Carey's deposition that only Sue, PURE lawyers, WWASP lawyers and Carey witnessed, then why is it a different case when Carey does just exactly the same thing.
Wait! Not exactly the same thing. Carey quoted the x-script. What do you have to support your claims? And, since I'm actually mentioned, would you mind sending me a copy?
BTW, based on what I've actually seen and what I have not, I'm not at all sure that this alleged suit has been or will be filed. Not saying it hasn't or won't. Just that I'll believe it when I see it. Just like Huron.
What is this new loyalty? It is, above all, conformity. It is the uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of America as it is. It rejects inquiry into the race question or socialized medicine or public housing, regards as heinous any challenge to what is called the system of private enterprise, identifying that system with Americanism. It abandons evolution, repudiates the once popular concept of progress, and regards America as a finished product, perfect and complete. The concept of loyalty as conformity is a false one. It is narrow and restrictive, denies freedom of thought and conscience... What do men know of loyalty who make a mockery of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-02 21:21 ]
-
On 2004-01-02 17:27:00, spots wrote:
"On January 1, 2004, at 6:36am, Carey Bock said:
BTW, the reason I posted this information was partly a desire for revenge, due to the fact that Ms. Bock has run roughshod over this entire forum, twisting every possible post down her own crooked road, out-shouting other useful information valuable to parents considering incarcerating their children in WWASPS. With the intelligent, passionate, and "let's go to the root of the problem" that Antigen, Deborah and others have been adding these last weeks, we still have to contend with the prominent "Who Told On Me?" from Carey. You only have the attention of the curious for a limited amount of time; don't blow it on petty tantrums.
Spots, it is an important question. Carey didn't bring it up. Someone else did. The insinuation is that, if Carey got her info from WWASP lawyers, then she must be sympathetic to them. Likewise, if others are getting their information from PURE, well then one would assume the same kind of relationship between that person and PURE.
You say:
Ms. Bock has run roughshod over this entire forum, twisting every possible post down her own crooked road, out-shouting other useful information valuable to parents considering incarcerating their children in WWASPS.
How do you know that Carey is the one twisting information? Not saying she's not. Just asking, litterally, how you come to believe this.
Carey has posted some information that might be helpful to parents who are considering using PURE's services. No one has really refuted those claims or offered any good reason to believe otherwise. The stock response is "Yeah, but, Carey is a ....." That's just not a staisfactory answer to any of these questions. That's an ad hominem attack that, whether you intend it or not, works to draw attention away from the issue under discussion.
Look, if G.W. Bush said the sky is blue, I would believe that the sky is blue. Not because he said it, that wouldn't even weigh in. But because I know it to be true. It would be foolish to assume that the sky is not blue just because Bush said so, even though I think the guy's a pathological liar.
If you want a voluntary urine sample from me it'll have to be a taste test.
--Bumper Sticker
-
Yeow! It seems we are on somewhat different planets here, all of us. I read Fornits every couple of days or so, and today this thread was full of "Spots, who told you!!!". Now, I felt it appropriate to respond to the badgering.
I really can't imagine, Ginger, where you thought you needed to defend yourself and say you were not about to coerce me into ...I dunno, something. I'm missing something if you need to explain the rules and etiquette of this unmoderated forum.
My quote from Carey's post on another thread? I felt she stated pretty clearly that she feels it doesn't make any difference where information comes from, if the info itself has insight into Sue Scheff that we need to consider, regardless of the source. My response to that is, "then leave me alone, Carey, if you really don't think source is important". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I gambled on posting about Carey's payment, as I trusted my source but was not actually there myself for verification (although this will be public record eventually). Carey jumped right up to the plate and said it was correct...so, my "gossip" suddenly went to "truth".
