Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on January 20, 2005, 04:09:00 PM
-
What does all this mean? I'm looking through a lot of the old posts and see a lot of finger pointing by PURE. I want to know who they refer to, if they use the same therapeutic model as Cross Creek/or other WWASPS programs. What the tuition is vs. Cross Creek and what those programs have for the family. It sounds like from their website, they have somewhat the same purpose as WWASPS, to bring families back together.
I asked for information from them regarding a friend's child that needs intensive therapy/medication and they sent me a notice saying that they found the perfect wilderness program! Not cool. They don't even share what they do with people asking for help.
I know this has been asked in other posts that I've seen, probably more than I've seen. What is the secret? Just show us a partial list, so you don't appear to be covering up similar programs that pay you, vs. WWASPS not paying you. Every other educational consultant will share this info, but they aren't really educational consultants, right? Anyway, here's an interesting site or two.
http://www.wwaspsrebuttal.com (http://www.wwaspsrebuttal.com)
http://www.purerebuttal.com (http://www.purerebuttal.com)
That so called winning court case - where can we find out about what really happened. I don't get that it was about proving abuse, but about being able to slander as long as someone says they said it was true? I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
-
http://isaccorp.org/wwasps/kbobservations.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/wwasps/kbobservations.pdf)
http://isaccorp.org/wwasps/retrialdenied.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/wwasps/retrialdenied.pdf)
As if you really want to talk about any of this.
:roll:
-
it means for information pertaining to P.U.R.E. you need to contact the OWNER / FOUNDER; Sue Scheff. as far as i know she is the sole owner and operator of this establishment? i beleive isac's has the court documents to support the case? you may want to contact them concerning the case and P.U.R.E.'s school list.
-
The Internet is even more unreliable. It is often a haven for fabrications, lies, biases, rumors, and gossip. This is because anyone can post anything on the Internet as factual even though inaccurate or even down right dishonest. Most forums don't require you to even identify yourself nor do they monitor or preview any postings for accuracy or honesty.
The current plan orchestrated by the Competitor and the Child?s Rights Activist is to have a few former students file a lawsuit.
The goal of filing a lawsuit is to attempt to give the allegations creditability in the minds of the general public where there is actually no creditability to these claims. For example: The allegations are from a few struggling former teens with maligned backgrounds, obvious motives, and long histories of lying, dishonesty, exaggerations, and deception. Countering their allegations are the numerous other students and staff that were there during the time the allegations were suppose to have happened. Additionally, each School and Programs have at the facility on a daily basis a number of professionals including teachers, therapist (many who are independently contracted by the parents), nurses, visiting doctors, and others who are all under a professional and legal responsibility to report any abuse. All of these professionals are trained to identify abuse or potential abuse. The many Professionals are happy to testify concerning the quality of care at each of the facilities and that there have been no need for reports of abuse made by them or others who work closely with the facilities on a daily basis
-
Bottom-line: Which is more credible a few struggling former students with an axe to grind and history of dishonesty OR the numerous testimonies of objective students, staff, parents, professionals, and Independent Third Party Agencies. The answer is quite obvious, for this reason the WWASP believes the organizers of the lawsuit don't really believe they can win but just want to file the suits to try to damage the WWASP Reputation and to appear more credible and justified when they have to face a jury for their actions in the Defamation and Business Interference Suit brought against them by the WWASP.
-
On 2005-01-20 13:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
The answer is quite obvious, for this reason the WWASP believes the organizers of the lawsuit don't really believe they can win but just want to file the suits to try to damage the WWASP Reputation and to appear more credible and justified when they have to face a jury for their actions in the Defamation and Business Interference Suit brought against them by the WWASP.
Yeah, that worked out real well for them LAST time didn't it. :roll: :roll: They tried to sue for slander and didn't win. Obviously the "stories" that were being told about them had some truth or WWASP would have WON their suit.
-
"The Internet is even more unreliable. It is often a haven for fabrications, lies, biases, rumors, and gossip. This is because anyone can post anything on the Internet as factual even though inaccurate or even down right dishonest. Most forums don't require you to even identify yourself nor do they monitor or preview any postings for accuracy or honesty."
So says the anonymous :wstupid:
Thats funny. Lots of kids with no 'struggling' or 'history of dishonesty' at all also say that, and the students, staff, parents, and 'third party agences' have a conflict of interest - more often than not money. Plenty of students WITH a history of dishonesty come out of the program and say things FOR it.
So, where does the logic train get off again?
Impiety: Your irreverence toward my deity.
--Ambrose Bierce
-
Nihilanthic
The anon wwasp is just posting blocks of text from the PURE rebuttel site. They do this now and then.
It is just a transparent attempt to defame Sue and PURE with out having to defend their own actions.
And with regard to the questions about Sue and PURE - the other anon has a good point - If you have legitimate questions; and aren't just looking to harrass and hassle; why not call and ask Sue?
If you want to know how she vets the programs she refers to, ask her. I don't think its a big secrete just because the info isn't splashed all over Fornits. Sue is not a fan of Fornits, ya know. She isn't likely to open up to sarcastic demeaning questions and remarks - but she is very approachable.
On the occasions I have had questions, I have found her willing enough to explaine.
We don't always agree; But I have always felt I understood her position.
I doubt you and she would agree on every issue of concern, (if any) but you would not find her shy about explaining her point of view.
Lots of people are grateful PURE exist and provides alternatives to WWASP and like programs; and while I know the use of escorts is extremely controversial; many feel they are on occasion essential. I know you and many other strongly disagree. I am not trying to debate the problem with you - only to explain there are those grateful someone is trying to provide an alternative sorce for a needed service.
