Post by: Nihilanthic on January 29, 2005, 11:48:00 PM
So, if anyones been in a PURE referred program, or would have some information about what programs it refers to, or Sue's automagical method for deciding which ones are good or bad, and give more information than her website, lease post here!
Personally, I'm surprised I havent heard anything before, but now that we have a thread for it, maybe it can collect in the same location!
P.S. - this is offtopic, obviously, unless PURE refers to them (and I wouldn't know either way, and signs seem to point to no) but does Thayer (TLC) have any links to any of the other big players in the industry? Or are they just a startup on their own?
I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life -- our desire to go on living -- our dread of coming to an end.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2005, 01:43:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 01:17:00 AM
According to this, Mrs. D.VA (Debbie Dell'Isola), lives in Weston, Florida.
You can email her through the PURE website.
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 12:00:00 PM
Sunset should be held liable for their promoting of the abusive,cult organization.
From my personal experience. In my opinion.
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 01:52:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-01-30 22:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://helpyourteens.com/about_us.html
According to this, Mrs. D.VA (Debbie Dell'Isola), lives in Weston, Florida.
You can email her through the PURE website.
"
Isn't PURE based in Florida?
:???:
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 02:04:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 02:16:00 PM
In the best case scenario, it would be wise to consult with someone who is not PAID by the programs they refer to, don't you agree?
:silly:
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 02:47:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-01-30 22:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://helpyourteens.com/about_us.html
According to this, Mrs. D.VA (Debbie Dell'Isola), lives in Weston, Florida.
You can email her through the PURE website.
Or you could just PM her. She's (or was) a regular poster here I think.
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2005, 10:02:00 PM
I have found that out after the tragedy we had endured.
I don't trust any of them .
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2005, 02:14:00 PM
meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=http://www.bootcampsforteens.com"
my name is kevin
[Admin note: Kevin is the asshole who tried to shut down discussion in this thread by redirecting you to bootcampsforteens.com. Anybody know his last name?]
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2005, 06:13:00 PM
FYI: Struggling Teens is run by an educational consultant. It's targeted as a resource for parents of "struggling teens" hence the name.
:wink:
Post by: spots on February 01, 2005, 09:18:00 PM
This lady is doing what she feels/hopes is best. I personally disagree with *ANY* RTC, simply because we don't know if any are good, and we sure as hell know many that are bad. That said, Mrs. D personally should be given a little slack, as she *thinks* she is helping other "struggling" parents. IMO, she's not.
Post by: Antigen on February 02, 2005, 02:32:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-02-01 18:18:00, spots wrote:
Mrs. D personally should be given a little slack, as she *thinks* she is helping other "struggling" parents. IMO, she's not.
This does not make her any different from the people who answer the teenhelp hotlines. All the good intentions in the world don't make a thing right if it's fundamentally wrong.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
Post by: Anonymous on February 02, 2005, 05:04:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-02-02 11:32:00, Antigen wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-02-01 18:18:00, spots wrote:
Mrs. D personally should be given a little slack, as she *thinks* she is helping other "struggling" parents. IMO, she's not.
This does not make her any different from the people who answer the teenhelp hotlines. All the good intentions in the world don't make a thing right if it's fundamentally wrong.If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
"
Exactly!
:wave:
Post by: Anonymous on March 20, 2005, 12:51:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 20, 2005, 01:34:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 20, 2005, 01:44:00 PM
"Who would want a bunch of lunitics contacting your boss, co-workers or place of employment?"
Just a guess.
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 10:24:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 11:38:00 AM
Sure, up to the point the first Whitmore parent statement went up. After that statement went up, ISAC became the enemy to be destroyed. Destroyed by any means possible.
No thought was given to writing a response; to apologizing for having mislead the parent or even to stopping the referrals to a possibly abusive program. There is, after all, ample reason for concern.
All suggestions from friends that she should consider these things, was met with shrill proclamations that she trusted the Suds absolutely; that the complaining parent was crazy, evil, a liar and ugly to boot.
ISAC would be hearing from lawyers.
Lots of lawyers, apparently.