My appreciation to you was for your confirmation that you knew I did not forward Carey's ss# to anybody (I'm not sure how you did, but, hey.) Your comment, "How do you know that Carey is the one twisting information?", referring to my quote "Ms. Bock has run roughshod over this entire forum, twisting every possible post down her own crooked road, out-shouting other useful information valuable to parents considering incarcerating their children in WWASPS" has absolutely nothing to do with whether Carey's information about PURE is valid or not, and I'm surprised you linked those thoughts. I have often complained that every post of negative information about WWASPS' facilities in the past 3 months has been bracketed by Carey's (and some Anon's) bending it back to "Yeah, but PURE is as bad as the worst of the worst". When you complain of responses such as "Yeah, but, Carey is a ...", you point out that "that's not a satisfactory answer to any of these questions. That's an ad hominem attack that, whether you intend it or not, works to draw attention away from the issue under discussion." Isn't that exactly what I have complained about, worried over, fought with Carey about on this forum?
Since she went on the PURE attack, very little is being said about the evil which is Worldwide Association of Sprecialty Schools and Programs. An "education consultant" may hawk a bad product, but I've got a real zinger here to tell you about, one that hammers the airwaves with false marketing and lies that need to be refuted. Scope of access (Internet and print market flooding), proportion (number of kids...2000+ vs. whatever PURE works with) and the harm (years of really bad across-the-board behavior towards teenagers), it seems to me, make WWASPS a far better target than PURE. It's like saying "Hitler seems to be really a bad thing" and having someone jump in with "Yeah, but I hear the North Koreans are really bad too". I'd like the attention to be perfectly aimed at the most-dangerous, most-prolific enemy, and that's hard to do with Carey re-directing attention.
FWIW, we received the best Christmas present ever. On Christmas Day, we drove 7 hours and brought our grandaughter here to live with us for the forseeable future. She will start the new quarter in our school district, probably home schooling to attempt to catch up on all the credits she lost while at Casa by the Sea. After having her live with us just this last week, her many short comments confirm every single detail of bad stuff that I have documented from others (kids and parents) at Casa, plus more. We don't "grill" her, but listen and believe what she says, something her mother refused to do. She is such a worthwhile individual; she deserves recognition for her strengths, and cannot blossom while basically locked in her bedroom, a converted detached garage behind her mother's house. Mom made a mistake, sent her kid off to a bunch of thugs and believed them over her own daughter, and now can't deal with the guilt and reality. So...this child shall now lose the family that she wants so badly, and have to make do with a couple of old farts who have always loved her, along with 3 aunts, 6 local cousins, and even neighbors and friends who followed her ordeal along with us. We hope this will suffice.
-
Congrats. Hope it will suffice?
I don't know what your relationship with PURE is but I appreciate that you didn't use their services to find a "better" program for your granddaughter, and that she'll be living with family and friends who love her. What more could one ask for on Earth in 2003, woops 2004. Happy New Year to you both.
-
Sue,
, "then leave me alone, Carey, if you really don't think source is important".
It wasn't important where it came from back when it was first posted. I was not refuting the validity...I was making a connection between you, the other anons and Sue.
It is important now. Why because you see, it is once again, Sue not wanting to play by the rules that she seems to think she gets to make.
-
On Christmas Day, we drove 7 hours and brought our grandaughter here to live with us for the forseeable future.
That is SUCH GOOD News!!
I am so happy to hear this.
-
Well, it looks as if Spots can now join the guilt by association club. Lee and Co have been members a long time. I include myself in Co.
I have no association with PURE at all.
I am however a proud ex Trekker.
Carey brought my name up in her deposition with frequency. What she had to say was degrading and slanderous; and while much of it was just her warped opinion, based on her extreme levels of hate; other statements were known by her to be false.
As a result, I was informed fairly early on as to some details of her deposition. I was asked to provide a statement on the true facts of some matters she chose to lie about.
I was also told about the 12.5; which information I shared with all those I thought would want to know. I felt it was coming from a credible source and so worth telling. It appears I was correct.
I assume some of those I told, then told others; as such is the way these things often go.
Did you not expect as much?
-
Big Whup! You people ever heard of patting each other on the butt, privately, instead of boasting about your affiliation with some private ex listserve and how good you are at hanging out your dirty laundry all over this forum? It is understandable why Carey Bock has a gripe, OTOH you people who claim to have been caught up in the crossfire are not smart enough to preserve what little integrity you have left.
