RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU

Another one bites the dust! Welcome to any and all who have an interest in CEDU/Brown; past, present and future.

Re: Yes, you got it! It's either THAT, or it's *not* THAT!

Postby Awake » 16 Jun 2010, 23:45

Whooter wrote:
Ursus wrote:
Or was this another one of your attempts to belittle or discredit survivor accounts? Do tell.



Belittle or discredit another poster or an entire group of people? I don’t think anyone would be that insensitive, at least not here. I don’t think fornits would tolerate it.
Imagine for a moment if someone tried to discredit or belittle an entire industry and the people who work for it. Would we sit around and stand for that? Should we stand up and say: “Not on my forum!!, we don’t tolerate that narrow minded thinking here”.



...



Y’know Whooter you have plenty of opportunities to give factually based responses, but your only defense here is to discredit others also. It’s your choice to continue to focus on the relationship drama here, or respond to the facts that are presented. I’ve invited you to join this conversation and you’ve had plenty of opportunity to do that, but you just want to discredit me and call me ‘narrow minded’ for having a clearly stated position on the faults of this industry. If you would like to defend against it, come on over.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423



.
Awake
phpBB Organized Malcontent
phpBB Organized Malcontent
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 02 Jul 2008, 04:33

Re: Yes, you got it! It's either THAT, or it's *not* THAT!

Postby Whooter » 16 Jun 2010, 23:59

Awake wrote:
Whooter wrote:
Ursus wrote:
Or was this another one of your attempts to belittle or discredit survivor accounts? Do tell.



Belittle or discredit another poster or an entire group of people? I don’t think anyone would be that insensitive, at least not here. I don’t think fornits would tolerate it.
Imagine for a moment if someone tried to discredit or belittle an entire industry and the people who work for it. Would we sit around and stand for that? Should we stand up and say: “Not on my forum!!, we don’t tolerate that narrow minded thinking here”.



...



Y’know Whooter you have plenty of opportunities to give factually based responses, but your only defense here is to discredit others also. It’s your choice to continue to focus on the relationship drama here, or respond to the facts that are presented. I’ve invited you to join this conversation and you’ve had plenty of opportunity to do that, but you just want to discredit me and call me ‘narrow minded’ for having a clearly stated position on the faults of this industry. If you would like to defend against it, come on over.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423



.



I find it hard to believe that I called you "narrow minded" for posing a clearly stated position on the faults of the industry. I think you are baiting me here.



...
User avatar
Whooter
phpBB Prolific contributor
phpBB Prolific contributor
 
Posts: 2166
Joined: 28 Jun 2009, 23:52

Re: RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU

Postby Joel » 17 Jun 2010, 00:00

This is a new thread to post and debate TTI studies.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684
Last edited by Joel on 17 Jun 2010, 01:14, edited 1 time in total.
Joel
phpBB Frequent poster
phpBB Frequent poster
 
Posts: 736
Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 08:29

Re: Yes, you got it! It's either THAT, or it's *not* THAT!

Postby Awake » 17 Jun 2010, 01:09

Whooter wrote:
Awake wrote:
Whooter wrote:
Ursus wrote:
Or was this another one of your attempts to belittle or discredit survivor accounts? Do tell.



Belittle or discredit another poster or an entire group of people? I don’t think anyone would be that insensitive, at least not here. I don’t think fornits would tolerate it.
Imagine for a moment if someone tried to discredit or belittle an entire industry and the people who work for it. Would we sit around and stand for that? Should we stand up and say: “Not on my forum!!, we don’t tolerate that narrow minded thinking here”.



...



Y’know Whooter you have plenty of opportunities to give factually based responses, but your only defense here is to discredit others also. It’s your choice to continue to focus on the relationship drama here, or respond to the facts that are presented. I’ve invited you to join this conversation and you’ve had plenty of opportunity to do that, but you just want to discredit me and call me ‘narrow minded’ for having a clearly stated position on the faults of this industry. If you would like to defend against it, come on over.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423



.



I find it hard to believe that I called you "narrow minded" for posing a clearly stated position on the faults of the industry. I think you are baiting me here.



...




WHOOPS! My apologies Whooter. I was under the impression you disagreed with me that double binds are a part of therapy for troubled teens. I don’t want to make assumptions but I get the feeling that you also think the world at large should all be ok with that.


If you believe my position is clearly stated, why do you feel ‘baited’? Is there some reasoning here that you have to fear?

.
Awake
phpBB Organized Malcontent
phpBB Organized Malcontent
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 02 Jul 2008, 04:33

Previous

Return to CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Thanks so much to all who have pitched in, Fornits is now pretty much user supported.
Thanks to a couple of generous donations, we're now about $70 over-paid.
Thanks!
Donate towards my web hosting bill!