Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 16, 2005, 11:18:00 PM
-
Can someone who's been in Ivy Ridge or other WWASP US facility tell me what the priviledges are for each of the 6 levels? I'm trying to piece this tragic story together...thanks
-
It differs from facility to facility.
Level one: basic needs are met food, shelter, bathrooms, clothes. Limited talking privelages.
Level 2: The privelage to talk more but still limited, electric razors.
Level 3: Shoes, more talking privelages (1 and above.). On grounds activity.
Level 4: The beginning of upper levels. Shoes, jewelery make-up, upper level facility, more of independance from the group. Different group therapy sessions. Off grounds activity. Visiting and shadowing lower groups for a week. Parent student visits. Regular razors.
Level 5: Home passes. Level 5 and above activities. PC2
Level 6: Home passes. PC 3. Home contract. On the way home.
-
Yes, I'd love to do so.
LEVEL ONE
Nothing. No communication of any kind. No priveldges, except for human life.
LEVEL TWO
Pretty much nothing. You can speak to LEVEL 3's and up, but only with permission and monitoring. Oh, and you get a candy bar once a week.
LEVEL THREE
Still pretty much nothing. You can talk with permission (LEVEL 2'S AND UP), and once a month there is usually an activity that involves slightly better food.
LEVEL FOUR
You can go to the bathroom by yourself. You can walk the halls by yourself. In return for these favors, you are the SLAVE of the program, This is where parents visits become a distant option.
LEVEL FIVE
Possibility of a home visit. No outside family communication, no telephone, internet, faxes (it actually says faxes on the home pass contract) no caffiene of any kind, etc, etc, etc. If you break any of the rules, no matter how small, you lose all of your points, literally years of hard effort.
LEVEL SIX
Graduation, but don't get too excited. I've actually seen kids at Ivy Ridge RETURN from graduation and never graduate. This happened last year with a few of the the level six's for swapping phone numbers with a kid who chose to stay in the program till he was 19. He stayed for 3 years.
-
I just posted the second level breakdown. MIne is actually for the Ivy Ridge facility.
~~Chris
-
Can you tell me about your Ivy Ridge experience? From the sounds of it you're a parent, and I too share a horrible Ivy Ridge experience.
~~ Chris
-
On 2005-03-17 10:09:00, Perrigaud wrote:
"It differs from facility to facility.
Level one: basic needs are met food, shelter, bathrooms, clothes. Limited talking privelages.
Level 2: The privelage to talk more but still limited, electric razors.
Level 3: Shoes, more talking privelages (1 and above.). On grounds activity.
Level 4: The beginning of upper levels. Shoes, jewelery make-up, upper level facility, more of independance from the group. Different group therapy sessions. Off grounds activity. Visiting and shadowing lower groups for a week. Parent student visits. Regular razors.
Level 5: Home passes. Level 5 and above activities. PC2
Level 6: Home passes. PC 3. Home contract. On the way home. "
Okay, Perri, I've changed my mind. You *were* brainwashed.
These aren't priveleges. With the exception of jewelry and make-up, these are very, very basic human rights.
Not to provide the level 6 "privileges" is what the *rest* of the US calls "child neglect."
Any parent who did what you suggest to your kid on their own, *I* would report to child welfare in a heartbeat. And child welfare would tell them to shape up and provide all those things--with the exception of jewelry and makeup--to their child.
If the parents did not do that, in any state I am aware of, child welfare would take the children out of the home for child neglect. Particularly over the shoes issue.
If I didn't provide my child with shoes that she could wear whenever she wanted (except to bed or in the bathtub), I would *lose my kids* and quite possibly be *criminally prosecuted* for wilfull child neglect.
If I provided my child with food that was substantially different and worse from my own food, unless I had consulted a nutritionist and the different diet was medically necessary for her health, I would lose my child and be prosecuted for wilfull criminal child neglect.
If I required my child to go around all day without being able to talk to other people, I would be prosecuted for criminal child *abuse*, if I failed to fix the problem after being warned.
They would *remove* my child from the home as an immediate safety threat and require me to take parenting classes as a condition of getting her back, and they would *closely* supervise our family for quite a long time after that.
If I returned to treating my child like that, they would remove her from the home, prosecute me, and go to family court to have my parental right permanently terminated.
And they'd be right to do so.
That you think those deprivations are not criminal child abuse and neglect, and are not woefully out of compliance with minimum community standards for how children are entitled to be treated, is evidence that yes, you *have* been brainwashed.
