I know first hand how their screening process works.
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation.
link
Not "someone explained it to me" or "I heard it from the intake people" but "I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES." Whooter made a big admission here.
Lols. Yesterday SUCK IT was saying "Whooter has never uttered anything that would lead anyone to believe he works in the industry," calling it a "Fornits myth" told by the "Fornits extremists."
Now it's "I don't care that he works in the industry. It means he believes in what he's saying"
SUCK IT's hypocrisy is shining on display tonight! It called LYING and DECEIVING, SUCK IT.
If that's how you feel about it. I accept the fact I don't know who is behind usernames here, and it really doesn't bother me much. I focus on what people have to say, their arguments and comments. Even if someone claims to be something, they might be something else, and this goes for all posters here. So as a logical person, what other choice is there to address arguments directly and skip my theories about the biographies of those behind them.
I notice you dysfunction choose to spend your time attempting to discredit Whooter through technicalities, instead of just offering your own experience as a counter argument. Whooter says he had a teen child in a program and it helped them, this is completely believable to me. I don't know anything about you, or why you think programs are abusive, or even what program you worked at. Because you don't talk about what you know and experienced, you prefer to delve into the realm of conspiracy theories, and yes they are theories because you don't know who Whooter is. If it turned out he did in fact work for a program, something nobody knows here (hence it being a myth), then it would not change my view of him or his arguments, although yes I might have to edit that out of my mythology. But since nobody knows, in the mythology it belongs.
Imagine if you were in a debate hall, and the topic is, say "are programs abusive"? Whooter could make some good arguments that they are generally not, and most kids are helped. But then you would stand up, and attack Whooter for who he is, where he works, and past statements. I don't think this type of argument would fly in a real debate setting. You could debate the things I post in my mythology as others have, but instead you look for tiny discrepancies (in your view) of my posts, hoping to brand me a "LIAR" and "DECEIVER", thereby dismissing everything I've ever said, and will say, which is a lot easier than you offering intelligent counter arguments. But calling names doesn't make it so, and if anybody comes to this website they will listen to Whooter's arguments and mine, and the best counter to this from your side would be to do the same thing, make arguments, rather than desperately try to discredit people entirely. This is some free advice for you dysfunction.
Remember, as a "survivor" I could take the same tactic against you. You worked for "abusive" programs (according to your own logic) therefore you are a bad person, and should not be believed. Do you think this is an effective argument and I would convince people using it? Because you do the exact same thing just the other way around, think about it.
