Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2004, 06:18:00 PM
This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary.
If one does not join the direct action law suit, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome?
Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth?
Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad.
I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
Post by: Kiwi on March 08, 2004, 06:47:00 PM
Quote
What kind of plaintifs are these?
The normal kind: ones who ask the court for compensation. As I have said before, the purpose of civil courts is to provide compensation for victims of injustice. You can't say to the judge "hold the compensation but let me publicize how evil these people are". It doesn't work like that.
By the way, why do you keep starting a new thread?
[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2004-03-08 15:50 ]
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2004, 07:28:00 PM
Why do I keep starting a new thread? How about why do you keep answering a question posed to someone else?
Lets try again, this time note Kiwi, it is addressed to Spots.
Spots answer the question, will these parents settle this case quietly?
This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary.
If one does not join the direct action law suit, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome?
Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth?
Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad.
I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
Now Kiwi try and refrain from speaking for Spots. Spots is involved and has been invovled with those who originated the suit. She is the one I want to hear from. She along with the others are in this to protect the teens, they are not in it for the money. :lol: It is suppose to be all about saving children from abuse. It is not suppose to be them getting out of it what they put into it....that "it" being money.
Post by: Deborah on March 08, 2004, 08:56:00 PM
Your style is so... familiar.
Why don't you try to refrain from posting "private" messages on a "public" message board? If you want to chat it up with Spots ONLY, send her a private message. Otherwise, it's free game for whoever wants to comment on your ::spam::
Of course, the lawsuit might end in settlement. They usually do. Did you expect something different? What's the point. Stop beating around the bush and spit it out. Were you rejected as a plantiff?
Do you have a better suggestion for "saving the kids"?
Post by: Anonymous on March 08, 2004, 09:06:00 PM
Quote
Spots answer the question, will these parents settle this case quietly?
This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary.
If one does not join the direct action law suit, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome?
Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth?
Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad.
I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
Now Kiwi try and refrain from speaking for Spots. Spots is involved and has been invovled with those who originated the suit. She is the one I want to hear from. She along with the others are in this to protect the teens, they are not in it for the money. It is suppose to be all about saving children from abuse. It is not suppose to be them getting out of it what they put into it....that "it" being money.
Spots do you care to elaborate?
Post by: Deborah on March 09, 2004, 07:29:00 AM
This seems to be your primary issue. What would you have the plantiffs do anon? In other words, what exactly do you assume is within their power to do, that they are not doing?
Are you leading a campaign to save the kids, which you'd prefer the plantiffs to join instead of the lawsuit? Just trying to figure out WHERE you're coming from.
PS
It appears to me that Spots addressed those questions in another thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#39130 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4650&forum=9&start=10#39130)
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-03-09 04:38 ]
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 07:49:00 AM
Quote
Spots answer the question, will these parents settle this case quietly?
This case has gone from something public, as it has been anounced over and over again on public boards, to something quite the contrary.
If one does not join the direct action law suit, meaning if one does not claim abuse, then one doesn't get to know the outcome?
Is that the way it is going to be? Are you saying that those of us who are trying to find the truth based on all the claims these plaintifs have made may never know the truth?
Wow, I guess that means these plaintifs get paid and then they just walk away and let the abuse of other peoples children just go on? That is pretty sad.
I can't imagine that people can claim such rampant abuse...yet just take some money for it and walk away. What kind of plaintifs are these?
Now Kiwi try and refrain from speaking for Spots. Spots is involved and has been invovled with those who originated the suit. She is the one I want to hear from. She along with the others are in this to protect the teens, they are not in it for the money. It is suppose to be all about saving children from abuse. It is not suppose to be them getting out of it what they put into it....that "it" being money.
Tell me Spots how has this once highly publicized case (you know the one that his publicised in order to draw in all of those dissatisfied parents who are claiming abuse, wide spread abuse) going to help children still in these programs if it is kept quiet.
Post by: Deborah on March 09, 2004, 08:29:00 AM
So... you demand that Spots answer your questions, which she has already done, or you can answer mine.
What do you propose as an alternative anon?
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:36:00 AM
Deborah you have a lot of input on the topic of residential placement. What you don't have is any history with those involved (other than of course them monitoring through you Barbe's board/listserv) with the "class action /direct action." I am asking Spots the question because she does. She knows what this hoopla has suppose to have been about from the very beginning. It was suppost to have been about exposing those who have been accused of abuse. It has obviously changed. I am asking Spots to tell us why.
