Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Carey on January 03, 2004, 09:55:00 PM
-
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
If you are a proud ex Trekker, as you claim to be, then stand up and be counted...give your name.
SHOW US HOW PROUD YOU ARE!!!!
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:56 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:57 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:58 ]
-
Carey, I can appreciate your frustation with these folks. Why they can't (or won't) identify themselves in spite of insisting they have nothing to hide and in fact, are proud of WHO they are, is rather frustrating. I guess credibility is something they strictly demand from others, not ever themselves. Well, don't sweat it. Like Ginger and others have said, this is S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure). Divide and Conquer. Diss and Dismiss. A Temptress in a Teapot. You get the picture, here. What interests me is whether these people understand the implications of what amounts to supreme hypocrisy?
As for Free Speech ... HAH! Why take a chance when no one knows if they will be the next one sued by someone who ain't too happy with the topic of discussion/debate? And to think men and women have sacrificed their own freedom and very lives to uphold the rights of people like this person. Makes me damn mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I'm pretty sure it's just paranoia, folks. I think most of the adults who find themselves entwined w/ this industry are the type go through life believing that they're not allowed to do a lot of things that they really are allowed to do.
There is not a "fragment" in all nature, for every relative fragment of one thing is a full harmonious unit in itself.
-- John Muir
-
I don't think its paranoia. I think the poster is not "proud to be an ex Trekker" and I think they want to call me a liar without having to prove it. How many times have I been accused of that on this board and asked those accusing me of lying to tell me what I have lied about? They can't, I have not lied, its plain and simple.
-
Carey, my "friend", you know exactly who I am.
You know damn well why I now perfer to keep my name off the forums; as its a direct result of your actions.
So back off in your own jack yard and leave me alone.
-
You are wrong. I don't know who you are. But what I do know, is that you are not a "proud" ex Trekker other wise you would say who you are.
And, I do know that you have called me a liar and are afraid to admit to that, other wise, once again you would say who you are.
You are not "proud" you are ashamed and you make an accusation (calling me a liar) you can't even stand behind.
-
On 2004-01-04 07:32:00, Carey wrote:
"I don't think its paranoia. I think the poster is not "proud to be an ex Trekker" and I think they want to call me a liar without having to prove it. How many times have I been accused of that on this board and asked those accusing me of lying to tell me what I have lied about? They can't, I have not lied, its plain and simple.
"
I agree this is not paranoia. The proof is in the pudding. Carey has consistently provided documentation to support her allegations where as these folks have brought nothing to the table but personal attacks and threats of retaliation. Not just directed at Ms. Bock, but virtually anyone who does not support their personal agenda. When and if these people care to produce documentation to boost the credibility of their own allegations, I will listen. Until then, I see no reason to cut these people any slack, much less enable them to do what apparently they do best: Blow smoke up everybody's ***.
:wave:
-
Bump
-
"Why don't you come out of the henhouse?" says the fox; "Is it because you're just CHICKEN?"
In today's forum we have a person who has admittedly accepted substantial compensation from the loathesome ones ( for providing information which they deemed useful in their litigation onslaught) demanding that people reveal their identities, and impugning their honor if they fail to comply.
I guess once you start taking money for "naming names," you realize there may be an untapped career opportunity. However, by any definition -- dictionary, vernacular, or legal --accepting money for services makes you an affiliate of their organization. Obviously, if you can encourage more disclosures, and get more identities, your paymaster will likely be more than willing to show his gratitude in the traditional way. Once you're bought and paid for, its fair to presume that you stay bought.
The desire for confidentiality is in no way inconsistent with being justifiably proud of participating in a worthwhile cause.
Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada. Today's inquisitor would have you believe that their efforts were not honorable and decent, simply on the ground that they didn't advertise their identity.