That you can even for a moment describe them as "privileges"---even in retrospect you don't believe all of them were "right"----is evidence that you have undergone deep and pervasive brainwashing that successfully tampered with your mind.
The abuse and neglect you have suffered has put you at high risk of abusing neglecting your own children in the false belief that these behaviors are not harmful to the child and are, in fact, acceptable forms of discipline.
Please go into therapy with a therapist who has experience with healing people who have left cults.
Please also take formal parenting classes offered or recommended by your local child welfare department---the kind they recommend to parents with problems---*before* you have children.
I'm very frightened for your children that if you don't learn better you may carry the abuse and neglect you learned into future generations.
You obviously didn't get a good example of appropriate discipline from your parents, either, growing up.
Just because you're personally much more functional than you were is *not* the same thing as even minimally psychologically healthy.
You *need* to learn the range of the right and healthy ways to discipline a toddler, a growing child, and a teenager without doing harm to that kid. You need to learn what standards are appropriate to expect of children at what ages--because you didn't get that--and what discipline levels are proportional and appropriate when misbehavior inevitably occurs.
Either learn, or please don't have kids. But better if you learn, because not all children are planned and even the nicest people can have an unplanned pregnancy.
Oh my god. I can't believe you can even for a moment describe any of those things as privileges.
Color me shocked to the core. You present yourself well, and you *seem* whole, at first. But you're not. You're really not and you need to get some help for that.
That's not an insult, that's a plain fact.
I'm so sorry for what happened to you, but you *mustn't* go on thinking those things are okay for fear that you, as an adult with adult responsibilities, harm a child someday.
Julie/Timoclea
-
er...that should be, "...even *if* in retrospect..." above.
T.
-
I think what shocks me the most is that I *missed* this. I knew you'd been in a program, I knew to look for it, and I *still* missed it until now.
You seem fine...until we touch on an area where you're not.
I'm not just having a cow over an accident of wording, either. If you had either healed from informal talks with friends or introspection or therapy, there's no way you would have been able to use the word "privilege" in making that list. Not without putting it in quotes or saying you were listing from a program point of view or making some caveat saying that was *not* okay.
I don't mean that you'd go back afterward and admit that it was not okay, or that some of it was not okay.
I mean if you were whole you wouldn't be capable of letting a statement like that get by you without *having to* affirm that it was absolutely not okay.
I guess it's the same thing as me when I was off my meds. A lot of people could talk to me for quite awhile or know me for years and not recognize that I was bughouse nuts with one of the two most serious mental illnesses that there are.
Unless they happened to see me right in the middle of a meltdown---which I was good at hiding---or started talking to me about one of the specific subjects I was wildly irrational about, they'd just never notice.
Oh, after someone had known me awhile they would've noticed I was eccentric. But unless they actually saw me in one of my breakdowns or talked to me about one of the subjects I was really "out there" on, they'd have no idea how very ill I was.
You aren't mentally ill like I am, but you're carrying some serious damage around, and you need some help fixing it---particularly before you take on the huge responsibility (but great joy) of children.
You're walking around hurt and very damaged--whether you feel that way or not.
Julie/Timoclea
-
For anyone who thinks Timoclea may be going overboard in her distress over the privileges issue...
Our grandaughter (now living with us after a year in Casa by the Sea) does not refer to the gaining of "privileges". She uses all sorts of other words, each referring to "finally being able to 'do' something", but never considers the basic elements of human existence a privilege.
FWIW, she spent 10 months without speaking, without shoes, without adequate food, without schooling, without talking to anyone [including her parents] from The Outside. I guess that in order to stand up to the brainwashing, you must suffer immensely during your programming.
-
I'm a rape survivor. I also have a mental illness (unrelated).
I know the difference between just being nuts and having something done to you that really messes with your head.
I didn't get counseling about the rape and the post-rape trauma lingered for years.
I *finally* ended up talking about it with other survivors and learned that I wasn't any different in what I'd thought and felt and how I reacted than other survivors and got my head straightened out---enough to help others for a little while on talk.rape.
It's funny (not ha-ha) how even after you've physically recovered from something harsh that happens to you, it can leave all sorts of minefields in your head that you don't even know are there.
Including victim-blaming. Which is really a lingering form of self-blame.
And when you've seen enough of the subtle forms that "she deserved it" or "I deserved it" can take, you learn to know that it's not trivial when someone says something like that---it's a major flag indicating a major mine in the minefield.
