Why I was banned from ST

[psy]

   From:      [email protected]
   Cc:      [email protected]

Well, we could talk about your sophomoric argumentativeness of the type any
teacher worth their salt would get tired of very quickly.

Or:

We could talk about making the forum unsafe by tearing apart opinions by
clever use of technicalities. (i.e. technically the operation was a success
even though the patient died).

Or:

We could talk about basic dishonesty of making a global assertion, and when
presented with facts, smoothly modifying your argument to attack from a
different direction (As you did in our brief exchange).

Or:

We could talk about covering up your very emotional opinions through the
veneer of intellectualization and technicalities.

Or:

We could talk about disparaging motives and abilities of people, most of
whom you know nothing about.

However, let's settle on naming programs, attacking people and motives
rather then their ideas (defaming), placing copyrighted material on our
board, and taking copyrighted material from our board (all posts) and
placing them on another site,

Lon Woodbury IECA
Certified Educational Planner
www.strugglingteens.com
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
208-267-5550



-----Original Message-----
From: Kristie Henley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:47 PM
To: 'Lon Woodbury'
Subject: FW: Banned?



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Crawford [mailto:********@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Kristie Henley
Subject: Banned?

This is absurd.  I did not attack anybody and was no more  
argumentative than Anne was. I was mererly pointing out technical  
inaccuracies (which you know, by the way to be inaccurate).  
"violating aggreements"  how?  Could you give me a detailed  
explanation of why i was banned?

Note there are no details.. Only accusations with no support...

This is what I sent to Lon yesterday evening:

Would you be willing to reconsider?  It seems Anne appreciated my posting...  And i'm sure WilleNelson has no problem with me either (considering I talk with her often privately).

This is what I sent in reply this morning:

On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Lon Woodbury wrote:

Well, we could talk about your sophomoric argumentativeness of the type any
teacher worth their salt would get tired of very quickly.


Odd.  No teacher i have ever had has complained about that.  I've heard "insightful", "voice of reason" ... lively.  but never "sophmoric".  Perhaps they weren't "worth their salt".

We could talk about making the forum unsafe by tearing apart opinions by
clever use of technicalities. (i.e. technically the operation was a success
even though the patient died).

"Technicalities" are also, often very important, as that is all the big picture is comprised of... Many many small technicalities, seemingly unimportant on their own, but without which the big picture would be blank.

We could talk about basic dishonesty of making a global assertion, and when
presented with facts, smoothly modifying your argument to attack from a
different direction (As you did in our brief exchange).

What?  You alleged that fornits posters had negative motives... when in fact were only attempting to see if legal assistance could somehow be provided to Lori's child to help her have an advocate, in case she didn't want to go to program.  I admit my reply  was "witty"...  perhaps even bordering on "smart ass"... but I don't see that as any sort of attack.

We could talk about covering up your very emotional opinions through the
veneer of intellectualization and technicalities.

Emotional opinions rarely change minds.  I truly doubt you would want me to express those on your site.  That's part of what fornits is for.  "Intellectualization" as you call it, i would refer to as "reasoned debate".  I came to your site, primarily, to continue a running debate with Karen (WillieNelson), since, admittedly, she was blasted unfairly on fornits.  She feels safe on your site, and (obviously) has no problems with me.  She and I have talked a lot privately to the point of becoming ... one could  say "friends".  

We could talk about disparaging motives and abilities of people, most of
whom you know nothing about.

Really?  How do you know who i have contacted outside of ST, on e-mail for example.  I have talked to Karen at length.  Admittedly I have not talked to Anne yet, and perhaps i rushed to judgement about the one example I mentioned below.  I am willing to apologize regarding that statement if Anne felt offended.  It was not my intent.

However, let's settle on naming programs

Unless i made a mistake somewhere... i'm quite sure i censored any names of programs i mentioned.. (Unless you count the CEDU family of programs which i meant to mean "cedu based")

attacking people and motives
rather then their ideas (defaming)

The one instance where i implied that somebody didn't have a good motive you saw on that thread.  I implied that Anne didn't care about Lori's well-being because if Fornits was as bad as she thinks, i don't know why she would refer Lori there.  I feel that was a valid point.  I have had my motives attacked again and again on ST.  I have not complained about that.

Look.  I know parents can be attacked on Fornits.  It happens more than a fair amount.  I did not feel Lori could "roll with the punches" like many other parents, and as such did not think it would be a good environment for her.  With her views, she could easily be mistaken for a troll and relentlessly attacked.  In that respect, ST is a much safer environment for parents.

, placing copyrighted material on our
board,

I don't know what you mean by that.  I am at a loss as to where I did that.

and taking copyrighted material from our board (all posts) and
placing them on another site,

I asked a copyright lawyer who lives across the street whether or not submissions on forums were copyrighted works.  He said no.  He told me only the original author of a posting can copyright a work... also.  He said that such copying (and i showed him the posts) would be considered "fair use" even if they were copyrighted.

--------

It is also interesting that all posts (with the exception of Mose) in reply to the announcement of my banning so far have been supportive of me.  Including Anne from Minnessota (who was the last person i was "arguing" with before Lon banned me.

Lon also changed his Board's disclaimer to this:

Welcome to the Struggling Teens Discussion Board! My overall purpose is to make this Board a safe, supportive and helpful haven for parents of struggling teens. Every other consideration is secondary to this purpose. Jena's job as moderator is only to facilitate constructive and honest discussion for everyone's advantage. Enjoy, and I hope you find what you need here.

Constructive and honest discussion for everyone's advantage... except the struggling teens themselves of course.  Good for Lon's business maybe.

I'm sure Lon is reading this...  So.  My message is this:  Un-ban me and wait for a good reason to ban me.  Banning me is bad for you politically anyway.  How many people are saying now "well i guess the fornits crowd was right about lon"?

[OverLordd]

how unfortunate. I'll speak on it on the thred on the boards.

[Troll Control]

Well, it was bound to happen.  I tusually occurs after one of the regular posters cries like a baby  ::crybaby:: when they've been owned in an argument.

Lon is a fucking moron, plain and simple.  He makes a living off keeping teens and parents in distress.  Keep it in perspective and you being banned is completely logical - nevermind that the argument Lon put forth is not factual.

In a fair, level, grounded debate, there are only a very small handful of ST posters that can even partially support their positions.  Lon tips the scale by making things up and selectively applying the rules to get rid of people that don't contribute to his income.  He's an intellectual lightweight and he knows it so he hides behind administrative rights.

Lon, you're a fucking pantywaist.  Grow up and grow a set of balls for chrissake.

[Anonymous]

Perspective: I run a forum full of 14-year-olds (Jesus no, I am NOT linking to that here!) and I'd get my ass kicked from here to Nantucket if I acted like Lon. Seriously, neither adults nor children would want to deal with me, the 14-year-old who actually owns the place would dispose of me like a worn pair of shoes, and I'd be out on my ass.

You reading this, twit? Back in the civilized world, you can either get rid of someone because you feel like it- you own the place after all- or just deal with their presence. But for the love of fuck don't go inflating your ego while making things up about "copyrighted material". It's borderline libelous and makes you look like even more of a twit than you already are.

The man has a serious authority fetish and likes to pretend he's a teacher. I wonder if he tried to get involved in the public school system, but got kicked out for one reason or another? Hmm...

I admire Psy's restraint in dealing with this fuckclown, though.

[Troll Control]

Milk, don't forget that Lon worked at CEDU for many years learning to become a seasoned child abuser and amoral control freak.  It's a symptom of his sickness.

Couple that controlling mentality with a healthy dose if inadequacy and you begin to understand his moderator behavior.  He can't stand and fight on principle, so he must withdraw or be further exposed as a know-nothing charlatan thusly denting his revenue stream.

Also, never, ever forget that Lon makes his bread and butter off scamming distressed parents and punishing their kids for fun and profit and he will never allow anyone to damage that income, no matter how idiotic his "reasons" are.

[exhausted]

Perspective: I run a forum full of 14-year-olds (Jesus no, I am NOT linking to that here!) and I'd get my ass kicked from here to Nantucket if I acted like Lon. Seriously, neither adults nor children would want to deal with me, the 14-year-old who actually owns the place would dispose of me like a worn pair of shoes, and I'd be out on my ass.

Are they program kids? If so, do you link them to this site?

[Anonymous]

Are they program kids?

Oh Jesus fuck no. How could they be? Think on the question for a bit. You don't think the programmies are going to let the kids on the Internet, do you? And even if somehow one of them did, do you honestly think that I'd do anything but find their parents, open the parents' eyes with some stark horror, and make them ex-program kids, right quick?