I am asking how this class action will do anything other than put money in the pockets of dissatisfied consumers. If the details are kept quiet, then these people are just that, dissatisfied consumers and not victims of abuse. From all of the accusations they have made, the rampant abuse they claim takes place within WWASP programs, how can they take a quiet settlement? HOW?
Now Deborah, you have a lot to say about everything, we all know that. But on this topic you are not privy to the details. Your input is generic and best.
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:48:00 AM
How will a quiet settlement help children who are being abused in a program that is rampant with abuse according to those behind the law suit?
Is the answer it won't....not our problem. We are just wanting money?
If what these plaintifs say is true, how will a quiet settlement help children who are still in these programs? Has all their preaching and trashing of other parents, those who still beleive in the program (in an attempt to make them see they need to save their children) all of a sudden become none of their concern as long as they get compensation, money, paid off to be quiet about it. In other words, pay us off and we will be quiet about it?
Post by: Kiwi on March 09, 2004, 11:24:00 AM
Quote
Spots has not answered the question.
She has, as Deborah has already pointed out twice. Or to be more precise, she has answered your incoherent vitriole as well as anyone possibly can. She cannot predict the outcome of a lawsuit that has not even been filed, as has also been pointed out to you. But you just ignore what you don't want to hear.
You complain about spots not answering questions but you don't answer Deborah's. What, exactly, is your problem? Quit sitting on the sidelines sniping and tell us where you stand. What do you propose? Are you insinuating the abuse didn't happen? If so, come right out and say it. Are you saying the plaintiffs are not doing enough to stop the abuse? If so, what should they be doing? And what are you doing?
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 11:34:00 AM
How will a quiet settlement help children who are being abused in a program that is rampant with abuse according to those behind the law suit?
Is the answer it won't....not our problem. We are just wanting money?
If what these plaintifs say is true, how will a quiet settlement help children who are still in these programs? Has all their preaching and trashing of other parents, those who still beleive in the program (in an attempt to make them see they need to save their children) all of a sudden become none of their concern as long as they get compensation, money, paid off to be quiet about it. In other words, pay us off and we will be quiet about it
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 11:49:00 AM
You, Madam, are incredibly RUDE! This public forum is a free-for-all, but reading through past postings reveals that even the most contentuous posters follow some sort of decorum. The most obvious violators are the posts dumping everything back onto PURE. Hhhmmm...are we dealing with a forlorn and lonely parent here who checks this forum several times a day, sniping and adding comment just to rile folks? I don't believe this person has EVER indicated that she is a happy parent of a happy WWASP graduate. Could it be she is a bored clerk in LaVerkin, UT? In any event, the lack of social grace is stunning.
Now, the blatant in-your-face nasty demands for legal info, for prognostication, or for defense of my statements tells us something about this person.
#1 she can't read or understand "answers", or really doesn't want to, because she is not really "asking", is she?
#2 she spends a lot of time on this forum, maybe because her beligerent attitude carries over into her other-world social experiences, and the computer is more friendly than real people.
#3 if she is a parent, her attitude of attacking, demanding, not listening or acknowledging information contrary to her pre-conceived stance is the quintessential WWASPS parent stance. I'm sorry for a child born to this family, but this person may have learned from her own painful life experiences with an equally-strident parent in her own past.
As I said earlier (sigh), my greatest sadness comes in knowing that there will always be such parents who demean their own children, speak of them as little darlings, manipulators, liars, etc., and treat them as adversaries to be conquered rather than children to be nurtured. WWASPS has only been in business for a decade, and they have hit a soft spot in families who have more money than brains. This will run its course, but probably be replaced in time with yet another scheme for gullible adults. What we can do now is to take away this avenue for imprisonment, and put the standards of child welfare already in place in the United States to work in Third World countries or in states with lax juvenile oversight.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 11:50:00 AM
So, what IS your position on this? Are you saying that no abuse happened or what? Just trying to clarify.
It only takes a little prescience to understand that we're all fair game for the deeds we condone.
--Antigen
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 12:27:00 PM
I have a better idea, how about telling those who seem to think they should answer for others, not not respond to question that are not directed at them. Why don't you ask them why they feel the need to answer Spots question?