People who had dared to suggest she was wrong, soon found themselves under attack on this very forum; by some "unemployed newbie" who had Just Discovered this board, and these issues; although this "unemployed Newbie" had an awful lot of knowledge about who's who, even the wwasp lawyer's names.
My personal opinion, based on the timing of events; comments made; and who has what information; is that Susan is simply using what tools are available to her, in her vengeance against ISAC.
"We" know how much information flows to Susan about Bob, and where it comes from, how reliable it is, and why. I simply believe she reversed the flow, and sent information the other way. Or maybe she just gave Bob or Spence a call - who the hell knows what she might do? This is not the same as working with wwasp. It's more like using wwasp. What ever it takes; no holds barred; all fair in war; There are plenty of ways she can justify her actions; at least in her own mind.
My opinion, based on my experience, and current events, as I have perceived them.
Lee tells me he has Proof I am wrong. But he won't show me or even discribe it. Can't imagine why. I'd only be pleased and relieved if someone can prove my thinking on this is wrong.
Post by: Joyce Harris on March 21, 2005, 12:49:00 PM
I would like to know upon what Sue Scheff would base her opinion that I am "crazy, evil, a liar, or ugly?"
I have never been diagnosed with any mental problems in my entire life.
I do not believe in any voo-doo things such as "good and evil" being applied to people. I do know that the Sudweeks at Whitmore use terms like this in their teachings to the children at Whitmore Academy. If one reads the postings on the Whitmore threads one can see that the Sudweeks' camp refers to anyone who disagrees with them as "EVIL"--and that includes any agencies, like the Attorney General's Office, the Nephi Police Department, etc. I would not think that Ms. Scheff is into anything like voo-doo, so I do not know what she would be basing any opinion of me as being "evil" upon.
I am not a liar. What my husband and I wrote in
our statement to ISAC is true.
ISAC also wrote an additional addendum to the statement, after Mark Sudweeks accused me of "throwing my daughter down a flight of stairs by the hair." Also a THIRD PARTY has been spreading this vicious lie about me also. Mark Sudweeks and this THIRD PARTY went so far as to say they were "reading about this incident of me abusing my daughter from a police report from the Nephi Police Dept." Well...there was NO POLICE REPORT. We asked Officer Wright to produce a written "KEEP THE PEACE REPORT" which he did. We gave a copy to ISAC, and Officer Wright verified that I DID NOT in fact abuse my little girl in any way. In other words--Mark Sudweeks and this THIRD PARTY lied about me, period.
I do not LIE....but other people do LIE ABOUT ME in order to deflect from facts told in our statement to ISAC, I suppose.
As far as my physical appearance being "ugly." Sue Scheff has no idea what I look like. She has never seen me. UNLESS she might have seen photographs of me that SOMEONE who hacked into my computer system shared with her. Maybe that is how she knows what I look like????? The FBI will be letting us KNOW who hacked our computer very shortly. Everyone gets to have their own opinion of what is pretty or what is "ugly," now don't they? I think I lean more towards me being pretty than "ugly," but maybe I have an inflated self-esteem problem.
People can probably judge for themselves rather soon, because I didn't buy into the blackmail of "SHUT YOUR MOUTH or we are going to post your sexy pictures all over the internet...." So maybe Ginger Warbis can run a poll or something when the "blackmailer" posts some silly pictures of me that were made for my husband for Valentine's Day and everyone can vote: Pretty? Not Pretty?
We made our statement to ISAC.
We as parents do not deserve to have our privacy invaded by computer hackers, to be slandered, to be threatened by emails and telephone calls to our home, to be threatened by blackmailers--but it has happened.
We also do not deserve to have ANYONE repeating vicious gossip about us that this SOMEONE can not verify. It is unfair, unprofessional, and serves no purpose. It certainly serves no purpose for some THIRD PARTY to lie to others and say he/she is reading it from a non-existing police report just to make his/her lies about a mother appear to be more believeable. What a shame for ANYONE to stoop that low.
Post by: Nihilanthic on March 21, 2005, 02:59:00 PM
You're at least a solid 6, which is high on that scale. Plus the milf-vote could pull it pretty high... :grin:
My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character.
-- Charles Barkley, on hearing Tonya Harding proclaim herself "the Charles Barkley of figure skating"
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 04:40:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 05:02:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-21 08:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I'd want to think she was on ISAC's side and supporting them...