This is the phrasing I used to link them here. Feel free to copy and paste on other forums that have children on them.

All right, this one is very off-topic and hopefully applies to nobody on this board. There are places in the United States where parents can legally send their children to be "behavior modified", basically caged and tortured, or sent to "wilderness therapy" where dehydration, potentially fatal, is common. I don't think any of the minors on this board have parents that crazy, but I can't be sure.

If your parents have discussed sending you to any sort of "residential treatment center", "therapeutic boarding school" or arranged a meeting with an "educational consultant", don't wait; immediately direct your parents to http://www.fornits.com as soon as possible. Your future might depend on it. This also goes for any friends you might have in this situation. Get them and/or their parents over to Fornits ASAP.

No, this post isn't a joke. I hope it doesn't give anyone nightmares.

[exhausted]

I didn't mean kids that are in programs!! Imagine them sending messages for help all over the net, imagine them finding Fornits God forbid.....I thought maybe they were kids who had made it home because their parents pulled them out or kids who had got away on their own perhaps

Good idea to pre-warn both kids and parents as to what might happen though ::deal:: .... prevention is always better than cure IMO
Good job

[psy]

intersting update. Lon just edited one of my last posts to exclude the word "CEDU"

"6.  Was the school that your child went to (in which you experienced the workshop described) CEDU based or an actual original CEDU school?"

Considering we were talking about a defunct FAMILY of programs...   I don't see what the issue was.  I wasn't even mentioning a specific school name.  It was a Yes/No question that was HIGHLY relevant to the debate at hand.

Nobody was complaining and i would have gladly edited out the word if i had been politely tapped on the shoulder and asked. Other people had mentioned program names and been warned.  This was the first time I had even mentioned anything close to a program name.  Lon.  You just don't like somebody pointing out negative aspects of the industry.  Shame on your for your censorship.

[ZenAgent]

So you're "clever" and "sophomoric"?  The man is struggling for reasons, sort of like a beast thrown into a sawdust pit and left to fight for it's life.  Lon's a mediocrity and so are his lackeys.  I left a post on there, my God, my fake e-mail account was barraged by edcons wanting to hook me up with teen-torture shitholes.  They stop when I start asking about places I'd like to know more about, like DeSisto.  No one would explain why DeSisto went under, can you believe it?

You fought the good fight, Psy, it was bound to end like this.  You were bad for business, and business is all Lonny the looch cares about.  I piss on him and StrugglingTurds from a great height.

[Troll Control]

Milk, don't forget that Lon worked at CEDU for many years learning to become a seasoned child abuser and amoral control freak.  It's a symptom of his sickness.

Couple that controlling mentality with a healthy dose if inadequacy and you begin to understand his moderator behavior.  He can't stand and fight on principle, so he must withdraw or be further exposed as a know-nothing charlatan thusly denting his revenue stream.

Also, never, ever forget that Lon makes his bread and butter off scamming distressed parents and punishing their kids for fun and profit and he will never allow anyone to damage that income, no matter how idiotic his "reasons" are.

Again, Psy, don't try to rationalize Lon's behavior.  He's a CEDUite and believes deeply in their twisted, highly damaging techniques of control.  Remember, Lon actually believes CEDU is great and helps kids and families despite the fact that they were sued out of business for abuse, neglect and fraud.

There's not much sense in your applying reason and accountability to a true-believer freak like Lon.  It doesn't register with these hucksters.

[psy]

I just had a look see on the sight.  I was not the first person to Mention CEDU.  however, all mentions of CEDU have been summarily removed from the posts.  Not surprising at all.

I was, however, the only person banned who mentioned CEDU.

[Truth Searcher]

I'm sorry psy.  What they did was wrong.  You were respectful, informed and presented a very balanced view of the industry.

Of course, this is what they are afraid of.

I was just telling Niles that I wished he would try and come back ... undercover.

I will miss your intelligence and sensitivity in regard to residential placement.

[Charly]

Psy- I think you put up a lot of stuff (quoting me) that mentioned Carlbrook.  This might have been what Lon meant.  I know I mentioned CEDU.  I didn't know that wasn't OK.

[Anne Bonney]

Sorry to hear that Psy, but not surprised.