And as for the criticism she is just out to make a buck in the business - I can tell you, after knowing her for over two years, I do not believe this is the case. I am of the opinion she began PURE to provide families with an alternative source of information; and as an alternative resource for parents who have troubled teens they are very worried about. The average family looking at program options has tried everything else there is to try and found it all useless. I Know you and others disagree - but like it or not - these families are going to try and find a program in the hope it will help where nothing else could. If it turns out that one of the programs PURE refers to is less than well managed and safe - I believe she would be responsible about it. I trust her to be so, because I am confident it isn't about the money with her.
Sue does not need PURE as a source of income. The money is not the motive. It really is more of a heart felt passion to try and make a difference for the better. She didn't want to talk about the problem without providing an alternative - and I do honestly believe this is why PURE exist. My opinion, based on my experience of Sue.
It is true, I don't know much about PURE. Never dealt with PURE. But I do know Sue. She and I have had our ups and downs. At times, we have been at each others throats. But she has remained true to the corse in our common goal - and I have found her a trustworthy and passionate advocate for the kids.
I'm not trying to convince you she is all sweetness and light - just that you should be aware she is far more complex that her detractors would have you believe - and her heart for the kids is genuine.
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-20 15:45 ]
-
On 2005-01-20 15:40:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Nihilanthic
It is just a transparent attempt to defame Sue and PURE with out having to defend their own actions.
No, I think you've got it backward. They go to some effort to establish the idea that WWASP and PURE are pretty much the same. In their view (aka alternate reality) that's not defamatory, that's complimentary.
They then go on to defame and disparage all the kids, all the parents, all the journalists and everybody else who has stated by word and deed that WWASP is not kosher as being either affiliated w/ or just like Sue.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
Well Put Ginger. Really well put.
::cheers::
-
Buzzkill, even if her heart IS in the right place, you can love people to death.
Frankly I'm too cynical to give a damn about someone's perceptions of her motives. The ACTIONS are what I care about. No offence, of course.
PURE is funded by schools and they openly state that. MORE THAN LIKELY, THOSE ARE WHERE THE KIDS ARE REFERRED TO.
She doesnt say which programs, doesnt say how they work or operate, just that they have behavior mod or tough love or boot camp or whatever programs and its ALTERNATIVE TO WWASPS.
They're STILL the same sort of programs! I've seen nothing that would indicate how they operate in detail, at all! How about some friggin' details?
Its still 'the industry'. For all we know the same kind of crap goes on just with a different flavor.
This is a copypaste of their list o' programs:
* Teen Addiction
* Teen violence/Rage/Anger
* Teen Truancy
* Teen Substance Abuse (Drug &
Alcohol Abuse)
* Teen Depression
* Teen Gangs
* Teen Runaways
* Teen Suicide
* Teen Cults
* Troubled Teens, Problem Teens
* Struggling Teens At Risk Teens
* Underachiever, Lacks Motivation
* ADD/ADHD/LD/ODD and Bipolar Teens
* Peer Pressure
* Defiant, Disrespectful and Rebellious Teens
* Military Schools and Academies
* Behavior Modification Programs
* Alternative Schools and Programs
* Residential Treatment facilities
* Therapeutic Boarding Schools
* Boarding Schools for Struggling Teens
* Tough Love
* Adoption
So, Buzzkill, you tell me why I'd be suspicious. These mystery programs are paying off pure for referrals. The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.".
--George Washington, Revolutionary War General and U.S. President
[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-01-20 17:56 ]
-
Apparently the jury felt the video the Mexican Government provided substantiated the so call slander,defamation.
Get your story straight.
The facts,video ,testimonies of employees substantiated the claims of mistreatment.
-
http://www.purerebuttal.com/WWASPS_PRESS_REBUTTAL.pdf (http://www.purerebuttal.com/WWASPS_PRESS_REBUTTAL.pdf)
This is one that I've not seen. Does this mean that PURE brought in people that were not affiliated with WWASPS as well as some that were? Can someone shed a little more light on the "Let Freedom Ring rebuttal?" Did the jury hear from those that were never abused or even saw abuse? Or wasn't that allowed?
-
On 2005-01-20 19:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://www.purerebuttal.com/WWASPS_PRESS_REBUTTAL.pdf
This is one that I've not seen. Does this mean that PURE brought in people that were not affiliated with WWASPS as well as some that were? Can someone shed a little more light on the "Let Freedom Ring rebuttal?" Did the jury hear from those that were never abused or even saw abuse? Or wasn't that allowed? "
They're talking about High Impact. WWASP pretends High Impact was nothing to do with them but an employee at the trial testified that it was and that he had been instructed to pretend otherwise. Funny how the rebuttal glosses over that bit.
-
HIGH IMPACT BOOT CAMP
Baja California, Mexico
Dwayne Lee, Admissions Coordinator ?
Parent Resources Hotline
Hurricane, Utah
800-793-5156
[I called their web site number to ask some questions about the Parent Resources Hotline, identifying myself as an educational consultant. The person answering the phone informed me he was only authorized to send a packet of information and did not answer any of my questions. The packet I received included a photocopy of a letter from Dwayne Lee of Parent Resources Hotline, a Sample Daily Schedule for WWASP Programs, a brochure for High Impact, a Video Tape and a brochure for the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs: Casa by the Sea, Carolina Springs Academy, Cross Creek Academy, Spring Creek Lodge and Tranquility Bay. Apparently Parent Resources Hotline exclusively markets High Impact and WWASP programs.-Lon]
High Impact describes itself as a 28 day+ boot camp for defiant teens ?that is well defined and well structured. This experience is designed to help teens replace destructive attitudes and behaviors with new perspectives and direction in their lives. This is accomplished by focusing on the three R?s of Reality, Respect, and Responsibility.? One of their stated goals ?is to help participants gain an appreciation for home and family by learning to take total and complete responsibility for themselves.? They use a ranch setting ?along with the rigors of an authentic military type schedule?.? The typical schedule presented starts with ?Wakeup? at 6:00 AM, and ?Shutdown? at 8:00 PM, including four hours of ?Marching? and six hours of ?Worksheets.? The remaining time is devoted to Hygiene, Inspection and meals. ?Staff members maintain 24-hour ?round the clock? supervision and interaction with participants. They teach values, acceptable behavioral norms and proper respect for authority?.Our ?gender separated? compound? is designed to create an environment with ?minimal distraction.?