Lee tells me he has Proof I am wrong. But he won't show me or even discribe it. Can't imagine why. I'd only be pleased and relieved if someone can prove my thinking on this is wrong.
"
I can imagine why? You would be all over fornits and who knows where else with information you don't need to know. Ever think of that? Why would you be relieved and pleased? You have trashed, bashed and convicted everyone prior to any evidence presentation or trial. That's just my thinking and then there's this person you called a liar. So why come on here expecting to get information from a liar? Make up your mind, WWJD
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 07:28:00 PM
If I am wrong in my opinion, and you can prove it, don't you think I need to see the proof? Might change my mind, if you did indeed have proof. Ever think of that? I don't think you have, or have seen any thing, remotely approaching Proof that I am wrong. I think if you had any such thing YOU would plaster it all over Fornits!
I have never yet plastered private letters on Fornits. It was YOU who brought up a private comment made in MY letter to YOU.
//Why would you be relieved and pleased? You have trashed, bashed and convicted everyone prior to any evidence presentation or trial. That's just my thinking//
I am not at all happy to face the fact I have once again been so fooled. I am not happy to feel a trusted friend could be so treacherous. If you can prove me wrong, I wish you would.
I have not trashed, bashed or convicted anyone. I do have opinions, that you are free to disagree with. If you can prove I'm wrong, I wish you would.
// and then there's this person you called a liar. So why come on here expecting to get information from a liar?//
I was very clear Lee, I have not generally experienced you to be a liar, but I think you have told me a lie. Why expect information? Because you told me you had it.
//Make up your mind,//
I have. But if you can prove me wrong - Please Do!
// WWJD//
Many things. John tells us if all the events of His life were written down, the whole world could not contain the books. You might recall, at times, He was prone to calling lying hypocrites the sons of vipers. Blind leaders of the Blind. Thieves. He could be a pretty confrontational.
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 07:53:00 PM
and j said; "be silent!"
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 08:20:00 PM
Are we issuing warnings now?
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 08:39:00 PM
He stood silent before those condeming Him; but I can't recall Him saying "Be Silent!"
Maybe its in the gnostic gospels, but I don't consider them worth much.
Post by: Anonymous on March 21, 2005, 08:46:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on March 21, 2005, 11:21:00 PM
He, if he existed and the tales are accurate, wasn't silent when he opposed oppression, when he turned over the tables in the temple.
He, imo and as the story goes, was silent when they crucified him because he had obtained an awareness some refer to as 'christ consciousness'. In other words, he had come to fully understand the human condition- fucked- and was able to predict how the masses would respond to his message of love and forgiveness, hence, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do". He knew he was going to die and that resisting it would do nothing to prevent it.
"Be silent" Religious manipulation. There is a time to be silent and a time to scream loud and long, and a time for everything in between.
And you anon, are not in control of others, nor are you their judge and jury. We all got the same 'daddy' and I tend to think that daddy don't play favorites. Now isn't that special!
Perhaps you should heed your own words. Be silent if you don't have anything intelligent or relevant to add to the discussion.
Post by: alternativa on March 21, 2005, 11:47:00 PM
One of her helpers is from Utah. That's all I'd have to hear. And all of these places misrepresent themselves. PURE is probably short for PURE HELL.
Post by: Antigen on March 22, 2005, 12:02:00 AM
Come in the evening, or come in the morning; Come when you 're looked for, or come without warning.
-- Thomas O. Davis (1814-1845): The Welcome.
Post by: Antigen on March 22, 2005, 12:10:00 AM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Karen, maybe he doesn't tell you about his "proof" for the reason he says. Or maybe it's because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Or maybe it's because he'd rather watch you and Sue get into a cat fight than try and make peace between you (or anyone, for that matter)
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
--St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2005, 12:15:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on March 22, 2005, 01:09:00 AM
I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
-- A Bit of Fry and Laurie
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2005, 07:13:00 AM
Post by: Joyce Harris on March 22, 2005, 09:27:00 AM
If this nice Lady, Sue Scheff seems be saying such rude things about me to so many people--you do not need to try and explain what she means. Let this lady speak for herself. Why does everyone appear to speak for her?