Now they can comment on any thing posted here. I just don't think you, they or anyone else should expect me to accept their answer to a question posed to Spots, as it is not their answer to the question that I seek.
Spots has not answered the question.
How will this suit help children who are being abused?
If the answer Spots has is anything other than it won't, then I would like to hear it from her.
This suit was started and solicited for as a suit that would save kids from abuse. It seems to have changed. Remember these people were on a crusade to help kids who are suffering.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 12:37:00 PM
We did not inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it form our children.
Haida
Post by: Deborah on March 09, 2004, 12:40:00 PM
Not necessary to point out that Spots answered your questions OR to ask what your agenda is.
***(other than of course them monitoring through you Barbe's board/listserv)***
I'm curious what you were attempting to say here. Could you rephrase it or in some way make it intelligible.
***I am asking Spots the question because she does. She knows what this hoopla has suppose to have been about from the very beginning.***
That's just great. She answered the questions you posed. Now, is your repeatedly asking the same questions a lame attempt at calling her a liar?
***It was suppost to have been about exposing those who have been accused of abuse.***
Sweetie, please tell the rest of us idiots what you think the absolute best way to go about this is. Please. Some of us are dying to know.
***It has obviously changed. I am asking Spots to tell us why.***
Any evidence to back this up?
***I am asking how this class action will do anything other than put money in the pockets of dissatisfied consumers.***
If it does nothing more, that is okay by some. If I'd given money to them, I'd want it back and then some, for the trouble and grief.
Again, we keep hearing your criticism, but no suggestions about a different course of action. Stop bogarting. Share with us how YOU think this should be going down.
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 01:46:00 PM
Give us a break Carey. You make a lousy DA. Spots answered the question.
Spots...I don't believe any plaintiff in this suit has stated that the primary goal of this action is to stop abuse. There are as many reasons as there are plaintiffs for joining this suit, and I suspect bringing down the vehicle of their torment (WWASPS) is paramount in their minds. However, a civil suit does not work that way. One cannot go into court and "shut down" a business by claiming they abuse. That is not the function of a civil court. That is a legislative or criminal action. Publicity is a strong weapon, as is depleting the coffers of the defendent by winning a large judgement against them. But a civil suit is a very good way to implement one's vision, and there is nothing wrong with going this direction. Remember, Al Capone was finally beaten by the Feds for evading income tax...not murder, mayhem, and racketeering... but evading income tax, a proveable Federal offense. Same end result; clever method to enforce the public's will.***
She obviously didn't say what you were fishing for... that this lawsuit will not save the kids in the fashion you so desire. So what?
This is just like your bullshit speil on Ryan and the movie, "must depict the absolute truth as you perceive it; must not be classified fiction; blah blah blah".
I have a better idea too. Shut up. Email Spots privately if you want to continue to badger her and avoid questions posed to you.
I do not feel the need to answer for Spots and didn't. My comments and questions were directed to you, which you ignored... "missed". I would not be commenting if you weren't spamming the board again. You're a broken record.
While we're on the subject, how will the money you took quietly from WWASP "help the abused kids"?
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 01:53:00 PM
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 02:02:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 08:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Spots has not answered the question.
How will a quiet settlement help children who are being abused in a program that is rampant with abuse according to those behind the law suit?
Is the answer it won't....not our problem. We are just wanting money?
If what these plaintifs say is true, how will a quiet settlement help children who are still in these programs? Has all their preaching and trashing of other parents, those who still beleive in the program (in an attempt to make them see they need to save their children) all of a sudden become none of their concern as long as they get compensation, money, paid off to be quiet about it. In other words, pay us off and we will be quiet about it"
I realize you asked this question of Spots, but I'd like to offer an answer. I personally would not agree to a settlement if I couldn't disclose why I brought the suit in the first place...BUT THAT'S ME. I don't begrudge anyone doing so. I've worked in the legal field for quite some time and I know how these things work. It would be a quicker and easier way to bring publicity to 'the cause' to NOT agree to a non-disclosure clause, but the suit absolutely still has value in bringing these people down. Hit them in the pockets, that's the only place you're going to hurt them. If enough people sue, even if they settle, even if they settle with a non-disclosure, it will have an effect. It won't happen as fast, but it will happen. People may have their own private reasons for wanting to settle quickly. They may have mounting medical bills from all the damage done by the program and are in need on the finances to get real help. It this Anon is, in fact, Carey...isn't that one of the reasons you stated for accepting money from WWASP? I'm not making a judgement on that, just a comparison to this situation.