The program describes its short-term program as a ?wake-up? call for the teen, that parents can use to buy some time while deciding whether to enroll their child in their long-term program. The audiotape sent with the promotional packet consisted of a number of testimonials by parents and ex-students, mostly, however, apparently referring to the long-term WWASP programs rather than High Impact. A price list was included for the various WWASP programs, but none for High Impact.
Woodbury Reports, Inc. | 7119 2nd St | PO Box 1107 | Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 | 208-267-5550
Copyright © 1995-2004 by Woodbury Reports Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
TEEN HELP IN THE NEWS
(December 26, 2001) Lou Kilzer, a staff reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, writes of a girl and other children being pulled from a boot camp program in Mexico called High Impact, and alleges the program had deplorable conditions and is closely associated with Teen Help and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP). In a statement released on the Strugglingteens.com discussion Board, Ken Kay, President of WWASP asserts High Impact is not owned or marketed by Teen Help, and the ?article was riddled with blatant inaccuracies and falsehoods.? Lou Kilzer has written several articles in the past critical of WWASP and Teen Help.
-
Any of you folks who know how to post pictures, write me, I'll send you one taken at High Impact for posting. I can't figure out how to post pictures - wish I could.
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-21 07:23 ]
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2005-01-20 19:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://www.purerebuttal.com/WWASPS_PRESS_REBUTTAL.pdf
This is one that I've not seen. Does this mean that PURE brought in people that were not affiliated with WWASPS as well as some that were? Can someone shed a little more light on the "Let Freedom Ring rebuttal?" Did the jury hear from those that were never abused or even saw abuse? Or wasn't that allowed? "
They're talking about High Impact. WWASP pretends High Impact was nothing to do with them but an employee at the trial testified that it was and that he had been instructed to pretend otherwise. Funny how the rebuttal glosses over that bit.
What employee did they bring in? Was it someone other than Amberly Knight? Amberly Knight's testimony? Her sworn statements change from case to case.
-
Chris:
//They're STILL the same sort of programs! //
Now see, you don't know anything of the sort. You are afraid this might be the case; your suspicious - but you don't Know any such thing.
I feel confident this is not the case. I also do not Know - However - I do Know Sue, and as a result, I feel confident the programs she would refer to are not anything like The Program.
As for why she doesn't list the programs she refers to, I can only speculate - but I can come up with a good reason or two. Mostly, I suspect there is the desire to avoid a bunch of kooks and goof balls harassing them.
Sue has told me she doesn't refer to outdoor adventure programs. Myself, I think Out Ward Bound would be one to consider referring to; but as for all the outward bound wannabees - I agree -far to dangerous.
The manner in which PURE is funded is a source of controversy. I can see both sides and so don't bother to argue the issue either way. Sue is doing what feels right to her, and that's her choice.
As for information anyone might have about abuse taking place in a program you feel PURE refers to; Why not just talk to her about it? Maybe you know something she doesn't; or maybe she can explain why it isn't a legitimate concern.
-
Their good buddy Lon makes it clear High Impact was WWASP:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#77033 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=7885&forum=9&start=10#77033)
The transcripts of the trail will be available soon. You'll be able to read for yourself who said what. Be sure to read over Ken Kay's testimony. I personally feel it was the some of the most enlightening of the trial.
::read::
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-21 07:46 ][ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-21 07:49 ]
-
I feel confident this is not the case. I also do not Know - However - I do Know Sue, and as a result, I feel confident the programs she would refer to are not anything like The Program.
As for why she doesn't list the programs she refers to, I can only speculate - but I can come up with a good reason or two. Mostly, I suspect there is the desire to avoid a bunch of kooks and goof balls harassing them.
Karen this is another "trust the program" way of thinking. If the programs are "good" then why not list them? Why do we have to blindly trust you are your protege?
-
The issuse the jury heard was WWASP claims of slander and defamation.They claimed that Sue posted the negative facts to promote Pure.
She provided documentation,testimonies from witnesses to SUBSTANTIATE the origanl post to be truth not slander or defamation.
The truth hurts and the Program doesnt want the truth to be known.
It doesnt matter how many "happy parents " there may be. If any kid has been hurt,its one too many.
-
Happy Program Parents; Faithful legions; brainwashed masses - take your pick.
Reminds me of the poem, Little Boxes; "their all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same."
:roll: Some mysterious anon asks:
Why do we have to blindly trust you are your protege?
You don't; and nothing I said indicates I think you should.
-
I feel confident the programs she would refer to are not anything like The Program.
Based on what Karen, "blind faith" or "blind trust." Is that where your confidence comes from?
-
Based on what Karen, "blind faith", "blind trust?" How is it that you are so confident that the schools PURE refers to are not anything like "The Program?"
-
On 2005-01-21 07:45:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Their good buddy Lon makes it clear High Impact was WWASP:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#77033 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=7885&forum=9&start=10#77033)
The transcripts of the trail will be available soon. You'll be able to read for yourself who said what. Be sure to read over Ken Kay's testimony. I personally feel it was the some of the most enlightening of the trial.
::read::
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-21 07:46 ][ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-01-21 07:49 ]"
WWASPS referred kids to High Impact, as did other similar programs. Parent Resources is not Teen Help from what I'm seeing. Parent Resources referred to High Impact, as well as other programs including WWASPS. An educational consultant also refers to many different programs. What's the connection other than they referred the toughest kids to High Impact? WWASPS, each individual school, also refers kids to programs outside of their family of schools. Too bad they referred to High Impact in such cases, but I've since heard that kids that went there improved tremendously, though it wouldn't have been my choice.