Post by: Joyce Harris on March 22, 2005, 09:40:00 AM
Post by: BuzzKill on March 22, 2005, 11:39:00 AM
I find people use my faith against me in two ways. As this person has, to try and make me meek and mild and passive in the face of attack; Or, to poke fun at the poor fool for Christ.
But to be fair, the 'be silent' thing is not what ya'll took it to be. Probably more of a warning than a threat (It can be hard to tell the difference)and as I said, it came from a conversation I had had with the poster. It was like this; I had tried to explain the emotional turmoil I have been in; specifically with regard to a recent attack on me on this forum. I was puzzled and hurt by it. I had been (IMO) very patient in the face of some very confusing stubbornness. I had posted thoughts and opinions that were in opposition to the opinions and desires of my new found adversary (and one time friend) but it was no secrete to her what I thought and felt about it. I wasn't being sneaky, harassing her, or anyone. So, when she hit the board posing as some ignorant new comer, and trying to provoke me, I was hurt and angry.
I was telling this other party (who wishes to remain anonymous)of this, and about my trying to decide what, if anything, to do. I explained how while in a state of confusion, I had flipped open my Bible and my eyes fell on the words, "And Jesus was Silent."
And so, I took that as a sign to be silent - at least for a while.
What I hadn't explained, as I didn't get a chance, was that I also had another problem I was in search of guidance on. A personal and heartbreaking problem unassociated with all this crap. I was getting a lot of advice to Do something - make phone calls - report things. I was deeply troubled by all this. This was actually my most pressing dilemma. I took those words, "and Jesus was silent" as the answer to that problem as well. As things have progressed, I now feel it was very good advice and I am most grateful to my Lord for His counsel.
As for remaining silent on Fornits - After a couple of days, a reply came to me that seemed good and fitting and so I spoke up.
So far, I still feel lead to speak up.
Last night, while in a state of hurt confusion, I once again opened my Bible and my eyes fell on these words:
And He hath raised up an horn of salvation for us out of the house of David:
As He spoke by the mouth of His Holy Prophets, which have been since the world began:
That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us.
To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember His Holy covenant, the oath which He swore to our father Abraham:
That He would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve Him with out fear.
From The proclamation of Zacharais, at John the Baptist's birth.
Post by: Anonymous on March 22, 2005, 12:01:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 11:00:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on March 23, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
But if this is the way you go about making important decisions (and I believe you when you say it is) that also makes you as undependable and untrustworthy as a good natured drunk.
I think your (and others') blind devotion to she who we'll all pretend is nameless has likely done a lot of damage to a lot of people. Hell, take Lee the attack dog all by himself and I think he may well have done more harm and inflicted more hurt than Carey Bock ever did. And at least she may not have intended her actions to be harmful. You can't say that about Lee, can you?
Oh, speaking of Carey and the chairman of the Carey Sucks Club, I was dissapointed to find Carey's testimony ommitted from the PUREified version of the WWASP v PURE transcript. Anyone care to share? I honestly don't know what's in it. But I'm sure it addresses matters about which I have some longstanding curiosity. And it's got to be under oath and likely w/ x-exam and maybe even redirect. So it might provide some missing puzzle pieces here. At the very least it may make clear exactly why it was omitted.
Under the benign influence of our republican institutions, and the maintenance of peace with all nations whilst so many of them were engaged in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just policy were enjoyed in an unrivaled growth of our faculties and resources.
James Madison
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 10:46:00, Antigen wrote:
Oh, speaking of Carey and the chairman of the Carey Sucks Club, I was dissapointed to find Carey's testimony ommitted from the PUREified version of the WWASP v PURE transcript. Anyone care to share? I honestly don't know what's in it. But I'm sure it addresses matters about which I have some longstanding curiosity. And it's got to be under oath and likely w/ x-exam and maybe even redirect. So it might provide some missing puzzle pieces here. At the very least it may make clear exactly why it was omitted.
:nworthy: :nworthy: I think this would help a lot of us clear up questions we have, put some of the puzzle pieces together. There are a few of us out here who are very interested in this, but have only a peripheral or intermittent view.