-
Whoop de do, right back attcha Cheif.
-
Spots, ya did it again, you made me cry.
And I think maybe I spotted the point where we're missing each other.
I don't think WWASP is the worst organization in the industry. I'm pretty sure they're the biggest player on the field, at the moment. But it's far from a case of just one bad apple.
Check out Devlin's site:
http://mountainparkhorrors.netfirms.com/ (http://mountainparkhorrors.netfirms.com/)
That's just one. Then there are all the Straight spin offs still in operation. Then there's the whole parent referal cottage industry that seems to have sprung from the old TOUGHLOVE hate rallies. Is it a coincidence, do ya think, that National Parents in Action has just received federal grant money to set up 10 Parent Corps operations around the country?
Here are two interesting searches:
National Parents in Action (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=National+Parents+in+Action)
Coincidence that they have an organization in Australia, where Mel Sembler served as US Ambassador under the first Büsh administration?
If it walks like a goose, looks like the Stazi, sounds like a power grab for the hearts, minds and bodys of America's youth, the it might actually be something like that.
PURE is part of that. Carey has firsthand experience with PURE just as you have firsthand experience with WWASP. That Carey is critical of PURE does not mean she thinks WWASP is OK.
But you're right. I wish we could get more info on the industry flowing through here again. Though I still think it's very informative for some people to look over brawls like these because these are par for the course in this industry. But it's not the whole story. And thanks, Deb and others, for continuing to provide informative and thought provoking material as you do. All penalties for drug users should be dropped...Making drug abuse a crime is useless and even dangerous...Every year we seize more and more drugs but the quantity available still increases...Police are losing the drug battle worldwide.
--Raymond Kendall ~ Secretary General of Interpol 1994
-
I have no association with PURE at all.
I am however a proud ex Trekker.
What, your so proud that you forgot to post your name? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Ginger wrote:"If it walks like a goose, looks like the Stazi, sounds like a power grab for the hearts, minds and bodys of America's youth, the it might actually be something like that.
PURE is part of that. Carey has firsthand experience with PURE just as you have firsthand experience with WWASP. That Carey is critical of PURE does not mean she thinks WWASP is OK."
Actually, I don't believe PURE is a part of grabing at the hearts, minds and body's of American youth (or their parents) What I've read of PURE, they are in business for one purpose, to defame wwasps. Hey, look at it! There are TONS of other programs out there, but their agenda is against wwasp programs. They refer to programs where the kids have the same allegations of abuse - all kids that don't want to be where they are will say the same things, from what I've read. I don't really see where wwasp is attacking other programs?
I also don't see where SPOTS has any real knowledge of wwasp programs. It's all heresay and inuendos. BTW, if her granddaughter was being held captive at home, then are her parents being arrested?
Carey, on the other hand has first hand experience with both.
-
On 2004-01-03 14:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I don't believe PURE is a part of grabing at the hearts, minds and body's of American youth (or their parents) What I've read of PURE, they are in business for one purpose, to defame wwasps. Hey, look at it! There are TONS of other programs out there, but their agenda is against wwasp programs.
No, I don't think it's exactly like that. Whether or not PURE defames WWASP depends on your definition of the term "defame":
1 archaic : DISGRACE
2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander
3 archaic : ACCUSE
synonym see MALIGN
I think #2 is closest to the legal term of art, right? Whether or not what they say about WWASP is true is another matter. WWASP keeps on saying that all the critics are liars and all kids who complain are just being manipulative. How much sense does that make? No kid ever has a legitimate reason to complain? Does that magical rule reverse itselve at age 18? Upon becoming a parent? What? Please explain if you can?
It seems clear to me that PURE is using WWASP's bad reputation to garner business. But PURE did not invent WWASP's bad reputation. Neither did Tim Rogers or Tim Weiner. A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit.
-- In the August 1993 issue, page 9, of PS magazine, the Army's magazine of preventive maintenance