In the interest of furthering this discussion, can we move on? I don't know Spots, I don't know if she's going to answer your question but you now have a reasonable, plausible answer for it. If Spots answers later then you can take her answer up with her, but you have a valid response to your question on the field now...can we move on?
May 12-13: Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp. August 7: Began to separate the Male from the Female at Do - rather too late.
George Washington (Diary)
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 02:51:00 PM
It has not been about saving children from abuse...It has been about parents who are nothing more than dissatisfied consumers. How else could they get their money back other than to cry abuse.
If the abuse is as rampant as they say, it is a real tragedy for those teens left behind the walls of the "program." It either has to be that these plaintifs are people who have no soul and do not care for the lives teenagers who are suffering OR they are people who have cried wolf.
Remember these were people who were and have claimed to have all kinds of evidence of child abuse. The wanted their evidence to be kept and preserved for use in court. Did/do they have the evidence and are they going to agree to keep it from the public OR was there never ever any real evidence?
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 03:05:00 PM
Same program rhetoric, the ones who complain are just lying, or disgruntled, or IN DENIAL :roll: :roll:
It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep
the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages.
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 03:22:00 PM
Second, who has said that all those who claim abuse are liars? I do not remember that having been said.
The point has been made....
If the rampant abuse is/has occured...
If those claiming the abuse has occured have also claimed to have evidence of the abuse...
Yet are now willing to take a monetary settlement and walk away quietly without disclosing the evidence....
Then they are either...
Cold hearted people who are only out for themselves....
Or
They have never had any real evidence from the beginning....
You don't settle cases invovling abuse quietly. Abuse is not a case to be settled in civil court.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 03:28:00 PM
Someone DID say that...I quote "It either has to be that these plaintifs are people who have no soul and do not care for the lives teenagers who are suffering OR they are people who have cried wolf."
I don't agree with that statement.
It really puzzles me to see Marijuana connected with Narcotics - Dope and all that crap?it's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an Assistant - a friend.
Louis Armstrong
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 03:30:00 PM
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.
Mark Twain
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 04:13:00 PM
Quote
I don't feel I have the right to tell someone else how to handle their case, especially after seeing what kind of an effect settlements DO have, even in cases involving abuse, even in cases involving abuse that have non-disclosure agreements.
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. In this case I don't. These people have posted this case publically, they have made it public interest, trying to sway the publics interest. To settle it quietly now is slapp in the face to those who are looking for the truth.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 04:18:00 PM
If life were fair, Dan Quayle would be making a living asking 'Do you want fries with that?'
John Cleese
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 04:27:00 PM
You can not look at this suit as though it is some kind of car accident in which plaintifs need to be compensated.
This case is and has been about abuse. These plaintifs are claiming that abuse is the norm in these programs. If what they have been saying is true and they agree to settle quietly, then how are they any different than those who they are calling abusers. If they mean what all they have said, if there is any truth in what they have said, how can they accept money and then close their mouths to what they profess to be rampant, that of wide spread abuse?
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 04:33:00 PM
The real question is when the proposed class-action lawsuit became a direct-action and why? Perhaps one of the Anons, Spots or someone else who can answer this question, will do so, however, it is more likely they will not. After all, this is THEIR DEAL, nobody else's.
:smokin:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 04:34:00 PM
I was asking some anon, not sure which, if they believed that abuse happened in these programs. That's when the line about 'they're either after money or they don't care' came up.
So, do you believe that abuse happens in these programs? What do you consider 'rampant' enough to be considered a problem??
Personally, I believe the very basis of these programs is abusive. PERIOD!!
for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.
--Alexander Hamilton
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 04:38:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 13:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Are we talking about rampant abuse?
You can not look at this suit as though it is some kind of car accident in which plaintifs need to be compensated.