Post by: Sue Your Ass Off Scheff on March 23, 2005, 02:26:00 PM
_________________
I am one of the good people in all of this.[ This Message was edited by: Susan Scheff on 2005-03-23 15:42 ]
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
Moralizing, with the force of law or coercion, is a
far greater crime against the constitutional principles of our nation than unauthorized euphoria, regardless of the substance involved, be it chocolate or heroin.
--James
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 02:34:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:26:00, Susan Scheff wrote:
"OK. I have nothing to hide. I will answer your questions.One at a time please.
"
I highly doubt this is Sue Scheff. Ginger, I challenge you to verify the IP on this one. This person is sinking to a whole new level here and using Fornits to do it.
Post by: Antigen on March 23, 2005, 02:40:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
I highly doubt this is Sue Scheff. Ginger, I challenge you to verify the IP on this one. This person is sinking to a whole new level here and using Fornits to do it."
Ok, how about this. I'll pull back the veil and reveal to you every post made from the IP address that username "Susan Scheff" has posted from if you'll agree that I can do the same w/ the ISP that you're using now. (of course, this must be agreeable to username "Susan Scheff" as well.)
Deal?
History does not record anywhere or at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unkonwn without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
--Robert A. Heinlen, American science-ficiton author
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:40:00, Antigen wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
I highly doubt this is Sue Scheff. Ginger, I challenge you to verify the IP on this one. This person is sinking to a whole new level here and using Fornits to do it."
Ok, how about this. I'll pull back the veil and reveal to you every post made from the IP address that username "Susan Scheff" has posted from if you'll agree that I can do the same w/ the ISP that you're using now. (of course, this must be agreeable to username "Susan Scheff" as well.)
Deal?History does not record anywhere or at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unkonwn without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
--Robert A. Heinlen, American science-ficiton author
"
Oh, in other words, this is you posing as Sue. Why didn't you just say so Ginger.
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 02:50:00 PM
Post by: Sue Your Ass Off Scheff on March 23, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
_________________
I am one of the good people in all of this.[ This Message was edited by: Susan Scheff on 2005-03-23 15:43 ]
Post by: SMOKINGINGER on March 23, 2005, 03:07:00 PM
The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived, and dishonest-but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
--John F. Kennedy, U.S. President
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 04:20:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 12:04:00, Susan Scheff wrote:
"Cayo, I assure you that we take every reasonable precaution before we send a child to ANY program.Our criteria is we send a team of INDEPENDENT investigators who give us a complete report on each and every facility.
Who are these independent investigators and what are their qualifications?
Quote
In the event of an unsatisfacory rating for ANY reason, we will cross off that program for a minimum of six months. If after that period of time, that same program has not come to a satisfactory rating, we will NEVER consider that program EVER AGAIN.We follow up on every program NO MATTER HOW PERFECT THAT THEY APPEAR EVERY SIX MONTHS AND i PERSONALLY meet with the enrolled child every six months also.
What would constitute an unsatisfactory rating?
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56- c.115)
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 04:33:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 13:20:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-03-23 12:04:00, Susan Scheff wrote:
"Cayo, I assure you that we take every reasonable precaution before we send a child to ANY program.Our criteria is we send a team of INDEPENDENT investigators who give us a complete report on each and every facility.
Who are these independent investigators and what are their qualifications?
QuoteIn the event of an unsatisfacory rating for ANY reason, we will cross off that program for a minimum of six months. If after that period of time, that same program has not come to a satisfactory rating, we will NEVER consider that program EVER AGAIN.We follow up on every program NO MATTER HOW PERFECT THAT THEY APPEAR EVERY SIX MONTHS AND i PERSONALLY meet with the enrolled child every six months also.
What would constitute an unsatisfactory rating?The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56- c.115)
Cayo you are so stupid it's unreal. Do you really think you're talking to Sue Scheff. I see Jay Kay just signed on too. They might need help with their spelling and syntax though?
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 04:37:00 PM
It appears that you and your supporters are dancing a jig in celebration over ISAC being sued. Why is that?
Why are concerned parents having problems getting answers about their kids leaving the country? http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=35#90085 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8804&forum=35#90085) Does this not concern you?