In my opinion, the conditions to which people are subjected in extra-judicial seizure and incarceration programs are a fair topic for public debate -- even if the program is run by a for-profit, commercial entity. Revelations of treatment conditions which led to reform of mental health hospitals in the 19th and early 20th century are an analagous example. (Less litigious times, thankfully). Even if unpleasant and messy, such discourse (including the discourse on this very forum) is vital, and should NOT be limited to those who are willing to bear the expense of defending SLAPP suits from our inquisitor's employer.
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:17 ]
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:26 ]
-
Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.
Scott, do you not see the irony in your argument.
Slaves/ kids....WWASP programs / Sue's programs
What you condone freeing slaves/kids in order for someone else to have the opportunity to exploit and prosper off of them? I don't. When you stand behind Sue you are not standing for protecting the rights of children. You are swapping one set of unregulated programs for another.
-
The topic of my discussion was your demand for names and impugning the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.
Nothing I said could remotely be construed as favoring certain programs. Again, I believe you serve the interests of certain organizations by interpreting any post that doesn't share your particular world view into a supposed endorsement of PURE.
People fighting abusive behavior mod (REGARDLESS of referral agency) have as much reason to fear SLAPP suits as the underground railway transporters had to fear criminal prosecution.
As such, your characterization of my example as "irony" is not particularly apt. Both sets of programs can be judged by the same criteria --Similar facts warrant similar conclusions. I have no dog in this fight. Other people might.
Nonetheless, a person who who wished to remain anonymous while opposing the programs which are foremost in your mind is entitled to equal dignity with the persons who oppose the programs which the trekkers oppose. Similar facts, similar conclusions. I don't serve the interests of either program. Other people might.
Lamentably, these are times of persecution (ask Ginger). If the program is abusive, lets oppose it. I see nothing constructive in drumming up more business for the loathesome ones' attorneys by insisting people reveal their identities as a condition of participating in this forum. Other people might.
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:09 ]
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:10 ]
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:19 ]
-
Scott whats your affiliation with PUREST?
Are you the anonomous proud EX-Trekker?
-
Help, I just read this on another forum, and am wondering what in the world is going on here. Scott T., you seem to be a stand-up guy, can you answer the questions posed at the bottom of Ms. Bock's post? Honestly, I am NOT trying to stir the pot, just looking for straight answers. This has got me really troubled, darn near sick to my stomach.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=9&Sort=D (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4055&forum=9&Sort=D)
-
Then tell me Scott, why do you object so adamantly to my exposure of Sue and PURE?
And:
the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.
I didn't link this person to "certain programs and individuals", he/she did with what they said. "I proud ex Trekker."
The "honor" of an anonymous poster? The honor of one who has called me a liar and hides behind a bag? Where is the honor in that? I take someone calling me a liar personal. If you think it is ok for someone to call another indvidual a liar and not say who you are and not back it up with any kind of proof...then I say your definition of who and what is honorable is questionable.
-
That was me. Ginger could you delete this post and add my name to the one above addressed to Scott.
-
To the inquisitor:
1. My name is: Scott N. Tisevich, Esq.
2. My Nevada Bar Number is 5525.
3. My business address is: 333 Flint Street
Reno, NV 89501. My business phone
number is 775-786-8926.
4. For the record, Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of, nor have I ever accepted money or other remuneration from, the organizations known as:
(a) the Communist Party of America,
(b) La Cosa Nostra,
(c) Al-Quaida,
(d) the Ba'athist Party,
(e) the IECA,
(f) PURE,
(g) the "trekkers" or
(h) The World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools.
Can my inquisitor make the same statement?
5. The Federal Court House in Reno is 3 blocks from my office and is visible from my front door. If you wish to meet me there, just stand on the Courthouse steps and wave. (So we can do lunch, of course. There's a great deli across the street where the bailiffs go to get meals for the jurors)
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:41 ]
-
LOL, I appreciate the humor.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
On 2004-01-04 12:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Then tell me Scott, why do you object so adamantly to my exposure of Sue and PURE?
And:
the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.
I didn't link this person to "certain programs and individuals", he/she did with what they said. "I proud ex Trekker."