-
Parent Resources is not Teen Help
:rofl:
-
Find us a kid who was in High Impact that didn't come in from a wwasp program.
Find us a school/program that sent kids to High Impact that wasn't wwasp.
You can no more find either example than you can find a pig with wings.
-
/Parent Resources is not Teen Help from what I'm seeing./
You aint looking deep enough. It is your pals at WWASP who treated kids in this brutal and inexcusable manor.
Get you head out of your ass and read the review Lon wrote. He called and asked about High Impact -and got a bunch of info on the various wwasp programs. A price list for the various wwasp programs. No Other programs. None. WWASP programs. High Impact was WWASP. They were working on a High Impact at Dundee when they got raided. Thet'd be doing the same things in Costa Rica today if Costa Rica hadn't intervened.
-
Thet'd be doing the same things in Costa Rica today if Costa Rica hadn't intervened.
"
They're doing these things at Costa Rica right now... Dundee has been re-opened as Pillars of Hope :cry:
-
Little houses on a hillside and they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just like boxes and they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses all went to the university where they all got put in boxes and they all came out the same.
And the children will all grow up and go to the university where they'll all get put in boxes and they'll all come out the same.
Little houses on a hillside and they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just like boxes and they all look just the same.
----------------------------
It was a popular song--I think in the sixties--and it doesn't have nearly the same impact in print without the tune. The tune is one of those cheerful, sing-song, half-insane little tunes that really has a "Stepford" feel to it. It's a great song.
I learned it from a friend who was a few years older and a 'Nam vet/draftee. He was a really great Irish Folk musician, made his living playing in the pubs locally. We lost him to lung cancer back at Thanksgiving and there are a whole lot of people who miss him a lot.
Timoclea
-
I feel confident the programs she would refer to are not anything like The Program.
Based on what Karen, "blind faith" or "blind trust." Is that where your confidence comes from?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#77052 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=7885&forum=9&start=20#77052)
Anonymous
Unregistered User My two cents
Posted: 2005-01-21 12:30:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on what Karen, "blind faith", "blind trust?" How is it that you are so confident that the schools PURE refers to are not anything like "The Program?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen, you are a lot like Narvin in that when the questions get tough, you stop anwering. What gives? How can you be so confident in something (PURE's programs) if you admit to knowing nothing about them? Is that not "blind faith?"
(Of cource when refering to be a lot like Narvin, that applies if that was truely Narvin posting in the other thread.)
-
There is a bit more to the lyrics:
Little Boxes
by Malvina Reynolds
Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
-
'Bout this:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#77259 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=7885&forum=9&start=30#77259)
and her other goofy, harping posts:
I try to ignore this Bock Bitch, but an honest question, from an honest person, is seldom ignored by me.
Besides, I think my post on this thread clearly answer the question. If this goofy harpy can't understand what's been said, why say more?
And Bock - you do realize the bag will be no protection if your legal problems end you up on trial in court, don't you?
-
I'm not Carey and I really WOULD like an answer to that question. It seems rather important. Seriously, I'm asking a legitimate question, if you've already posted about it could I please have a link to it? I don't even know much about whatever is going on between WWASP and PURE...I just would like an answer, please.
-
I don't believe you.
And I don't give a ratts ass what you want.
-
Well, that's really sad then. I can't stand Carey for the way she comes across to people. I was more 'on your side' (for lack of a better term)....I just wanted a little more information.
-
Come on Karen, you have to admit it is a good question. Why are you so confident in PURE's programs if you don't know anything about them. Is your confidence not based on "blind trust" and "blind faith?"
Give it a try. Be a good sport! Just admit it and move on.
-
"And Bock - you do realize the bag will be no protection if your legal problems end you up on trial in court, don't you?"
Good morning Buzzard. What have I done wrong?
Oh yeah and while we are talking let me ask you, how is your friend Craig? You know, the other program beneficiary.[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2005-01-22 08:51 ]
-
Besides, I think my post on this thread clearly answer the question.
Where does it "clearly" answer the question. Could you please show me? Just cut and paste the answer to:
Based on what Karen, "blind faith" or "blind trust." Is that where your confidence comes from? Answer specifically why you are confident in PURE's programs if you know nothing about them. If you have never been there and spent anytime there, if you don't know who works there and what their training is, then how is it that you are so confident?
It sounds like it is because you "trust" or have "faith" in PURE, blind trust and/or blind faith.
-
On 2005-01-21 07:41:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Chris:
//They're STILL the same sort of programs! //
Now see, you don't know anything of the sort. You are afraid this might be the case; your suspicious - but you don't Know any such thing.
I feel confident this is not the case. I also do not Know - However - I do Know Sue, and as a result, I feel confident the programs she would refer to are not anything like The Program.
As for why she doesn't list the programs she refers to, I can only speculate - but I can come up with a good reason or two. Mostly, I suspect there is the desire to avoid a bunch of kooks and goof balls harassing them.
Sue has told me she doesn't refer to outdoor adventure programs. Myself, I think Out Ward Bound would be one to consider referring to; but as for all the outward bound wannabees - I agree -far to dangerous.
The manner in which PURE is funded is a source of controversy. I can see both sides and so don't bother to argue the issue either way. Sue is doing what feels right to her, and that's her choice.
As for information anyone might have about abuse taking place in a program you feel PURE refers to; Why not just talk to her about it? Maybe you know something she doesn't; or maybe she can explain why it isn't a legitimate concern. "
Is this the post you're referring to when you say you've answered that question??? Cause I don't see it anywhere in there.
-
The Angry Man
The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street -
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled ?Tolerance.?
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, ?I am he
who champions total liberty -
Intolerance being, Ma?am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.
When I meet rogues,? he cried,
?Who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner -
Till they cry mercy, ma?am.? His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there,
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
?Let the Intolerant beware!?
Phyllis Mc Ginely
-
My God! If you could comprehend even the little sanctimonious bit of meaning in that poem... well, maybe you wouldn't fall for every charismatic that comes along.