This case is and has been about abuse. These plaintifs are claiming that abuse is the norm in these programs. If what they have been saying is true and they agree to settle quietly, then how are they any different than those who they are calling abusers. If they mean what all they have said, if there is any truth in what they have said, how can they accept money and then close their mouths to what they profess to be rampant, that of wide spread abuse? "
True enough, Anon. Moreover, the pure irony in all this is disheartening.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 04:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 10:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"***I don't think it appropriate that President Bush would respond to a question asked directly of Clinton, such as why he lied in the White House, is quite the same as Clinton himself responding to a question asked of him. If I asked Clinton why he lied, I want his answer to the question not Bushs.***
Give us a break Carey. You make a lousy DA. Spots answered the question.
so, is that anon Carey???
PLEASE, ALL ANONS at least sign your anonymous posts with something like 'A1' or something so we at least know which anon asked which question. We're not asking anyone to give away their name or any other personal information, but, do you know how difficult it is to keep you guys straight???
A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.
Ludwig Von Mises
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 05:31:00 PM
Post by: spots on March 09, 2004, 07:22:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 14:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The very idea that parents would be rewarded for their child's alleged suffering turns my stomach.
A major thrust of a lawsuit against WWASPS is that parents were defrauded, that they were told their children were going to get a quality education (Harvard and "Yail" have been used [anecdotally] as next-step colleges), their children would be able to receive quality therapy by licensed therapists (one Doc of questionable caliber, mostly not available, the rest a daily session of ripping new belly buttons by other children in the same boat), quality food prepared by left-over resort chefs (a Dundee parent posting just last week was specifically promised this benefit), quality time in off-site exotic locations (not available for a least a year, most likely a lot longer and offered next-to-never at that). The signing parents interested in this suit feel they were defrauded of their money, meant to be spent to enhance their childrens' lives. They feel abused, played for suckers. They are mad, hurt, feel foolish, and...big thing here...they and their children feel poorer for the experience that nobody had in mind in the first place.
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 07:34:00 PM
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 07:43:00 PM
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe. -- My First Summer in the Sierra , 1911, page 110.
John Muir
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:00:00 PM
:???:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:07:00 PM
Yes, the parents are ultimately responsible for where their child goes, but I can tell you from personal experience both as a child and a parent that what the parents are told and what actually happens are, quite often, two VERY different things.
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
--Rep. Robert L. Henry, TX December 22, 1914 (quoting Lincoln)
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:10:00 PM
How many of these parent plaintiffs were referred by another parent, educational consultant or independent referral agent? Are these people being sued for alleging "defrauding" the parent, as well? What happens if the referring party disputes the allegation that the referred program was abusive, and/or claims that they (the referring agent) had no PRIOR knowledge of allegations of abuse? I'll tell you what happens. NOTHING. It's called a DISCLAIMER. Second, if these plaintiffs settle quietly, how can other parents, educational consultants and independent referral agents be expected to steer clear of referring other parents if they DO NOT KNOW any better?
:silly:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 08:50:00, cayohueso wrote:
"It appears that you're not getting the answer you're looking for from Spots. OK, move on to discuss this with people who ARE responding, they've asked some pointed questions of you...be the bigger person and answer those questions if you truly want to carry on a valuable discussion of this issue. Beating a dead horse is not getting you anywhere, maybe she hasn't been on the computer for a while, maybe she's sick, maybe she's busy but if she's not answering, move on to someone who is still carrying on the conversation.
So, what IS your position on this? Are you saying that no abuse happened or what? Just trying to clarify
I would still like an answer to THIS question. And the one I asked about the reference to Carey being one of the anons. Can I get an answer to those????
By 1940 the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites. Eighty percent for blacks. Notice for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were still literate. Six decades later, at the end of the 20th century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can't read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled, despite the fact that we spend three or four times as much real money on schooling as we did 60 years ago.
--Vin Suprynowicz
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:17:00 PM
The hypothalamus is one of the most important parts of the brain, involved in many kinds of motivation, among other functions. The hypothalamus controls the "Four F's": 1. fighting; 2. fleeing; 3.feeding; and 4. mating.
-- Psychology professor in neuropsychology intro course
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:19:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 17:07:00, cayohueso wrote:
"My parents visited the program I was in. Both came away from their tour with glowing reports. These parents are SCARED OUT OF THEIR MINDS with a child that may or may not be 'out of control'. The whole hype around the Drug War has become nothing more than a way for these places to scare parents into 'enrolling' their kids. My parents were truly concerned for what I was doing, as I have been numerous times with my own kids. My parents were told that I would get adequate food and care. That was FAR from what actually happened.