The "honor" of an anonymous poster? The honor of one who has called me a liar and hides behind a bag? Where is the honor in that? I take someone calling me a liar personal. If you think it is ok for someone to call another indvidual a liar and not say who you are and not back it up with any kind of proof...then I say your definition of who and what is honorable is questionable.
"
-
Scott, I have truly enjoyed reading your posts, and especially the legal issues you have commented on in each of the various threads. Don't waste your breath defending yourself. Basically, you have Ginger, Deborah and Carey (it's like a scene out of Fried Green Tomatoes) trolling their own forum because two out of three just got themselves involved in a legal action. I don't know why Deborah is such a crack-pot, but I for one have found you to be more than stand-up, plus you have given everyone important legal knowledge.
-
Whew, what a relief to know Scott T. is a lawyer. Now, assuming Mr. T. doesn't object to lending his expertise at a whopping 0 dollars an hour, I am curious as to how he would advise his client to answer the following question:
1. Should people who refer children into programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?
Thank You,
A Non Anonymous Anon
-
Anon, why is it when one of you can't make your point or can't answer simple questions do you find it necessary to pat each other on the back and say don't worry about or "Don't waste your breath defending yourself."
Once again Scott, why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?
-
Freedom of speach
Scott I don't know how closely you watch these forums, however, From what you have seen, Is Deborah far from a law suit? And is what she has posted enough to warrant a law suit?
BTW why are almost all of these critics or political activist women? (I am not being sexist, just would like some feedback)
-
That was me, the one again asking Scott why he so adamantly defends Sue and PURE.
-
I've read over this link twice now.
I can find no place where Scott T has defended Sue and or PURE.
Will you post the quotes for me please?
I see where he has made some pointed observation about you and your motives; but I can find no paragraph, sentence, word or phrase in defense of PURE.
Could it be, that in your mind, any disagreement with you and your agenda equates to one being associated with PURE?
Scott T is a treasure and his posts are always to the point; thoughtful and intelligent.
You on the other hand. . .
-
On 2004-01-04 13:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Whew, what a relief to know Scott T. is a lawyer. Now, assuming Mr. T. doesn't object to lending his expertise at a whopping 0 dollars an hour, I am curious as to how he would advise his client to answer the following question:
1. Should people who refer children into programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?
Thank You,
A Non Anonymous Anon
"
Oops, meant to say I was curious as to how Mr. T. would advise his "hyperthetical client" to answer the question. I trust Mr. T. is sincere in his expressed opinion of the teen help industry, at large, and may appreciate the question, rather than indict me for asking it.
-
Scott,
Got it, pictures clear, I see where you are coming from.
Sorry, didn't mean to challenge you with that question.
Let me ask you this. If I stand up and speak out against PURE and Sue Scheff for what she and her associates did to me and my family, why does that bother or concern you? If you have a problem with WWASP, why don't you go after them? Is what ever you have agianst WWASP dependent on Sue being found innocent? I do get it, I get it crystal clear.
-
On 2004-01-04 13:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Anon, why is it when one of you can't make your point or can't answer simple questions do you find it necessary to pat each other on the back and say don't worry about or "Don't waste your breath defending yourself."
Once again Scott, why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?"
God, ain't that the truth? But lately, it's actually become rather entertaining, as opposed to flatline boring. I mean come on, how many non-answers do we have to tally up before it becomes obvious THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES?
:nworthy:
-
Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?
-
On 2004-01-04 13:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-01-04 13:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Whew, what a relief to know Scott T. is a lawyer. Now, assuming Mr. T. doesn't object to lending his expertise at a whopping 0 dollars an hour, I am curious as to how he would advise his client to answer the following question:
1. Should people who refer children into programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?
Thank You,
A Non Anonymous Anon
"
Oops, meant to say I was curious as to how Mr. T. would advise his "hyperthetical client" to answer the question. I trust Mr. T. is sincere in his expressed opinion of the teen help industry, at large, and may appreciate the question, rather than indict me for asking it."
