Psy BANNED AGAIN from st

[ZenAgent]

Excellent.  Psy fomented dissent.  Two very active ST posters who disagree with a ban which was basically a kneejerk reaction to input Jena considered not supportive to parents with program questions.  Not supportive of Lon's cause, which is padding his pockets while putting kids through the grist mill of programs.  I've always thought ST should be responsible for ALL program info, even the paid advertising.  At some point, someone will challenge Lon and hold him culpable for damages.  If ST wants to help parents make an "informed" decision, they should be very discriminating about the site's advertised content.  If I were clueless about programs and saw ST's disclaimer so prominently displayed, it would be a red flag to me.

[exhausted]

Does anyone read disclaimers Zen?

Being desperate and tired, out of your mind with worry and fear kind of has the effect of just going somewhere, anywhere and saying HELP!!! When a bunch of friendly people sympathise and tell you it's all okay and they can help your child, you dont worry about anything else - call it tunnel vision if you like, but that's exactly how it is.

[Anonymous]

Not true, exhausted.  Disclaimers are a clear red flag and just because a parent is desperate doesn't mean they have lost all common sense.  Parents look for advertising as opposed to reviews/endorsements.  Anything that appears to be just an ad or a marketing piece is discredited.

[ZenAgent]

Does anyone read disclaimers Zen?

I do!  And I'm covering my ass, like Sue-Sue-Suedio.

Disclaimer: This post does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained in this post. The information in this post is based on interviews with victims and parents, information from government officials, and lawyers. None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this post in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information contained in this post. All information provided using this post is only intended to be general summary information to the public.

It's too long for my signature, but bet I'm going to add it from now on, what with the sabre-rattling Scheff and Zehnder are doing.  Golly, drag one hurricane victim through the wringer without even having the defendant in court and they think they can screw anyone.

[ZenAgent]

Does anyone read disclaimers Zen?

Being desperate and tired, out of your mind with worry and fear kind of has the effect of just going somewhere, anywhere and saying HELP!!! When a bunch of friendly people sympathise and tell you it's all okay and they can help your child, you dont worry about anything else - call it tunnel vision if you like, but that's exactly how it is.

I didn't mean to be flippant with you either, exhausted.  There is the other side of the coin, of which I'm too painfully aware:  The parent who seeks out the harshest looking program, hoping it will provide the kind of "tough love" they would go to prison for inflicting.  It's sick, I know, but sometimes the disclaimer might tell twisted parents they're on the right track.  Can't win.

When I looked at the re-vamped ST site, the first thing I noticed was the disclaimer, and an EdCon service offering support but not taking any responsibility for the programs advertised sets off bells and whistles.  I hope parents who are desperate don't miss that red flag in their rush to find help.

[exhausted]

No worries I didn't take it as flippant .. it  just interested me that you read the disclaimer, I wouldn't have, I'd have just gone ahead and taken the advice of Lon because he is meant to be the 'expert on these matters

I'm still glad the red flags were there for me even without reading the disclaimers though, enough to make me research before making any decisions *phew* I couldn't tel you what the red flags were, just that something told me it was all too good to be true and I needed to find out more about my kid being with strangers.

[psy]

Dear god she's like the Bush administration.

No shit... She can't seem to nail down a good reason to ban me.... They keep changing.  First it was for copying and pasting the ST post (false), then it was for having some involvement in it(not true).  Then it was for condoning it (that is true in principle, but for different reasons than one would expect. I do not approve of any intellectual property.  It can be used to restrict speech.).  Now... It's for posting in the parent's forum...  Hey!  Jena!  Withdrawl the troops and cut your losses!

The Latest:

I told you this would happen, and it's only the beginning.
They are seeing, now, more than they ever would have seen had you not banned me.  I sort of enjoy it when you and Lon show your true colors for all to see.
Cut your losses and un-ban me.

Next time, find a good reason.  Oh wait.. I won't give you one.  Doesn't that just frustrate the hell out of you?

The use of the reference to that song (I see your true colors...) was no mistake btw...  that song gives me the chills...

I got this:

Michael,
 
This is a simple matter.
 
You were previously banned.
 