Yes, the parents are ultimately responsible for where their child goes, but I can tell you from personal experience both as a child and a parent that what the parents are told and what actually happens are, quite often, two VERY different things.Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
--Rep. Robert L. Henry, TX December 22, 1914 (quoting Lincoln)
"
No, blaming parents is NOT the answer, however, the reality is the parents are ultimately responsible for the care and treatment of their child while in residential care. No matter how desperate, worried, afraid for or of their children, no parent can afford to send their child away into a program sight-unseen. It just isn't smart.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:27:00 PM
Could you please answer the questions I posed to you now?
People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know.
BROOKS ATKINSON (1894-1984), Once Around The Sun, 1951.
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:28:00 PM
Quote
A major thrust of a lawsuit against WWASPS is that parents were defrauded, that they were told their children were going to get a quality education (Harvard and "Yail" have been used [anecdotally] as next-step colleges), their children would be able to receive quality therapy by licensed therapists (one Doc of questionable caliber, mostly not available, the rest a daily session of ripping new belly buttons by other children in the same boat), quality food prepared by left-over resort chefs (a Dundee parent posting just last week was specifically promised this benefit), quality time in off-site exotic locations (not available for a least a year, most likely a lot longer and offered next-to-never at that). The signing parents interested in this suit feel they were defrauded of their money, meant to be spent to enhance their childrens' lives. They feel abused, played for suckers. They are mad, hurt, feel foolish, and...big thing here...they and their children feel poorer for the experience that nobody had in mind in the first place.
What a spin on the definition of abuse. :cry2: :cry2: That is pitiful. I feel for you and your cohorts. You all sure have put a spin on this case. Why would any parent considering placement in a WWASP program think you all have ever been telling the truth. Most of us know the story about the boy who cried wolf. Do you?
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:31:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 17:27:00, cayohueso wrote:
"
Could you please answer the questions I posed to you now
OK, pretty please??? Will that work?
Janis, Jimi, Gery, Timothy... Did you HAVE to get so close to the edge to get a really good view?
-- Anonymous
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
Spots, tell it like it is, READ THE ENROLLMENT AGREEMENT. It spells everything out very clearly.
FYI, the parents don't sign the glossy brochures, they sign the enrollment agreement. They know what they are signing up for or more specifically, they know what they are signing up for in which their kids are not going to get.
The parents are not blind going in. You may have been blind to knowing what your granddaughter was being signed up for if you did not see the agreement before hand, but her mother knew full well what the program was about.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:37:00 PM
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
--Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, sentenced to death at Nuremberg
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 08:50:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 17:27:00, cayohueso wrote:
"Evidently you didn't READ my post. My parents did not send me to that place 'sight unseen'. They saw quite a bit of it. What they were told and what they saw were LIES.
Could you please answer the questions I posed to you now?People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know."
BROOKS ATKINSON (1894-1984), Once Around The Sun, 1951.
No, I understood what you said. I am simply saying that there is NO excuse for sending a child away to a program sight-unseen. It is stupid. As for parents that do visit these programs, it is not fool-proof but on-site visits (particularly those done without giving advance notice) is not a waste of time or money. Parents just need to know what to look for (or not look for, as the case may be).
Signed, Annonie
(FYI I am not the Anon you are asking for answers to your other questions)
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 09, 2004, 08:57:00 PM
Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for where their kids end up, BUT the way these programs are designed and with how scared and vulnerable the parents are at that point in their lives, it's very easy for them to be misled. The parents WANT to find an answer to what is happening and the programs are only to eager to provide one. Very often the actual procedures and 'treatments' are NOT what was described and/or shown to them.
What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of the child and the feeble mentality of the average adult.
-- Sigmund Freud
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:10:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 17:57:00, cayohueso wrote:
"Well, thank you for at least signing!! I can only hope you will continue to 'sign' your posts.
Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for where their kids end up, BUT the way these programs are designed and with how scared and vulnerable the parents are at that point in their lives, it's very easy for them to be misled. The parents WANT to find an answer to what is happening and the programs are only to eager to provide one. Very often the actual procedures and 'treatments' are NOT what was described and/or shown to them.What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of the child and the feeble mentality of the average adult.
-- Sigmund Freud
"
Right! So educate the parents. Tell them what to look and not look for. I mean, shouldn't that at least be as big a priority as promoting the rights of parents to screw up?