Does it concern you that there is apparently a "private parents forum" that some parents of kids IN Whitmore are not privvy to?
Does it concern you that Cheryl appears to be at the very least watching and approving of the kids in and out of Whitmore tearing each other to pieces? http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=35#86385 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8587&forum=35#86385)
I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
--Dr. James Watson, American biologist
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 04:38:00 PM
How about if a school advertises itself as being "fully accredited" when it's not? Would that cause you to take them off your list?
Or would having a school lose it license with the State? Would that cause you to strike them off the "approved list?"
Would a school that has group therapy being led by a non-licensed person cause you any concern?
Would a school that left children alone without any adult supervision cause to the mark them down as "not approved?"
HUH?
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 04:41:00 PM
Quote
Oh, speaking of Carey and the chairman of the Carey Sucks Club, I was dissapointed to find Carey's testimony ommitted from the PUREified version of the WWASP v PURE transcript. Anyone care to share? I honestly don't know what's in it. But I'm sure it addresses matters about which I have some longstanding curiosity. And it's got to be under oath and likely w/ x-exam and maybe even redirect. So it might provide some missing puzzle pieces here. At the very least it may make clear exactly why it was omitted.
Ginger Carey was not at the WWASP vs PURE trial.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 04:41:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 13:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
Cayo you are so stupid it's unreal. Do you really think you're talking to Sue Scheff. I see Jay Kay just signed on too. They might need help with their spelling and syntax though?"
Don't really know, don't really care. I'm sure she's aware of this forum, I"m fairly sure if this isn't her that she's at least reading it. If anyone ELSE can give answers to these questions, great. I'd rather hear the answer from Sue, but I'm not sure if that's ever going to happen.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad.
-- Salvador Dali
Post by: Antigen on March 23, 2005, 04:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger Carey was not at the WWASP vs PURE trial. "
You're shittin' me! Maybe I just got confused in all the trolling. But I could swear Lee said something recently about her testifying and looking like her head would explode. And, at the time, I could swear I heard about her being there.
WTF???
Oh, btw, I wonder if we should plan an intervention for Lee. He said he couldn't make it a week on what Sue makes in a year. At the end of all the testimony, it's clear that that was over $200k. If Lee can't make it a week on that, maybe he should consider Ibogain?
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status
--Laurence J. Peter
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 04:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 13:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
They might need help with their spelling and syntax though?"
Got a little OCD going on there? You really need to move on from this. I realize that by my pointing out how absurd it was of you to attempt to correct what you thought[/b] was someone else's spelling error while not being able to spell yourself, you became embarrased but its time to move on now. If you don't want people to embarrass you, don't be such a blatant idiot.
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 23, 2005, 06:01:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 06:02:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 15:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Actually Cayo Hosebeast, I simply pointed out there was more than one way to spell it. You assumed I didn't know how to spell a word, when I explained I was typing from a PDA QBOARD you asshole! :idea:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 06:49:00 PM
To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand.
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge, English poet, critic, journalist, philosopher
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 06:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 15:49:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"So then I'm taking that as a "no" on getting any answers to the questions that have been posed. Correct? You can harp on the fact that I corrected your spelling all you want. Most of us see that for what it is...more diversionary tactics.To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand."
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge, English poet, critic, journalist, philosopher
You can take that any way you want. Oh, and by the way F_ck You! :smokin:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on March 23, 2005, 07:03:00 PM
Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home or because it finances terrorists abroad?
--Anonymous
Post by: Sue Your Ass Off Scheff on March 23, 2005, 07:33:00 PM
_________________
I am one of the good people in all of this.[ This Message was edited by: Susan Scheff on 2005-03-23 16:39 ]
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 07:50:00 PM
:rofl:
Post by: Anonymous on March 23, 2005, 08:41:00 PM
Never said she was there, either...your lying again. IWI, you may have ment to say at the deposition?
Get your story straight, if you're gonna continue to participate in this soap...
Got my fill of fornuts for the night, outta here!
Post by: BSarro on March 23, 2005, 09:07:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on March 23, 2005, 11:57:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 11:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
Oh, in other words, this is you posing as Sue. Why didn't you just say so Ginger.