You asked to be reinstated under the condition that you would not post on the parenting forums.
 
I agreed.
 
You abided by that agreement, excepting the one note of condolence to a poster, until now.
 
Now you are banned again.
 
Jena

I wrote this:

On May 9, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Jena Martin wrote:
Michael,
 
This is a simple matter.
 
No.  I'ts not.  If it was a simple manner, we wouldn't be discussing this.
 
You were previously banned.
 
For BS reasons explained and debated at length
 
You asked to be reinstated under the condition that you would not post on the parenting forums.
 
Did you read my last.. really long mail.... Apparantly not:
 
"You gave no indication that you accepted that condition, or had decided to impose it.  Hypothetically, if it was a self imposed restriction, i could remove it since I was the one to instate it."
 
I agreed.
 
Where?  You agreed to un-ban me.  You did not indicate the re-instatement had any conditions, or that you had agreed to my _PROPOSED_ condition or wanted it imposed.
 
You abided by that agreement, excepting the one note of condolence to a poster, until now.
 
Check my posting history.  You haven't paid much attention apparently.  I've kept _debate_ to the debate forum, but have not refrained from posting in the parent forum.  Why not so much?  Because I've been extremely busy this semester.
 
Now you are banned again.
 
For BS reasons explained and debated at length

Maybe I lost them another customer...  Whoops.. My bad.  

[Anonymous]

CRAWFORD FOR PRESIDENT 2008

[psy]

Just fired off another to Jena...

Fornits posters are not happy you banned me.  Multiple ST posters have contacted me via email to express their disgust.

Let me quote one of them:

"I feel badly that you got banned.  I know part of you doesn't
care, but I really think you tried to be civil.  I guess Jena and Lon
just don't want any debate.  That's a shame, because the industry needs
it."

And it's not who You think it is.  I've been talking to your locals... And they read Fornits.  They may not post, but they read Fornits.  

The more you ban me, the more you try and shut me up, the more you look guilty in the eyes of not just fornits posters, but those on ST as well.  An insurrection is where you are headed if you keep me banned.  Your program tactics (manipulating of the parents) only work by controlling communication.  You know this, so you keep me on "bans" with them.  Similar to a program, where those with too much "negativity" are in some fashion cut off... preventing the "disease" of independent thought from spreading.

You banned me because you what I have to say, you don't want parents to hear.  Just like a program.  Peer pressure is far more effective than any blatant technique of influence.    By eliminating those who don't share opinions (banning, editing, deleting posts) you make sure your forum is populated only with those who "tow the party line".  One that makes you money.  Presenting alternatives is out of the question.  Again.. As I have said many times.. Every kid is right for a TBS in your eyes.... You're blinded by greed, rationalized away as "the only way" so you can sleep at night.  Take a good hard look at what happens to the kids you help send to TBS.  Of course you didn't have to be there.  You didn't have to look in their eyes.  You can pretend they never existed.  I remember... and I won't let you forget.

Forgot to mention...  somehow overlooked this email. Jena responded with this:

When ST posters are unhappy with me, they email me.  Trust me on this one, I would know.  I have received no emails at all regarding your status on ST.
 
Again, I expect better of you.  Will you please drop the intimidation act?  It is childish, silly and does nothing except reinforce my initial position regarding your banning.
 
Jena

[emphasis added for suggestive (hint hint) effect]

*cough* *cough*
http://www.freepowerboards.com/strugglingppl/

read my policies, register, emigrate.
Looking for mods.

[ZenAgent]

I'll send Teflon Jena a missive post haste expressing my righteous indignation at her unprovoked banning of you.

[nimdA]

I'm try to work up a reasonable level of give a damn about this incident...

nope.. fail..

moving on.

[Anonymous]

if you dont care, why comment?

[nimdA]

Irony has just been defined.

[Anonymous]

never mind Psy, it's given them someone else to pick on

Me  :lol:

-Exhausted, too lazy to log in

[psy]

never mind Psy, it's given them someone else to pick on

Me  :lol:

-Exhausted, too lazy to log in

ST says: no attacking other posters...  and yet it never ceases to amaze me how blatant attacks on you are somehow permitted.