Has Mr. T. left the room? Not too worry. I can do the bump as good as anyone else can.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
This Bump Reserved For Mt. T's In-Box.
1. Should people who refer children into programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?
-
On 2004-01-04 14:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-01-04 13:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Anon, why is it when one of you can't make your point or can't answer simple questions do you find it necessary to pat each other on the back and say don't worry about or "Don't waste your breath defending yourself."
Once again Scott, why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?"
God, ain't that the truth? But lately, it's actually become rather entertaining, as opposed to flatline boring. I mean come on, how many non-answers do we have to tally up before it becomes obvious THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES?
:nworthy: "
...and the webmistress has no brains (ha ha ha)
-
Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?
Where has he said he has any such thing? There are several attorneys and related legal folks who post; at least one other you could call Mr. T.
You sure are a piece a work lady.
-
Carey, Scott has a legit point. I, personally, don't think this fear is very well founded. But I can understand why this person might be worried.
However, this person is posting some pretty harsh allegations against you and doing it without a name. And that's not all they're posting! I can't tell you what else cause, unlike our buddy Lee, this person never agreed to claim their anon posts. It's not a legal thing, it's an ethical thing. I don't think I'm actually under any legal obligation wrt protecting ppl's anonymity. But I just wouldn't out someone who 1) is using anon posts for what I think may be legitimate reasons and 2) (more importantly) hasn't agreed to claim their anon posts.
Anon, please consider simply leaving out the allegations that you can't prove w/o busting yourself. It gets nowhere.
Carey, have you considered that this person might be more taken in by some others than intentionally complicit? I really think that's the case. And they wouldn't be the only ones. Just about everyone else, I think, has figured out that there's more to this than a clear-cut good guy/bad guy story.
If they keep engaging you anonymously, just trust that most sensible people take anon posts with at least a grain of salt.
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism--how passionately I hate them!
--Albert Einstein
-
On 2004-01-03 19:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
Why take a chance when no one knows if they will be the next one sued by someone who ain't too happy with the topic of discussion/debate?
Because I find it worth the risk to me in order to provide context and credibility to what I have to say. We are a one party country. Half of them call themselves Democrats and the other half call themselves Republicans. All the good ideas come from the Libertarians.
--Hugh Downs
-
On 2004-01-04 12:03:00, scottT wrote:
Lamentably, these are times of persecution (ask Ginger). If the program is abusive, lets oppose it. I see nothing constructive in drumming up more business for the loathesome ones' attorneys by insisting people reveal their identities as a condition of participating in this forum. Other people might.
Scott, that's one side of it. And I agree with you. Anyone who wants to can post anon on my forums. Unless I'm forced to, I will not change that policy.
But there's another set of rules that we all have to play by, they're as fair and impartial as the weather and just as imutable.
When you read something and you don't know who the author is, you can only judge their words by a few crieria. If you look at the Federalist Papers, which were all published anonymously, you'll see that the authors make no claim anywhere in them that would depend on the credibility of the author. Very often, people post anonymously in that fashion and it's very worth reading.
But some (not all, just some) of these anon posts are personal attacks and statements of fact w/o any proof at all. I'm not going to make any of the people who are doing this stop. I'm trying to stand on my no spam, no flooding policy because I think it's the best policy. But I don't expect people to take some anonymous stranger's word for something they can't prove either. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
-
On 2004-01-04 13:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
I don't know why Deborah is such a crack-pot
See, this is the sort of comment that's likely to cause someone to wonder who said that and why they believe it. Don't come cryin' ta' me when people are a little incredulous. When he [Califano] claims that the voters of Arizona and California did not know what they were voting for when they supported the two initiatives, he reminds me of the way Serbia's President Slobodan Milosevic reacted to recent election results in that country.
-- George Soros -- Sunday, February 2 1997; Page C01 The Washington Post
-
On 2004-01-04 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Freedom of speach
I don't know why Deborah is such a crack-pot
Honestly, I think it's that we're more inclined to talk things out while men are more inclined to employ coercion. That's neither good nor bad on either gender and it certainly doesn't apply to everybody. Just a generalization that's often true.
Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them.
--Thomas Paine
-
All questions are answered in the new "So Many Questions, So few up-front retainers" thread.
-
Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"
It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.To err is human; to forgive is simply not our policy.
-- MIT Assasination Club slogan
-
Ginger advises:
Anon, please consider simply leaving out the allegations that you can't prove w/o busting yourself. It gets nowhere.
Your right. Its frustrating.
I was trying to take the heat off of other good people and explain how and why certain facts from Mz Bocks deposition hit the forums so quickly.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... tart=20&26 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4068&forum=9&start=20&26)
I didn't expect her to make issue of who I am, b/c I am certain she knows.
Why she wants to de-sack me so badly, one can only guess. . . but I don't expect her motives to be very honest or pure.
As for claims that can't be proven; give it some time. As with other alligations oft denied, this to, will be confirmed. But what then?
Ginger, do you have the quote you intended up there? Don't seem to jive.
-
Ginger, you make the point:
Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"
It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yeah, I'm guessing he will too, and it'll be interesting and to the point as always.
My point however; while admittedly fuzzy; was this:
She began with a question
(you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you?)
and before she could stop and hit send, she went on to make an apparent statement of fact.
(Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?" )
She has clearly assumed the answer to her first question is Yes; and gone on to 'question' the lack of interest Mr. T has explained; insinuating he is a liar.
She went from wondering about something to assuming it to be true in just that short a period of time. This is typical for the lady in question. This is a pattern worth noting.
I think it, therefore it's true, seems to be her way of dealing with life.
If the bug gets far enough up her butt, there'll be no dissuading her; and she'll start a new campaign against yet another imagined evil foe.
-
Argh! Just browsing through then hitting the sack.
The quotes are random. It's a profile feature.
All the anons, really, seriously, the only (additional to what the server logs now) information I would have about anyone when they register a username is whatever you fill out. I don't care if it's correct or bogus. Some features won't work w/o a correct email address, but they're non-essential. If you don't want a cookie, fine, you'll just have to log in each time you want to post. That's what the cookie does. It keeps track of how long it's been since the user hit a page and keeps you logged in for 12 hours so you don't have to do that. You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
--Charles Austin Beard
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-04 21:59 ]
-
On 2004-01-04 21:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger, you make the point:
Or, in context, "Scott, for someone who has no interest in protecting PURE and Sue...you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you? Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?"
It's a question, Anon. Not a statement of fact. And I think it's a valid question. And I hope Scott will answer it. Why in the world would he not answer it? I'm guessing he will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yeah, I'm guessing he will too, and it'll be interesting and to the point as always.
My point however; while admittedly fuzzy; was this:
She began with a question
(you wouldn't happen to be the same attorney posting anonymously on the web hostess forum claiming to have a copy of Sue's suit against me and Ginger would you?)
and before she could stop and hit send, she went on to make an apparent statement of fact.
(Hmmm...no interest, then why would you have a copy of her law suit?" )
She has clearly assumed the answer to her first question is Yes; and gone on to 'question' the lack of interest Mr. T has explained; insinuating he is a liar.
She went from wondering about something to assuming it to be true in just that short a period of time. This is typical for the lady in question. This is a pattern worth noting.
I think it, therefore it's true, seems to be her way of dealing with life.
If the bug gets far enough up her butt, there'll be no dissuading her; and she'll start a new campaign against yet another imagined evil foe.
"
A pattern worth noting? Maybe to you and a couple of other people that aren't focused on the big picture. Really Anon, it's hard enough keeping up with significant details like those revealed in actual court records and depositions which speak to more important issues than whether Carey has a bug up her ass or simply jumped to the wrong conclusion. Either way, does it really matter to anybody but those who have a personal stake in this war-on-words?
:smokin:
-
//Either way, does it really matter to anybody but those who have a personal stake in this war-on-words?//
Suposse not; but some of us do.