So what's the answer? Aside from your affection for her, what else comprises your basis for trust in Sue to send kids off to Utah and Mexican programs? The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry
-
Hi Ginger!
I understand the poem very well. Its long been a favorite of mine. I am aware of the apparent irony, but I would argue our differing points of view, have a lot to do with our differing interpretations.
Here on Fornits, who is it gets beat up for cherishing oppositional views?
On another forum, the roles might well be flipped.
But what its about, is the hostility so many feel towards anyone who disagrees with the politically correct, accepted group think; And The subsequent efforts to berate the odd ball into submission.
I personally have no problem with those who disagree with me. I hope I've been clear on that point. I do have problems with the actions of some, the inaction of others, but not with differing points of view.
As for my thoughts on Sue - I have re-read my posts here, and I do think I explained myself well enough. I was not trying to convince you or Chris or anyone to blindly trust Sue, or me, or any body or anything.
I Personally, trust Sue to be responsible, because I know her. I Personally feel her motives are not monetary and that she believes she is providing an essential alternative source of info and assistance. I base this on what I know of her after more than two years of interaction with her; some of which has been heated and oppositional. That's what I base it on.
The only reason I bother to state my point of view, is to let forum readers know there are people who know her, and who view her in a far more positive light than what is typically found on Fornits. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind - just to provide a little equal time, ya might say.
Heres another little poem along the lines of Angry Man
Much madness is divinest sense
to a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur - you're straightaway dangerious,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
-
Dear Buzzkill,
Your sincerity is clear but so is how clearly you miss the point. Let's agree that Sue is sincere and well intentioned. Let's agree that she believes she is providing a good service. Let's agree that she has done something valuable by helping to expose the reality of WWASP.
That is not enough because she is also a person who is using her anti waasp marketing model to provide assistance to parents looking for help for their family situation. She is doing that in a fundamentally dishonest way by not disclosing the programs that she represents and by referring to programs that she is not qualified to investigate or evaluate. Her egregious misrepresentations about her background on her website alone should be enough to make you suspicious.
She is part of the community of consultants that make their money from the tough love industry. She is not part of the community of people who view all such programs cynically until they meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that their "program" is based on research, science or something other then the charisma or charm of the operators or a couple of anecdotal stories from parents happy to have their uncontrollable children out of their homes in what they believe is a safe place. You can't be in both communities at the same time and her efforts to market her services in the way she does will continue to make her the subject of fair criticism from those of us who have been at this for a while and are justifiably cynical.
-
On 2005-01-21 07:41:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Chris:
//They're STILL the same sort of programs! //
Now see, you don't know anything of the sort. You are afraid this might be the case; your suspicious - but you don't Know any such thing. I feel confident this is not the case. I also do not Know -
So, then you're saying that you feel confident that the programs PURE refers to are not the same as THe Program based solely on your trust of Sue? Is that correct? You admit you don't know for sure, because she refuses to list them. Am I reading this correctly?
-
Karen - BUzzill -
Did PURE refer to Abundant Life Academy? I'm not asking if she referred you and your son to ALA, but did she refer others there?
-
//her efforts to market her services in the way she does will continue to make her the subject of fair criticism from those of us who have been at this for a while and are justifiably cynical. //
I freely concede Sue and PURE are controversial. I'm not trying to argue otherwise. I really don't want to debate the point at all. I'm only giving my opinion based on my experience; and I feel it is as valid as yours; and more valid than that of those who don't know her at all.
//So, then you're saying that you feel confident that the programs PURE refers to are not the same as The Program based solely on your trust of Sue? Is that correct? You admit you don't know for sure, because she refuses to list them. Am I reading this correctly? //
No, your not reading it correctly. You are adding your own preconceived prejudices to my statement.
I am confident she does not refer to 'WWASP like' programs, because I am confident she knows how to recognize such programs as a result of her own WWASP experience; and as a result of my experience of her, I am confident she would never consent to send a teen to such a place.
I am not saying I am confident that every program PURE refers to is perfect and trouble free. I have no idea what problems they might have; or which programs they might be.
I am saying, I believe, as a result of knowing Sue, that if problems are pointed out, she would look into it; And if found to be legitimate and serious she would respond appropriately.
I've never yet seen evidence to the contrary.
I do think it unfair to make blanket statements, such as Chris made, based on fear and innuendo. I don't think he meant to be unfair - just that he was parroting the ideas he picked up from reading others thoughts and suspicions, accepted it as Truth, and commented without thinking it through.
And again - I know Lots of people disagree with Sue's business practices. Lots of people are opposed to anyone referring to any program. Lots of people are opposed to the use of escorts. As a result, PURE will always be controversial. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on any of these issues. But it is unjust to paint her as some greedy, heartless, money grubber b/c you disagree with her on these issues. That is my only point.
I have a question for our thread starter:
What is the difference between WWASP and WWASPS?
-
//So, then you're saying that you feel confident that the programs PURE refers to are not the same as The Program based solely on your trust of Sue? Is that correct? You admit you don't know for sure, because she refuses to list them. Am I reading this correctly? //
I am confident she does not refer to 'WWASP like' programs, because I am confident she knows how to recognize such programs as a result of her own WWASP experience; and as a result of my experience of her, I am confident she would never consent to send a teen to such a place.
That's pretty much saying that you are confident that she doesn't refer to WWASP-like programs because of your trust of Sue because of your experience with her. How is that any different than how I interpreted it?
-
Did PURE refer to Abundant Life Academy? I'm not asking if she referred you and your son to ALA, but did she refer others there?
Now, I can't imagian why you are so obsessed with this, but if you must know, why don't you ask her? Or Craig?
If you want to talk to me about it, give me a ring.
-
What is wrong with just answering the question? Seriously, I don't get this. I honestly don't know much about this so I'm trying to figure it out. What's with all the mystery?? Why all the evasiveness...on BOTH sides of this?? I don't get it.