I suppose that's possible. Or maybe it's the simpler explanation; if you and this other poster both agree, I'll put up a list of posts from both IP addresses. Would `spain a lot to a lot of people. And, now I'm just guessing here, but I guess you wouldn't be the first to take that offer, even though you're the one who asked.
Am I right? Am I right? I love to be right, ya' know! Not as much as I like to be wrong sometimes, given how dark and dismal my world view is some days. But am I right?
It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous.
--Gloria Steinam, women's rights activist
Post by: Antigen on March 23, 2005, 11:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-03-23 12:04:00, Susan Scheff wrote:
Yes Ginger, if the others agree to reveal their IP'S I SURE AS HELL also agree.
Noted.
The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.".
--George Washington, Revolutionary War General and U.S. President
Post by: Anonymous on March 24, 2005, 12:00:00 AM
The judge had condensed down the time allowed for presenting testimony.Carey's computer info was irrelavant in the big scheme of things.The conspiracy claim was not proven.
There were many parents who have similar experinces .That is not a conspiracy to harm. The other way around maybe.
I would guess the gentleman from Texas is refering to Carey's deposition.
Post by: Anonymous on March 24, 2005, 12:05:00 AM
Too many run on sentences.
Her attorney would advise her against posting on Fornits. IMO
That's very funny though....
Post by: Nihilanthic on April 27, 2006, 10:00:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 27, 2006, 11:14:00 PM
and does anyone really think this woman would answer anything truthfully?
I doubt it. In her deposition she lied and said she had a college degree. Now, that's a simple "yes or no" question that anyone should know the TRUTH about, right?
Scheff couldn't even get THAT ONE right!
Post by: Programmie-Trans 9000 on April 27, 2006, 11:42:00 PM
SLICER MODE ENGAGED
Quote
Lawsuit Sue really meant to say...
"Our highly dependent liars include educational consultants WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING THROWING KIDS INTO THESE HELLHOLES. Their qualifications? We don't need no steeeeenking qualifications! We completely ignore any and all warning signs of abuse. Most of the time we don't ever actually go into the place at all. An un-satisfactory rating can be a combination of very minor things or one major thing. Minor can be they didn't bribe us enough. That would not result in a removal but it would annoy the person who is reviewing the facility. Major can be that a faciity is refusing to let the reviewer get enough unsupervised time to molest the brainwashed children. In the case of the latter, we would cease refering to that facility. We would also feed the parents a line of bullshit and that it might be best to put their child into a place more amicable to anal rape. As far as ISAC, I hate their guts with a passion. My only problem with them is that they tend to pay attention and they will blacklist anyone who uses professional kidnappers. It is possible that other members of Pure hate them even more than me. And for parents having concerns unanswered, I really do not understand how they can even have any, seeing as how they're stupid enough to throw their kid into a shitpit in the first place. We do everything in our power to feed them more than enough bullshit. And for parents having private forums that others may not participate in, I hate the idea unless I get the chance to feed them shit. I make sure mindless crap is released to parents. And for Cheryl's situation, I completely ignored any and all real complaints of abuse. In the event that a state revokes a license, we seriously don't give a shit. Just because a state knows what it's doing doesn;t mean that we do!
If any owner of a facility is suspected of child abuse and they don't pay up or start opening some teenage rectums, we will start misleading parents to move their victim-kids somewhere else. I WILL COMPLETELY IGNORE ANY AND ALL ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE. I have no idea what a 'reasonable' allegation is, anyway. If a facility misleads consumers, I will laugh and give them better ways to do it. If I feel it is a major event of misleading consumers, I will laugh even harder and feed the same bullshit to the parents.
Group therapy by an unlicensed person would be ignored, and I don't even see the problem with that.
As for a child being left unattended, it depends. Was the kid fully brainwashed? Was he being sufficiently reamed? Has that employee been given kudos for extra neglect? There's no chance in hell that I will notify the parents. Please understand that I have no soul whatsoever.
I hope this misinforms you completely, and thank you for your interest in raping children.
_________________
I am an evil fucking sadist.
TRANSLATION COMPLETE
Post by: Anonymous on April 27, 2006, 11:45:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 27, 2006, 11:56:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2006, 09:11:00 PM