"Privileges" referring to being able to talk and wear shoes and shave and talk to your parents and see your parents is a "they deserved it" kind of victim-blaming statement about something that *nobody* deserves.
You know, I became a stronger person after I got raped. I had learned how bad "bad" could get if I didn't fight back, and I quit being a doormat and a wimp as I recovered. I became a lot more competent and confident than I had been before the rape as a result of the work I had to do to recover from the rape.
My being better off after it, ultimately, based on some things that colaterally resulted from it doesn't mean I needed to be raped, or that I deserved to be raped, or that being raped was good for me.
I may be a stronger person, but that's *my* strength. My rapist doesn't get brownie points for it---all *he* did was damage me.
So yeah, I recognize victim-blaming statements when I hear them---when someone's looking at something as deserved and normal that *nobody* deserves that *absolutely isn't* normal.
And I know what it means when someone who's had some of that stuff done to them is the one who's coming out with the victim-blaming statements.
*NO* child deserves to have the basic social contact of talking to people, shoes, or seeing her parents treated as "privileges" to be withheld for bad behavior. *Nobody* deserves that. It is not helpful or positive to do that to any child.
A rape survivor may be stronger after the rape as a result of recovering from the rape, but that doesn't mean the rape "helped" her.
Sorry, that victim-blaming privilege garbage is complete and total bullshit.
Timoclea
-
::jawdrop:: @ this whole thread
If you think yourself too wise to involve
yourself in government, you will be governed
by those too foolish to govern.
--Plato
-
TIMOCLEA,
YOU ARE QUICK TO JUDGE AREN'T YOU? CONGRATULATIONS YOU JUST MADE AN ASS OUT OF YOURSELF. I WAS TYPING VERBATIM OF WHAT MY HANDBOOK SAID.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES TO DEAL WITH YOURSELF. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. REALLY. AGAIN IN CASE YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. VERBATIM IS AS HOW IT'S WRITTEN. NEXT TIME I WILL USE "QUOTATION" MARKS AS TO NOT SET YOU AND YOUR PAST ISSUES OFF. PLUS, IN SOME COUNTRIES THAT IS A PRIVELAGE (IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET TECHNICAL). I'M FROM A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY AND I DIDN'T GET TO EAT WHAT I WANTED OR WHEN I WANTED. I WAS 1/2 DEAD WHEN I WAS ADOPTED. NOW, NOT EVERYONE HAS THE (BRACE YOURSELF I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN) PRIVELAGE TO WEAR OR EVEN HAVE MAKE-UP.
GO BACK TO THERAPY AND WORK SOME MORE ON YOURSELF. DEAR ME DID YOU JUST LEAVE YOURSELF EXPOSED. I ACTUALLY FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AND HOPE YOU FIND THE HELP YOU NEED.
IN OTHER COUNTRIES THE PRIVELAGE TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER WHENEVER IS NOT THERE. BUT AGAIN I WAS JUST RESPONDING. BRAINWASH? SURE. WHATEVER. [ This Message was edited by: Perrigaud on 2005-03-18 01:11 ]
-
Oh! And I do wonder what mental illness (related or not) you have.
Now that I've said my peace I'm gonna say more. Now, humans basic needs are as follows: Get food, get rid of waste, shelter, and (arguably) love. Anything above that is a privelage. Clothes provide shelter for the body itself. Nowadays we are so lucky to have such things as cars, airplanes, houses, heat, electricity and such. Like I said before. There are countries that have no such privelages. They barely even have the basic needs. Talking? It's another thing we are lucky to have. America has the freedom of expression. In other countries (i.e. communist) that isn't so.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I feel for you. Rape is a hard thing to deal with. I've been there myself. I'm sorry if I came off pretty harsh. My pet peeve (one of 'em) are assumptions. I don't like it when people respond before thinking. I'm not perfect. See? My explosive anger has been something I've been working on for a long long time.
-
Perrigaud, the program i was in (Straight) strictly regimented when and how we could talk to others. I think Timoclea is right in saying that this is child abuse. I think it goes beyond freedom of speech into just basic human freedom. There may be regimes under which you cannot speak freely about certain subjects, but the basic freedom to have conversation with members of your own species, that is a different thing. It is or should be a basic human right.
-
Now, did I ever say it wasn't abuse MISEDUCATED? No, I did say that freedom of speaking is a privilege. You're right in saying that certain topics are barred. On level 1 we were allowed to talk. Not about any topic that they deemed "non-working" of course. Plus level ones couldn't talk whenever and to whoever. In fact level 1-3 had to ask permission. Level 4 and above didn't. Now, abuse? Sure. Discipline? Sure. However you want to label it. In any case I didn't feel maltreated. But that's just me. Others did feel abused.
-
Perri,
Basic human needs are considered to be: food, water, air, shelter, heat, clothing, and medical attention, education/information, love/respect- connection to other human beings. And those are the Basics.
All humans have a Right to those things, imo, because they are things that nature gives freely without discrimination. They only become Privileges when some person or oppressive regime is controlling the natural resources and/or interfering with the latter- medical, education, love, respect.
While it seems useful for kids to learn the difference between NEEDS and WANTS, and increasingly take responsible for acquiring their WANTS and eventually NEEDS; it is oppressive for a program to identify NEEDS as Privileges. Just as oppressive as ?communism?. The fact that you are unable to see this, is the concern.
Communism, Capitalism- neither of these systems are pro-life/pro-human in that the majority of citizens are not able to earn enough money to acquire basic needs- many of the same resources that nature gives freely.
When my son returned from an oppressive program he had been conditioned to believe that what he endured was ?normal? and deserved. I had to re-educate him on what constitutes abuse.
Given your third world experience, it would be understandable that you could see the program as an improvement. In one breath you seem to dislike communism, but then use the same argument to defend the program for defining Rights as Privileges.
If you don't know Timo's 'mental illness', you haven't been paying attention- she's written lengthy and detailed messages about it.
-
Deb,
I was NOT using the discussion of human rights vs. privelages as a way to excuse the program. I was merely talking about that subject. Please stop putting me into the 100% stand by the program make excuses and defend it all the time kind of gal. That was not my intention. I believe I stated that already. Now, I obviously missed the discussion on Timoclea's mental illness. Excuse me for that.
Yes the program helped me, yes I am thankful, no I was not abused, no I don't see it all your way, yes abuse is abundunt amongst the programs, yes I disagree with certain things, no I don't see it as brainwashing, sorry if you're disturbed. Now, don't make assumptions. I'm always up for listening to your views and others. I gain knowledge and a different point of view when I do so.
-
On 2005-03-18 05:31:00, Perrigaud wrote:
"Now, did I ever say it wasn't abuse MISEDUCATED? No, I did say that freedom of speaking is a privilege. You're right in saying that certain topics are barred. On level 1 we were allowed to talk. Not about any topic that they deemed "non-working" of course. Plus level ones couldn't talk whenever and to whoever. In fact level 1-3 had to ask permission. Level 4 and above didn't. Now, abuse? Sure. Discipline? Sure. However you want to label it. In any case I didn't feel maltreated. But that's just me. Others did feel abused. "
i'm confused, first you say that you did not say it wasn't abuse (i am presuming that we are still talking about the right to talk to other people thing). then you say that freedom of speaking is a "privilege", not a basic human right. then you say that you didn't feel maltreated, like it was okay with you that they took away the basic human right to talk to other people and make personal, private connections uncontrolled by whoever is in power.
-
Perri,
I haven?t put you in ?the 100% stand by the program? category. We are having a discussion and several people disagree with your definition of needs, rights, and privileges. Some, also tend to believe that you came to these definitions via the program. Possibly your being from a third world country had an influence as well. Programs do tend to re-define common terms.
You may not have intended to use ?the discussion of human rights vs. privelages as a way to excuse the program?, that is how it appeared to me. You started by posting the ?Privileges? in the program and then appeared to defend them with these comments:
*IN OTHER COUNTRIES THE PRIVELAGE TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER WHENEVER IS NOT THERE.
*Now, humans basic needs are as follows: Get food, get rid of waste, shelter, and (arguably) love. Anything above that is a privelage. Clothes provide shelter for the body itself.
*I did say that freedom of speaking is a privilege.
You have the right to your opinions and do not have to defend them. Others have a right to their opinions. Do they have a right to pontificate (make assumptions) about your experience and how it might have affected you? I don?t know. It seems appropriate in the context of the discussion. If you are uncomfortable with that, you can opt out of the discussion. Ironically, it appears that it was acceptable to you, for the program to dictate to you how you should think about needs, rights, and privileges.
Fortunately here, you have the freedom to continue to believe how you choose. No one is denying/limiting/withholding your needs/rights in order to pressure you into adopting their beliefs. They are words, thoughts, opinions to be embraced or ignored.
-
Perri--I can understand that many of your standards of what is acceptable treatment and what is child neglect may have come from a third world country experience prior to your entering a Program.
I certainly didn't expect you to like what I had to say. I expected you to be pissed off and defensive and back in my face. You have that right, but I stand by what I said.
Child neglect and child abuse, under US law, is defined in relation to US community standards, not third world standards.
Additionally, our child welfare authorities make allowances for parents who are neglecting their children (by US standards) because they're poor or disabled and are doing the best they can---in which case the authorities try as best they can to hook the families up with social services to help them do better providing their child's needs UP TO US COMMUNITY STANDARDS.
They don't hold immigrant parents accountable as habitual child-neglecters just because they lived in third world countries where community standards were different and did the best they could for their kids with what they had.
US child welfare authorities take a *very* different view of parents who have the *means* and ability to provide their child with care up to US community standards and choose to withhold those basic needs (by our standards) as some form of discipline, or incentive, or punishment.
When parents do this, which is analagous to what the programs do, US child welfare authorities tell the parents to shape up, and if the parents won't, they remove the children. If child welfare decides the parents neglect is "wilful"--that is that they know they've been told not to but keep doing it anyway--they can and do go to court to completely terminate parental rights. Which legally means the kids aren't the parents' kids anymore and can be adopted, and that the parents have no more rights to visitation, or to try to someday get the kids back, or anything.
Most Americans, though we may bitch when child welfare people are slack or overzealous, *want* child welfare agencies to be there and *want* kids who are, for example, wilfully deprived of shoes by people who can clearly afford to provide them *removed* from that situation and never sent back.
If you disagree that strongly with the rules here, then you may want to emigrate to someplace that doesn't have our same child welfare laws.
But under our community standards, and the laws that we voters want in our communities, the things you're talking about are simply Not Acceptable.
Again, if individual parents did it, and still did it after social services had been provided to take care of any problems that stemmed from the parents being poor or disabled, those parents would lose their kids---likely permanently---and could reasonably expect to be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail.
In the real world, child welfare can't afford to prosecute every case of criminal child abuse and criminal child neglect, so they have to pick and choose the worst offenders to prosecute. Frequently, even if the parents' behavior is clearly legally criminal and they could clearly get a conviction, they just take the kids and do their damnedest to make sure the kids never go back.
The vast majority of Americans *agree* with child welfare taking the kids, and prosecuting, in those cases (that's why they call them community standards) and are just appalled that those same community standards are not being enforced on group facilities for teens.
When they find out.
I have talked to many people since I saw the shoes as a 3rd level "privilege" thing. I haven't found one single ordinary person, not involved in this whole debate, that thinks that's okay. I haven't found one single person that *doesn't* think that's grounds for child welfare taking the kids and criminally prosecuting the perpetrators for child neglect.
Same on the talking as a privilege thing. I'm not talking about saying anything you want to anyone you want. No good parent allows their child to rampantly verbally abuse other people, for example. I'm talking about simple social interaction outside of classroom or formal settings.
Same with the going to the bathroom privately thing, with the understandable exception of someone who needs to be on suicide watch.
I stand by my assertion that you will need parenting classes before you have kids in the US so you will know what community standards your neighbors and child welfare authorities expect you to follow, minimum, in caring for your child---including what bounds you may not legally breach in disciplining your child.
Maybe I'm wrong. It's been known to happen before.
All I can say is that it doesn't appear to be my isolated perception that you're coming across as not having a clue what US community standards of parenting really are.
I can see that perhaps your third world experience not preparing you for US community standards of childcare was simply not helped by being in a Program, and that some of that is the cause of your apparent cluelessness rather than brainwashing.
I know I'm not being gentle or tactful here, but this is a clue-bat situation because you're an adult woman who could, god forbid, end up in charge of a child without knowing local standards of right from wrong. As a mother---well, I know I'm reacting like a mother bear.
Whatever the source, I'm not going to let all this go by without standing up and saying that we don't want to let people treat kids like that here.
And the only "issue" I've got there is as a mom.
I've had people bitch about my parenting before. I guess everyone has had that. And it pissed me off. But when the rules said community standards were that you couldn't leave your kid home while you went around the corner to get a gallon of milk until your kid was 9 years old, I sucked it up and followed the rules. When community standards said I had to put my kid's med dosage in her hand when it was time for her to take it rather than putting a week's meds in one of those little day-by-day boxes from the pharmacy and getting her used to taking it on her own, I sucked it up and followed community standards.
It's not that I'm a hopeless slave to a "what will the neighbors think" mentality. It's that I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm always right. If my friends and neighbors pretty much *all* believe that X is the minimum standard for how you treat a child, I'm going to err on the side of nurturing my child.
Anyway, all things considered, I stand by what I said.
It wasn't tactful, and I knew it wouldn't be, but I couldn't think of a tactful way that was also plain and clear---and I still can't.
So you don't have to agree with me, of course, but that's still what I think.
Julie/Timoclea
-
Perri, somewhere along in here, I think you said something about one of your responses being an example of your anger management issues.
I disagree. I've probably made half a dozen attempts to post in these threads. I've gotten to the end of 6 or so paragraphs and realized I hadn't said anything worthwhile and decided to scrap the effor and maybe try again later when I figure out what the hell I'm trying to say.
All good intentions aside, this duscussion has turned to one of psychoanalyzing you. You should be pissed! You should feel a bit violated. Hell, in the context of having been through the program, I'd be feeling quite paranoid and maybe a little panicked if I were you.
I apologize for my part in that. I didn't intend it, didn't even notice I was doing it. None of us know anywhere near enough about you to do that or even try.
If you're interested in the dry, dull, boring research on human interaction and communication, I'm happy to go there with this. I do think that the policies that you describe are generally not good for a number of reasons. But I don't think we should be tearing into your private experience in this very public forum.
Just my .02I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create.
--Vincent Van Gogh, Dutch painter
-
Yeah Timoclea you did come off as untactful and personal. That in turn showed your ignorance.
As for my parenting? Well I have no doubt in my mind that I will be an excellent mother. How blown out of proportion is the subject of my mere response to a question.
Parenting classes? No thanks. And no I don't plan on making a level system for my son or daughter to live up to and earn privelages. Damn your touchy! There are people on this thread that believe the same as you do. What seperates them and you is that they don't feel a need to attack personal issues they know nothing of. Niles and Antigen are a couple of examples of the type of people I'm talking about. I respect them and their opinions even if they don't run in congruance to mine.
Reacting like a mother bear? No, not at all. You're reacting out of impulse and irrationality.
The program. You know why I didn't freak out about it? You know why I supposedly in your warped head "accepted it"? In life things happen. Things that you can't control. I lived through it. I didn't get abused (thank god and yes I know others were). I didn't allow myself to give the program the power to ruin my life. I used it to my advantage. I'm a survivor not a victim. I don't even want to discuss anything with you for fear you'll go all Harey Carey on me again. I'm not here to fight with you. I am here to gain knowledge and share what I know. To think this all started out with a mere response with none of my personal beliefs is incredible to me. What's scary is that if this bothers you so much I wonder what would happen if something really detrimental came along your way.
As much as I'd like to go off on you and personally attack you I won't. Good luck.
-
Once again you have amazed me. I don't mind that people get personal. It happens. I do it too, after all we are just humans.
I guess I didn't really clarify things. I was simply trying to respond without my personal opinions.
Thank you. This is the reason I hold high respect for you. I'm not here to fight. I just want exchanges in knowledge. But with that it's in human nature to let personal experiences get mixed in.
-
I'm making a big post. Read up and I'll explain my opinions.
-
I'm sorry I didn't handle all that better.
I'm still freaked about how they do the levels.
Not your fault I'm freaked. *sigh*
Ginger said something that should've crossed my mind and didn't. How you would feel about what I said with you having been through the program.
Ginger is pretty darned level-headed. If she thinks I'm wrong, I more than likely am.
It didn't feel to me like I was overboard at the time, but I'm nuts, so sometimes it doesn't.
Not having been there, I defer to those who have been, and I abjectly apologize for hurting you.
Julie/Timoclea
-
And no, I don't think that fixes it, it's just that I believe when you're wrong, the thing to do is choke it down, step up, apologize, and let the other person at least go on having that apology.
Of course it doesn't make it all better, and I'm not beating myself with a whip here, it's just something you owe another person when you've been wrong---to be fair enough to say so.
I hope you won't leave Fornits just because of me.
Julie/Timoclea
-
It takes a lot more than that to get rid of me. :grin: I am after all very stubborn.
I'm not even pissed. The motherhood thing got to me a touch but it just gives me more of a want to prove that statement wrong.