-
based solely on trust/
I think this changes the meaning ever so slighty.
You admit you don't know for sure, because she refuses to list them. /
I admit no such thing. It has nothing to do with weather or not she list them. I feel I do know they are not "wwasp like". I don't know they are trouble free. Listing them would not change this at all.
-
WHY do you feel they are not WWASP-like?
-
The practice of earning your living from programs you do not disclose and the practice of keeping secret the fact that you are working as an agent for undisclosed schools is not CONTROVERSIAL. It is WRONG! Controversial is a word used to describe something about which reasonable people could differ. What is the argument that justifies PURE's business method of keeping its relationship with the programs it works for secret. How unfair is it to the parents (buyers) who think that the "secret" agent is working for them when she is actually working for the program (sellers).
The success of these awful programs is based on convincing parents to TRUST the operators based on faith in their personal qualities that they show you rather then on objective information. That is exactly the basis on which you ask us to TRUST Pure. Pure's seemimg sincerity combined with awful business practices should make you more skeptical, not less!
-
What is wrong with just answering the question? Seriously, I don't get this. I honestly don't know much about this so I'm trying to figure it out. What's with all the mystery?? Why all the evasiveness...on BOTH sides of this?? I don't get it.//
Nothing wrong . . .
I just don't want to.
I think I am irritated with the bag over your head and your evasiveness about who you are and why you want to know. If you really want to talk about it; and there is no particular reason you don't want me to know who I'm talking to - give me a call, and we'll talk about it.
Oh, and as it might get lost in all the frequent posting and new pages - here is my question for the Thread starter:
What is the differenc between WWASP & WWASPS?
-
Why can you not understand this:
I am not asking you or anyone to trust anyone or thing.
-
On 2005-01-23 10:58:00, BuzzKill wrote
Nothing wrong . . .
I just don't want to.
OK, well I guess that answers that.
I think I am irritated with the bag over your head and your evasiveness about who you are and why you want to know.
Why should it matter who is asking? Honestly, I understand it's irritating keeping anons apart, apologies for that, but what difference does it make? It's a fair question. I'm someone who was in a program years ago. I've got kids of my own. I have an interest in this. I'm not an extremely active participant in "the cause". I'm just interested in what all the controversy is about. I've seen this debate/arguement going on here for, what? a couple of years now. To be honest, I don't keep up on it because the tone of Carey, you and a few others makes most of us just want to quit reading it. It gets frustrating. So, I just thought I'd try to cut through all the sniping, not take anyone else's word for anything and go straight to the sources and just ASK. Silly me...I thought I might be able to get some clear answers so that I could be better able to figure out how I feel about this.
-
//So, I just thought I'd try to cut through all the sniping, not take anyone else's word for anything and go straight to the sources and just ASK. //
And this is exactly what I suggest you do.
-
OK. In this particular case I'm asking why you don't think that the programs PURE refers to are WWASP-like. What do you base this on? I don't know if they are or not, I"m asking why you think they are not WWASP-like.
I am confident she does not refer to 'WWASP like' programs, because I am confident she knows how to recognize such programs as a result of her own WWASP experience; and as a result of my experience of her, I am confident she would never consent to send a teen to such a place.
Is this your answer to that question?
-
On 2005-01-23 10:49:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"based solely on trust/
I think this changes the meaning ever so slighty.
Well, then tell me what else you do base it on.
-
::bump:: Buzzkill, could you please answer?
-
I just skimmed over this and I didnt get all of it but yeah, I'm wondering too:
How does Sue automagically know the programs are not "wwasps like"... why wont she say upfront what the referred-to programs are, and why is it the website is full of warnings about bad programs, we need reform and regulation, bla bla bla...
But we're STILL in the dark about the inner workings of the programs... or even THEIR NAMES AND LOCATIONS! LOL.
I'm smelling something fishy here. Even if they are totally great, WHY the secrecy here?
If her experience with WWASPS was so damn bad... why not do EVERYONE a favor and demonstrate that these programs are not bad, and how they work, let us see the inside, etc.
If she has nothing to hide and the website for PURE indicates how it really does operate... why not just show? Even WWASPS shows which programs it has!
Sheesh!He who laughs lasts
--Crazy Mac
-
I agree that all the secrecy is very suspect. It seems that most of the websites are becoming less informative. Only a few months ago you could download a lot more information on the various program websites, sometimes even their contracts. I agree that if P.U.R.E. is so eager to help parents make informed decisions, they should at least identify the programs they support so parents could check them out on their own. I am beginning to think there is no such thing as a worthwhile program, even the real delinquents would be better off in state or county juvenile facilities, at least they would have access to legal representation, medical care and maybe even some counseling with a person who went to college.
-
I hate to belabor the point, but you folks haven't seemed to understand - there is no such thing as a PURE program.
I don't think the ed cons like Lon or Tom provide a list of programs they refer to. I know they have adds up all over their sites; but apparently, this does not mean they refer to the promoted programs. I mean, according to Lon, anyway. Try calling and asking any of these folks to give you the list of programs they refer to.
I got a feeling it won't go over so well.
I can't recall ever seeing a list like you are suggesting PURE should provide. If they don't accept Program advertising, More power to them, I'd say.
Yes, Teen Help lists all the programs they refer to - and they are all WWASP/S programs. You'll not catch them referring to any that aren't.
But there is no such thing as a PURE program.
As I understand it, the parents are given a list of programs to consider; and they then do the follow up and decide which one might be best suited. Unlike the wwasp/s situation, They aren't owned by PURE or Sue or her kinfolk.
Why does it make you all crazy wanting to know which Programs PURE refers too? Does it bother you not knowing which program Lon or Tom or Scott, and on and on, refer to? Don't you think you deserve their list of referred to programs as well? Its really kind of strange, this obsession with PURE.
-
On 2005-01-24 15:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
Why does it make you all crazy wanting to know which Programs PURE refers too? Does it bother you not knowing which program Lon or Tom or Scott, and on and on, refer to? Don't you think you deserve their list of referred to programs as well? Its really kind of strange, this obsession with PURE.
It's really not so strange at all. Everybody knows what Lon Woodbury is all about. He doesn't present himself as saving anybody from these programs. He's right up front w/ the fact that he's all for them. People do discuss which programs those are. That's a good thing. I'm glad people are watching that corner. They're certainly welcome here to discuss Lon.
Sue, on the other hand, presents herself as opposing abusive rehab, so long as it belongs to WWASP/S. So when someone came on here a long time ago w/ questions and information about her own dealings w/ Sue, all hell broke loose. Suddently the whole damned forum turned into a parent group come-down rap on this person. It was a total smear campaign. Then the litigation and rumors of litigation started to fly, all geared toward preventing any discussion of these allegedly safe and effective programs.
Now we're seeing the same damned thing again on the Montel show; PURE advertised as an alternative to the abusive WWASP, but no info. at all about what those alternatives really are.
I'm fairly certain that one of them is Whitmore Academy in Nephi, Utah--Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks.
Here, read up on it and make what you will of what's going on there:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewforum.php?forum=35&329 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewforum.php?forum=35&329)
Now I've heard it from several different people that all or most of the 30 or 40 kids at the Whitmore were refered by Sue. Is that true? I don't know. Anybody want to confirm or deny it?
If it turns out to be true and if some of the alegations of what goes on in the Sudweeks mansion are true, then I think that's a matter of some importance. And I think people who come around here looking for info and those who watch the Montel show ought to have a heads up before taking Sue's advice w/o question.
If it's not true, will someone please tell us?
Why is that so hard for you to understand? What's your interest? Why do you believe Sue is sending kids off to safe and effective programs? Having been through what you have, how can you just take it on faith like that?
for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence.
--Thomas Jefferson
-
Woodbury apparently charges parents for his advice so he gets his money from the parents. He is working for them. At least you know who and what he is. Take him or leave him. PURE claims to be working for the parents but gets its money from the schools. They are actually agents of the schools and earn a living getting finders fees. They have an obvious but undisclosed stake in parents choosing one of the schools that they work for. It is that simple and if parents do not know that PURE is working for the programs and not them it is that dishonest. You simply can't have it both ways.
-
On 2005-01-23 11:16:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"//So, I just thought I'd try to cut through all the sniping, not take anyone else's word for anything and go straight to the sources and just ASK. //
And this is exactly what I suggest you do. "
Me too. I expect you'll get about the same response I have, but who knows? Give it a shot.so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
--stephen Hawking, English scientist
-
Hi Ginger.
Ya know, I understand your concern. I admit (repeatedly) that PURE is controversial. I am really only trying to provide a character reference for a friend. She is not what some others would make her out to be. As I've explained, I'd like readers of Fornits who aren't familiar with the parties and the controversy to see a point of view not otherwise found on this forum. Maybe to try and explain some of the mis-conceptions.
I don't think it is odd or suspicious that PURE does not make public the programs they refer to. I think this is more or less normal. I suspect the programs themselves want it this way, due to the Kook factor mentioned in an earlier post.
As for this:
So when someone came on here a long time ago w/ questions and information about her own dealings w/ Sue, all hell broke loose. Suddently the whole damned forum turned into a parent group come-down rap on this person. It was a total smear campaign. Then the litigation and rumors of litigation started to fly, all geared toward preventing any discussion of these allegedly safe and effective programs.//
I have a very different point of view on these events; what caused the upset and the assocated problems. That other person wasn't just talking about Sue and PURE. In fact, from my point of view, that wasn't the problem at all. Of corse, from Sue's point of view , her unrelenting slander was grounds for civil action; but my beef was something very different - and I think you know that. In no case, was anyone trying to stop discussion of any program.
I'm not taking anything on Faith, Ginger - I believe what I believe b/c I know Sue. I believe if there are problems in a programs she refers to, she would want to know; and I believe she'd be responsible about it.
This is not the same as saying, I am sure there are no problems. There can be all kinds of problems, from truly insignificant to very serious.
If you honestly think you have evidence of serious problems in a program you think she might be using - I'd hope you would tell her and not just gloat over the fact.
I was as surprised by the Montel thing as anyone. I feel any 'call for info' plug should've gone to ISAC. I actually wonder if the producers gooft up? But even so, I think your over reacting. Its not as big an issue as your imagining.
-
On 2005-01-24 18:28:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"I don't think it is odd or suspicious that PURE does not make public the programs they refer to. I think this is more or less normal. I suspect the programs themselves want it this way, due to the Kook factor mentioned in an earlier post.
Oh, you mean us chattering pigs? Yeah, the kook factor. Or here's another reasonable explanation. Some of the people who frequent these forums have a huge amount of insight into various methods and practices within the troubled parent industry. Collectively, we're former clients, relatives of clients, parents, supporters, critics, people emplyed in the industry, some just nebbish neighbors of the beast... You name it, you can find just about any imaginable perspective can be found here.
Now, when I'm really interested in finding out all I can about a particular place, I ask around here. It works pretty well. So I can't imagine why Sue or anyone else wouldn't give it a shot. I think it has less to do w/ the risk of prank phone calls and more to do with really not wanting to know.
I'm not taking anything on Faith, Ginger - I believe what I believe b/c I know Sue.
Karen, do you understand what is meant by "taking it on faith"? Cause that's it right there. You have faith in Sue and so you believe what she tells you. The basis of your belief that these programs are good is based entirely on your faith in Sue. Is that accurate? If so, OK. That's the answer to the question then. Aside from that faith in Sue, you have no other basis to believe anything one way or another about these unnamed programs. Is that inacurate?
If you honestly think you have evidence of serious problems in a program you think she might be using - I'd hope you would tell her and not just gloat over the fact.
I don't know if she reads these forums or not, but I think we're discussing one of those programs in another forum (linked above) Would you be kind and mention it to her next time you hear from her and see if she's got an opinion on the matter?
For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist
-
// Or here's another reasonable explanation. Some of the people who frequent these forums have a huge amount of insight into various methods and practices within the troubled parent industry.//
Oh I do agree. But there IS also A kook factor. I don't equate Chattering Pigs to Kooks; but your right, some might. However, I think you know the kind of harassment I am talking about, is something quite beyond the typical Chattering pig stuff. But honestly - that's just a guess.
//I think it has less to do w/ the risk of prank phone calls and more to do with really not wanting to know. //
On this point we just disagree. It makes no since to think Sue wouldn't want to know. But, I don't think you can expect Sue or anyone to look to Fornits as a source of fair and unbiased reporting. The rampantness you so value does damage the credibility of the information found here - at least in the opinion of many. I value *some* of the info from *some * of the people - but I do a lot of filtering. Not everyone want to bother with filtering.
//Karen, do you understand what is meant by "taking it on faith"? //
I think we disagree on the definition of Faith. I feel my knowledge of Sue elevates my view as something based on, well, knowledge. Faith, to me, means believing something you have no actual experience of - Like an after Life. I suppose my knowledge of Sue gives me Faith that she would behave a certain way.
//I don't know if she reads these forums or not, //
No, she doesn't make a habit of reading Fornits.
Yes, I will pass the info along.
I did ask what you were talking about, with the Whitmore thing, and we did talk about it. I also talked about them with others interested. I haven't read the threads in a long time, but I now recall you and the boy Chris debating the merits of the situation there. I don't know, but I got the impression, you might be overly concerned. If there is more I am unaware of, my apologies. I will look the thread over again tomorrow. I will pass along concerns.
But ya know Ginger, I can't imagine you ever being comfortable or satisfied with any program of any kind. I understand far better than I once did, why - but you must know - your voice is still in the minority, and decent safe programs are needed as an alternative to the more abusive and neglectful model that is so common.
"And just how can you tell their safe?"
Ah well - 'roun an 'roun the argument goes. . .
-
i am in the prosess of getting the list of the PURE programs now. I will post the entire list along with what is knowns about every school. How about a website showing all the WWASP schools and all goes on in them and then on the other side of the page list all the PURE schools and show all that goes on in them and then let everyone decide who is better or are they the same?
-
Sorry to chime in like this, but faith is absolutely meaningless.
Give us facts to substantiate things. Simply becuase YOU trust her or YOU believe in her doesnt mean shit. Programmies have TONS of *FAITH* in their program, and what does it amount to? NOTHING!
Try to give actual knowledge here, because only that will satisfy us. Its rather hypocritical for her webpage to be the way that it is, and yet offer so little (NONE) insight into the programs names, locations, modalities, criticisms, methods, etc.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
--Freidrich Nietzsche, German philosopher
[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-01-25 01:37 ]
-
On 2005-01-25 00:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"i am in the prosess of getting the list of the PURE programs now. I will post the entire list along with what is knowns about every school. How about a website showing all the WWASP schools and all goes on in them and then on the other side of the page list all the PURE schools and show all that goes on in them and then let everyone decide who is better or are they the same?"
Great! How are you verifying the list? That's been a difficult matter so far. I have a few people telling me that Sue refers people to Whitmore. Should I believe them? I don't know.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense
--Buddha
-
Sue could be as well-meaning as Mother Theresa was, and if she's sincerely misguided or sincerely wrong about something, she could do a lot of harm without meaning to.
That's why while a character reference maybe makes me feel a little better about her probable *intentions* as a person, it doesn't make me at all likely to trust her referrals.
She could be a nice lady and still be wrong.
I think it's an error of judgement not to list the programs they refer to, and which kinds of problems they refer to which program for.
I think it's an error of judgement not to list their criteria in evaluating whether a particular program meets their standards, and what their standards are, and how they determine whether a specific program does or doesn't meet the criteria.
I could list the *basics* of what I would require (for full recommendation) in a program's staffing, facilities, food service, educational support if *I* were running a referral service.
If I can come up with a plausible list off the top of my head, why can't Sue be more open?
She may well have her reasons, but her lack of openness is my reason for not having confidence in her judgement.
Timoclea
-
Anyone who knows anything about this troubled parent industry knows that the secrecy of the programs is one of the biggest problems.
If Sue is out to fix anything, why not start by taking some of the most OBVIOUS of steps?
What DOES she have to hide?Every man has a property in his own person.
This nobody has any right to but himself.
The labor of his body and the work of his
hands are properly his.
--John Locke
-
Are pure's approved programs approved because they meet certain objective criteria? Are those criteria published? Do they have specific educational criteria? Are the teachers licensed? Is there a separate and distinct treatment plan for each adolescent? Are the counsellors licensed? Do the operators have an objective history over many years that ought lead to trust? Are there clear rules with respect to minimum sleep? Are the patients free to pursue their own religious beliefs?
If their is no list of programs and no list of objective criteria don't we have to conclude that the programs are selected based on their willingness to pay finders fees (bounty) plus Sue's "good feeling" about the owners- the same good feeling that Pure's supporters have about Sue.
-
::bump:: :em:
-
On 2005-01-25 14:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
If their is no list of programs and no list of objective criteria don't we have to conclude that the programs are selected based on their willingness to pay finders fees (bounty) plus Sue's "good feeling" about the owners- the same good feeling that Pure's supporters have about Sue.
In my humble opinion, that is dead on correct.What kind of humanism expresses its reluctance to sacrifice military casualties by devastating the civilian economy of its adversary for decades to come?
Henry Kissinger
-
:tup:
Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
--Robert A. Heinlen, American science-ficiton author