Annonie
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:18:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 17:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"QuoteA major thrust of a lawsuit against WWASPS is that parents were defrauded, that they were told their children were going to get a quality education (Harvard and "Yail" have been used [anecdotally] as next-step colleges), their children would be able to receive quality therapy by licensed therapists (one Doc of questionable caliber, mostly not available, the rest a daily session of ripping new belly buttons by other children in the same boat), quality food prepared by left-over resort chefs (a Dundee parent posting just last week was specifically promised this benefit), quality time in off-site exotic locations (not available for a least a year, most likely a lot longer and offered next-to-never at that). The signing parents interested in this suit feel they were defrauded of their money, meant to be spent to enhance their childrens' lives. They feel abused, played for suckers. They are mad, hurt, feel foolish, and...big thing here...they and their children feel poorer for the experience that nobody had in mind in the first place.
What a spin on the definition of abuse. :cry2: :cry2: That is pitiful. I feel for you and your cohorts. You all sure have put a spin on this case. Why would any parent considering placement in a WWASP program think you all have ever been telling the truth. Most of us know the story about the boy who cried wolf. Do you? "
Anon, you raise some interesting questions. Why would the plaintiffs want to publicize reaching a potential settlement as highly controversial as this one sounds like it could be, if they don't have to?
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:19:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 09, 2004, 09:36:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 18:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Damn, no WONDER people have a hard time talking to you guys. Promoting the right of parents to screw up???? It looks like a few people tried to get this conversation into something productive and you have to come back with a snotty comment??????????"
Yes, I'm afraid so, because parents do screw up sometimes and pretending otherwise only adds to the myth that FATHER (or mother) KNOWS BEST when in reality, there is always the potential to be either misinformed or grossly mislead about the safety and well-being of their child while in the custody and care of ANY residential school or program.
:roll:
Post by: Dr Fucktard on March 09, 2004, 09:41:00 PM
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 10, 2004, 09:38:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 10:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"***I don't think it appropriate that President Bush would respond to a question asked directly of Clinton, such as why he lied in the White House, is quite the same as Clinton himself responding to a question asked of him. If I asked Clinton why he lied, I want his answer to the question not Bushs.***
Give us a break Carey. You make a lousy DA. Spots answered the question.
Would the anon who posted this PLEASE tell us if the OTHER anon is Carey??? See?? This is why it's important to AT LEAST SIGN YOUR POSTS.
First management had plans and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination.
-- Ansley Throckmorton upon assuming the presidency of Bangor Theological Seminary in Bangor, Main per Information World 8-4-`97
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2004, 02:09:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-03-09 10:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"***I don't think it appropriate that President Bush would respond to a question asked directly of Clinton, such as why he lied in the White House, is quite the same as Clinton himself responding to a question asked of him. If I asked Clinton why he lied, I want his answer to the question not Bushs.***
Give us a break Carey. You make a lousy DA. Spots answered the questions.
Would the anon who posted this PLEASE tell us if the OTHER anon is Carey??? See?? This is why it's important to AT LEAST SIGN YOUR POSTS.
Cay, how would one Anon poster know who another Anon poster is? Do you think the two Anons know one another? Do you think they are talking off the record to one another about what they are posting?
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 10, 2004, 02:30:00 PM
And I asked another anon (or the same, who can tell) if they believed that abuse happened at WWASP facilities or not. Haven't gotten an answer to that question either.
It really puzzles me to see Marijuana connected with Narcotics - Dope and all that crap?it's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an Assistant - a friend.
Louis Armstrong
Post by: Anonymous on March 10, 2004, 02:48:00 PM
Post by: Dr Fucktard on March 10, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
Quote
Pure speculation, happens all the time, anons trying to out one another, mostly to deflect attention to or away from someone else's personal agenda.
It is my assessment that there seems to be quite a bit of intrigue on this forum. How curious. It almost seems like a spy film from the early 60's. :silly:
Post by: Anonymous on March 11, 2004, 10:18:00 PM
Does anyone posting here ever get tired of the numerous anons and the confusion that ensues?
-------------------------------------------
Nah, it goes with the territory. Everybody's got an agenda, whether it's to shoot holes in someone else's agenda or throw in their 2 cents to add to the confusion. Either way, it's all in a day's work ...
::bigsmilebounce:: ::drummer:: ::deal:: :rofl: