Author Topic: Licensing and regulation  (Read 2807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2005, 12:16:00 AM »
Happy Halloween!! LOL
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2005, 09:51:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-10-31 21:16:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Happy Halloween!! LOL"


:wave:

I am not a vegetarian because I love animals;  I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.  
-- A. Whitney Brown

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline kcadams1980

  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2005, 12:42:00 AM »
I feel everyone's frustration over the regulation issue - frankly, it could be quite sometime before HR 1738 even gets on its committee calendar for hearings, because Rep. Boehner (OH), the Education committee chair who sets the agenda, apparently has some ties to Kids Helping Kids.  I'm speculating on that one, of course, but I think it's fair to say that many of us feel a little cynical at times.  

I agree wholeheartedly that passing a few regulations won't solve the abuse.  Miller's bill proposes $50 mil. to set up regulatory agencies/panels in each state - $50 mil. is a drop in the bucket, but it's a start.  I do support the bill, however, not because I think it will just "fix" everything - but if nothing else, it will get some public dialogue going. And of course, the more public we all can make it, the better.

I was at Cross Creek Manor (WWASP) for 18 months several years ago, and my "therapist" was a lisensed social worker (not typical for WWASP programs).  I can tell you first hand, that "professionals" can be very dangerous if they do not act ethically - which Garth certainly did not.  

I guess you could say that they really know how to mindfuck you in the most efficient way possible...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
elly Adams
Cross Creek Manor *Graduate* \'97-\'99
M.S.W. (pending graduation!)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2005, 03:43:00 AM »
Kelly, I'm sorry you were harmed at a program. They most definitely are great at the mindfuck game.

I'm conflicted about this whole regulation thing as well. At first, I was totally for it thinking that it was going to be a great start. Then, I stopped and thought about what they were truly proposing, as well as the fact that the thing isn't even up for hearing yet because Boehner hasn't scheduled it, then I got a bit bummed out about the whole thing.

First of all, I guess I always knew it wasn't the answer, the whole answer. But I did have great hopes that it would help. I'm with you guys in that if it can get public attention, then fine, go for it so long as there's nothing that will, in the long run, harm the kids further. One thing this industry truly needs is EXPOSURE!!!!!!!!!!

You know, this is sickening when you think about it. Kids are being fucked. Parents are paying for it. I do believe that most parents are ignorant to what is going on, I'm sure some are not and buy into the whole "tough love" shit. But I think that many parents, if they really knew what they were signing their kids up for, would think again before signing on the dotted line. I've reviewed some of the program's Enrollment Agreements and it's unreal what parents agree to. Un-fucking believable, really. Most people wouldn't sign their pets up for something like that, yet it's OK for their kid?

Here's an example of just one of the program's Enrollment Agreements: http://www.intrepidnetreporters.com/Tee ... #Restraint
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline kcadams1980

  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2005, 08:48:00 AM »
I've read that contract (Paradise Cove) - since all of that stuff was posted on intrepidnet around 1999, I think that my contract may have looked something like that, but I'm not sure...

I it's a little reactionary to write off everything that the Fed. government does/has done.  Is there a lot of ridiculousness that gets funded through tax revenues, like $50 bil. bridges in Alaska? Absolutely.  But there are a lot of people in this country who depend on public assistance - Medicaid, CHIP (children's health insurance), Section 8 housing, Food Stamps... and, contrary to popular belief, these people are not "living on the dole" and frankly, all of those programs, as are many others, are ridiculously underfunded... But the private sector could do a better job, right? Wrong. Come to Texas, where Dubya, when he was Governor in the 90's, privatized virtually all of our state's social services - when it comes to stats involving health insurance, wage gaps, assistance for those living in poverty - Texas is consistently fighting with Mississippi & Louisiana over the bottom (out of 50) spots.  Basically, if you're poor, you probably don't want to live in Texas...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
elly Adams
Cross Creek Manor *Graduate* \'97-\'99
M.S.W. (pending graduation!)

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2005, 11:39:00 AM »
Kelly, here's the thing. What happened w/ welfare in Texas is not an example of the failure of the welfare state. It's par for the course. Ask anyone who's immigrated here from a Socialist country (no shortage of them, either).

And, as you note, nothing is going to happen anytime soon if Ohio has anything to do with it. You want to know how tight the Taft office is w/ the Straight line of programs? (i.e. the particular franchise that's been tight w/ the Whitehouse all the way back to the Nixon admin) Check out Dan Forbes 2002 investigative report, The Governor's Sub-rosa Plot to Subvert an Election in Ohio. In the 45 page pdf linked from the yellow box to the right of the main text, see pages 13, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 34 for specific mention of DFAF staff by name.

If you're poor (or even not quite well off) you don't want to live in Pennsylvania or Florida, either. I don't think public welfare is a bad idea because it helps poor people. I think it's a bad idea because it keeps them down. I'm old enough to remember a time when one man working a full time job w/ a little side work could support a wife and 6 kids fairly well. Ok, so we didn't have all the latest and greatest toys and fashions and such. But we had NO idea we were poor or anything. As amazing at it may seem today, most people carried catastrophic health insurance (hospitalization) and life insurance. But we paid about $10/head for doctor visits. That was before the advent of HMOs. That was before the well intended do gooders inside the Beltway mandated by law that every employer must take some of our pay and give it to the HMOs or restrict us all to under 30 hrs per week.

All good intentions aside, they fucked us!

So now we have a contrived shortage in healthcare. There's not really a shortage of talent, people willing to serve, medications or equipment. It's just so tightly regulated that no one can afford it.

All good intentions aside, the regulators have damaged America's medical services profoundly.

When you talk about privitizing social services a la Büsh, you probably don't know it but what you're talking about is, verbatim, a Social Democratic plan right out of Mein Kampf. We're still paying (and the rates just went up) and everyone involved (except those who invest prudently in public policy) are still bound by all of the rules and regs. But it's not anything even close to a free market. It's the opposite. It's a fascist arrangement where private business is given public funding and the full authority of law w/o the accountability we place on the public sector or the competition that would exist if we actually had a free market.

These Neocons, the Jacobians are all about removing regulations that limit the power of the corporations to whom they provide monopoly status. But they're not eliminating the taxes we all pay (even if you rent, who tf do you think is footing the tax bill?) and they never get around to eliminating the regulations that keep the rest of us frozen out of all important markets.

No, I'm still w/ Will Rogers on this one. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry



_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2005, 10:45:00 PM »
Ginger, no one in the federal government ever mandated employer-provided health insurance in the U.S.-- this is why there are still so many employers that don't provide it.  

Employer-provided benefits were fought for by unions *because we refused* to make the government provide it.  And HMO's came in when *companies* sought to save money on it and did so by hiring corporate bureaucrats to "cut waste" and when they ran out of waste to cut, we were left with another expensive layer of bureaucrats to pay for and so they didn't save the money as promised.  

HMOS also didn't put the promised money into preventive health care, which would have saved money, because they realized that people switch jobs and so often that if you pay for prevention, you're saving *some other* employer/insurer money, so why bother?

"Socialist" countries like Canada and Britain provide quality health care for their entire populations and have lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy than we do.  They also have many people on welfare and much less violence than we do and poverty there is far less extreme-- but the UK economy is booming and has been for last 10 years at least.

Health care is one of the few things that government does better than industry-- and this is so because health care cannot be a true free market for both ethical and practical reasons which are too boring and complex to get into here.

Regarding program regulations, Straight was never properly regulated.  It should have been regulated as an inpatient program and should have been regulated as a psychiatric hospital since it used restraint and isolation.  By using "host homes," it managed to avoid the regulations it should have been subject to.

While psychiatric hospitals do fall into scandals over isolation and restraint every now and then, there are much stricter regulations on them and institutional protections like complaint hotlines and patient ombudsmen that genuinely do reduce abuse when properly and consistently implemented.

The rules on the use of restraint and isolation in psychiatric hospitals are not the lip service that  Straight made up to please the government-- they are implemented because the treatment philosophy is that patients should have dignity and respect, not because they need to pretend that to avoid lawsuits.  Psychiatry has a lot of problems-- but one of them is not that it genuinely believes as a working philosophy that people should be shamed and humiliated to help them.  Eliminating that assumption in itself prevents a lot of abuse-- though not all, because power corrupts.

However, there are also much tighter legal constraints, due to the recognition of this by the field and because of the work of advocates.  For example, you cannot keep an adult locked up without appeal if they haven't committed a crime or don't have a diagnosis that means that they are a *current* danger to themselves or others.

That status needs to be determined by a judge in court and must be re-evaluated on a regular basis.  Since inpatient psychiatric care is so expensive (and since these legal measures are so expensive), there are natural limits on overuse that simply aren't there with these programs.

This is why I believe regulation could make a huge difference, if done right.

What's needed is for teens to have the rights that adults do in terms of not being locked up unless they are convicted of a crime and given a determinate sentence or diagnosed with a condition that makes them a danger to self or others that demonstrably cannot be treated in less restrictive setting.  And this must be determined by a judge and re-evaluated on an ongoing basis. And 24 hour access to a hotline for abuse complaints that sparks outside investigation.

This would take away 90% of the kids in these programs because they don't meet criteria for being untreatable in a less restrictive setting-- some don't meet criteria for needing anything at all.  The other 10% need psychiatric care.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2005, 12:10:00 AM »
***This would take away 90% of the kids in these programs because they don't meet criteria for being untreatable in a less restrictive setting-- some don't meet criteria for needing anything at all. The other 10% need psychiatric care.

That would be wonderful, but, how?
The federal ICPC, which is already in place but ignored by industry, parents, and state agencies; would do precisely that. If states only enforced it and followed the letter of the law.

Even if states were required to track down all the kids who are currently placed out of state, each state would simply file the appropriate paperwork and it would be business as usual, because when it's all said and done, no one at the state level really cares about the issue. Parents will whine that they've 'done everything' and there is no other alternative. No one at the state will investigate to determine if there is indeed a less restrictive option closer to home.

I truly hope it will bring some positive change, but won't hold my breath.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2005, 11:12:00 AM »
Yeah, that's all great, if it were really true. I don't know the specific statutes and/or regulations to cite. It is not legal for most employers (w/ more than 10 or 30 or some other arbitrarily chosen number of employees) to employ a person full time w/o giving them insurance. I remember when that changed in So. Florida and it sucked BIG time! I was a young single mother, just barely making it week to week when they cut all of our hours from 40 to 30. That's the loophole, ya know. Anyone working under 30 hrs per week is considered 'part time' and not entitled to insurance. So most of us had to go out and get TWO part time jobs to keep our heads above water.

Quote
On 2005-11-07 19:45:00, Anonymous wrote:

What's needed is for teens to have the rights that adults do in terms of not being locked up unless they are convicted of a crime and given a determinate sentence or diagnosed with a condition that makes them a danger to self or others that demonstrably cannot be treated in less restrictive setting. And this must be determined by a judge and re-evaluated on an ongoing basis. And 24 hour access to a hotline for abuse complaints that sparks outside investigation.


This would take away 90% of the kids in these programs because they don't meet criteria for being untreatable in a less restrictive setting-- some don't meet criteria for needing anything at all. The other 10% need psychiatric care.


You are absolutely trippin' your brains out here! Just look into the history, PLEASE!

As far back as the early `80's, Fred Collins brought much attention and a bevy of regulators to Straight, Virginia for the very reason that they held him against his will. And he won, too, big time to the tune of over $700k. That worked out well for him, he put himself through school and has lived happily ever after. But did it actually change the way Straight did business? Fuck no! Ask anybody who was there or just read what so many have already taken the time and trouble to write. For brief periods, they banned 'motivating'. Not that it was anywhere near the most harmful practice in that place, but it was just too weird to explain, I guess. And they banned locked windows and doors, replacing them w/ motion detectors and human beings made to sleep in front of the doors and windows.

Straight, Inc. was extremely regulated. So have been the psyche wards of the bad old daze.

I remain of the opinion that we've had just about all the help we can stand. Please quit helping so much.

He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s4.html' target='_new'> James Burgh 1774

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline katfish

  • Posts: 543
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.cafety.org
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2005, 12:51:00 AM »
Hey Ginger,

Apologies for not replying sooner- things have been crazy busy for me.  Hearing your story and those of many people, esp. recently coming out of regulated and licensed institutions I can only say this- my hope is that we can garner enough support for improvements in local care so that youth who are struggling an their families have options, and that residential care is only limited to those who need it, who are truly in dire straits.  A Start's work is focused on regulation strictly, but that's not what the Bazelon Center is only interested in, for instance, and for that I admire their work greatly.  I love this factsheet posted on their site:

Fact Sheet: Children in Residential Treatment Centers
I. Tens of thousands of children with mental health needs are being placed in expensive, inappropriate and often dangerous institutions.
The number of children placed in residential treatment centers (or RTCs)[1] is growing exponentially.[2] These modern-day orphanages now house more than 50,000 children nationwide.[3]  Children are packed off to RTCs, often sent by officials they have never met, who have probably never spoken to their parents, teachers or social workers.[4] Once placed, these kids may have no meaningful contact with their families or friends for up to two years.[5] And, despite many documented cases of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, monitoring is inadequate to ensure that children are safe, healthy and receiving proper services in RTCs.[6] By funneling children with mental illnesses into the RTC system, states fail?at enormous cost?to provide more effective community-based mental health services.[7]

A. RTC placements are often inappropriate.
RTCs are among the most restrictive mental health services and, as such, should be reserved for children whose dangerous behavior cannot be controlled except in a secure setting.[8] Too often, however, child-serving bureaucracies hastily place children in RTCs because they have not made more appropriate community-based services available.[9] Parents who are desperate to meet their kids? needs often turn to RTCs because they lack viable alternatives.[10]


To make placement decisions, families in crisis and overburdened social workers rely on the institutions? glossy flyers and professional websites with testimonials of saved children.[11] But all RTCs are not alike.[12] Local, state and national exposés and litigation ?regarding the quality of care in residential treatment centers have shown that some programs promise high-quality treatment but deliver low-quality custodial care.?[13] As a result, parents and state officials play a dangerous game of Russian roulette as they decide where to place children, because little public information is available about the RTCs, which are under-regulated and under-supervised.  


To make it worse, far too many children are placed at great distance from their homes. For example, most District of Columbia children in RTCs are placed outside the District?many as far away as Utah and Minnesota.[14] Many families, especially those with limited means, find it impossible to have any meaningful visitation with their children.  


B. Evidence is limited on the effectiveness of RTCs.
Children frequently arrive at RTCs traumatized by the process that delivered them there. They are often forcibly removed from their homes in the middle of the night by ?escort companies.?[15]  Other times, children are placed in RTCs not by their parents or doctors, but by overburdened child-serving state agencies, who know little about the children?s individual needs.[16]


Even more appalling, many children?s conditions do not improve at all while at the RTC.[17] In fact, there is little evidence that placing children in RTCs has any positive impact at all on their mental health state[18] and any gains made during a stay in an RTC quickly disappear upon discharge, creating a cycle where children return again and again to RTCs.[19]  


There are many reasons why RTCs fail to deliver the results they promise, but most center on the type of services provided, the environment they are provided in and the lack of family involvement.


First, the reality of what occurs within an RTC is often quite different from the highly individualized, highly structured programs that are advertised. The RTCs often provide less intense services and the staff are often under-trained.[20] Children spend much of their day with staff who  are not much more qualified than the average parent and they spend less time face-to-face with psychiatrists than they would if they were being served in appropriate community settings.[21]


The environment is also problematic because children in RTCs enter a situation where their only peers are other troubled children?a major risk factor for later behavioral problems.[22] Research has demonstrated that some children learn antisocial or bizarre behavior from intensive exposure to other disturbed children.[23]


Children are usually far from home in RTCs, often out-of-state.[24] Removed from their families and natural support systems, they are unable to draw upon the strengths of their communities and their communities are unable to contribute to their treatment. Few children thrive when they are hundreds or thousands of miles from their parents, friends, grandparents and teachers. Few can flourish without the guidance of consistent parenting. Yet, we expect that our most vulnerable and troubled youth will miraculously turn around in just such a situation. Instead, this isolation further reduces the efficacy of treatment and increases its cost.[25]  


The fact that children and their families are far from one another creates a host of problems. For one, it makes family therapy difficult or impossible. As a result, when children leave the RTC, they return to an environment that has not changed. Also, because the RTC environment is inherently artificial?children are not asked to negotiate the obstacles that occur within their family setting or deal with the difficulties that trigger their behaviors in their neighborhoods or schools?the child does not gain new skills to better negotiate life outside of an institution. As a result, neither the children nor their parents learn better ways to overcome the obstacles that led to the RTC placement. Without family involvement, successes are limited.[26]


Among the rare children who are able to overcome these obstacles, few can sustain the gains they have made. In one study, nearly 50% of children were readmitted to an RTC, and 75% were either renstitutionalized or arrested.[27]    


C. Children suffer because there is no watchdog.
The RTC industry is largely unregulated.[28] RTCs need only report major unusual incidents (or MUIs), but the interpretation of what constitutes an MUI and the reporting requirements vary widely.[29] Some RTCs fail to report MUIs at all?with little consequence.[30] Vulnerable kids are placed far from home where parents, social workers, or the state can offer little oversight or protection.  Worse, many of the facilities limit children?s ability to have contact with their parents for extended periods, further restricting the parents? ability to monitor the facilities.[31]  


D. Children are abused in RTCs.
Children placed in RTCs have been sexually and physically abused, restrained for hours, over-medicated and subject to militaristic punishments; some have died.[32] The following are just a few documented examples of tragic occurrences at RTCs:

Medication is often used (and overused) to control behavior.[33] Children have been permanently disfigured because of over-medication.[34]

In some programs, the children?s shoes are confiscated to keep them from running away.[35]

There have been reports of behavioral ?therapies? being misused. As one author noted, ?Such therapies do little more than systematically punish children, all under the guise of treatment . . . .?[36]

Sexual abuse by staff members and other residents is all too frequent.[37] In one case, a 13-year old girl performed sexual favors for staff members in return for snacks and carryout food.[38] At one RTC, four boys were accused of trying to sodomize another with a cucumber.[39] At another, a 19-year-old woman was charged with sodomizing a 14-year-old girl.[40]

Physical abuse is also too frequent an occurrence. For example, a 13-year-old boy was forced against a wall and slammed to the floor by employees of an RTC.[41]

Children are often restrained?sometimes for hours on end. The overuse of restraint has resulted in child deaths.[42]


E. Tragic outcomes at great public expense.
RTCs have grown to a billion-dollar, largely private industry.[43] Residential treatment care is exorbitantly expensive?costing up to $700 per child per day.[44] Annual costs can exceed $120,000.[45] Most of the time, the public foots the bill for these services.[46] In fact, nearly one fourth of the national outlay on child mental health is spent on care in these settings.[47]  

II. Other Interventions Work Better for Less
Home- and community-based services are much more therapeutically effective than institutional services, and are also markedly more cost-efficient. As the Surgeon General reported, ?the most convincing evidence of effectiveness is for home-based services and therapeutic foster care? and not for RTCs.[48] A comprehensive system of care would dramatically reduce the number of children in RTCs.[49]  

Community-based alternatives produce better short- and long-term results and are less disruptive to children and families. These alternatives provide intensive mental health treatment, mobilize community resources and help children and their families develop effective coping mechanisms. Some models endeavor to ?wrap services around? the child, while others emphasize multi-systemic therapy and crisis intervention. Randomized clinical trials found greater declines in delinquency and behavioral problems, greater increases in functioning, greater stability in housing placements and greater likelihood of permanent placement.[50] In Milwaukee, a wraparound project that has served over 700 youth involved in juvenile justice has shown similar promise; use of residential treatment has declined 60%, use of psychiatric hospitalization has declined 80%, and average overall care costs for target youth have dropped by one third.[51]  
http://www.bazelon.org/issues/children/ ... s/rtcs.htm

Also, Bazelon is working with Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health who have been working to empower families with a promising approach to systems of care using the wrap around process. I haven't had the oppurtunity to read up on it much, but here are a few links on that.  Ultimately though, the idea is kids are not sent away, but work closely with families and their community.  I think it's safe to say we're all tired of youth being demonized and hearing about/experiencing these punitive methods using on kids in the name of therpapy.  That's not therapy!  Far as I can tell, the only way kids won't be sent away is if parents have local options that they are made aware of.  And, of course, the public is made aware of the atrocities that go on and have gone on for many many many years.  I just don't think most people know and would be appalled, particularly if more people were given a platform to speak out and share the damaging impact- my hope is that some of these organizations that are being made aware of these issues will take notice- finally.  We need more people to share though, advocate for youth that are there now and who went through it themselves...We need movement, collaboration, joint effort.  And, again, I can't stress enough just how grateful I am to have found this site.  When strugglingteens.com stopped allowing honest discussion I just stopped talking.  Then I found this site and its brilliant and so so important.

anyway- here are the links on systems of care and the warparound process. they're long- so if you have a moment, or many...

http://www.ffcmh.org/publication_pdfs/S ... VolOne.pdf
http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/medi ... ograph.pdf

Ginger- what do you think??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Licensing and regulation
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2005, 01:33:00 PM »
Well, Kat, this is really long and now I'm really busy. If I don't get back to it within a couple of days, please remind me.

Mean time, feel free to join the fun at
http://radioinsidescoop.com/mt-posts-ar ... 00506.html

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?tag=circlofmiamithem&keyword=mark+twain&mode=books' target='_new'>Mark Twain

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes