Psy BANNED AGAIN from st

[psy]

Jena Martin Wrote, via Email:

Psy,
 
I have edited your posts and you have once again been banned from Strugglingteens.com.
 
When I reinstated you, it was with the self-imposed condition that you no longer post in the Parenting Issues forum.  Despite the fact that it was your idea, you have failed to abide by that boundary.
 
I am also banning you because of your participation in the ST vs. Fornits game.  You may not have transferred the post, but, based on your posted comments, you are obviously involved in some way.  That whole game is so disruptive to ST, not to mention how destructive it is to the Fornits agenda, and it just needs to stop.  I know I can't stop it, but I sure won't stand by and allow forum members to participate in it.
 
Jena Martin
Forum Moderator

Well... I've had enough.  I let the bitch have it:

On May 7, 2007, at 3:21 AM, Jena Martin wrote:

> Psy,
>
> I have edited your posts and you have once again been banned from  
> Strugglingteens.com.
>  When I reinstated you, it was with the self-imposed condition that  
> you no longer post in the Parenting Issues forum.  Despite the fact  
> that it was your idea, you have failed to abide by that boundary.

You did not insist on it.  And where I posted, I posted with  
respect.  Did anybody complain... Save maybe Mose, who I have tried  
to contact privately and talk to, to figure out why she hates me.  
She has repeatedly attacked ME and I have not complained because i  
respect free speech.

"I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to  
say it" - Voltaire

>  I am also banning you because of your participation in the ST vs.  
> Fornits game.  You may not have transferred the post, but, based on  
> your posted comments, you are obviously involved in some way.

Do you have any proof?  Thought not.  Good thing you didn't publish  
that.

> That whole game is so disruptive to ST, not to mention how  
> destructive it is to the Fornits agenda, and it just needs to stop.

So disruptive to the Fornits agenda??!?!  I find it impossible to  
believe you care, considering 99% of fornits is dead set against what  
you do, who you are associated with, and what you represent.  
Moreover... Fornits is an _open_ forum where people are free to speak  
their opinion without fear of censorship.  If you want, you can  
become a part of the "Fornits agenda".  It's not closed, controlled,  
edited, manipulated, glossed-over, or propagandized like ST.

This Makes you look bad.  Not me, and not fornits.  Nobody is  
complaining but the local management  (You, Lon, et al) getting  
uppidy about my posts hitting a little too close to home.  It's a  
good thing I archive not just my posts, but the entire threads.  
Revisionism is one of program's best friends.

Do not try and censor my ideas because they conflict with your own  
agenda.  They did that in program and I will never let that happen to  
me again.  Either let me speak my peace, respectfully, wherever I  
please, to whomever I please, or get ready to become my new pet  
project.  And you do NOT want that.  I may have my time occupied  
crucifying Benchmark, but I can always find time to show a little  
love to those who send kids to be brainwashed, knowing full well what  
goes on.  You protect programs by censoring their names... hiding  
behind the guise of legal liability.  You and I both know that  
service providers are not responsible for their user's content, and  
libel is up to a court to decide, not an Educational consultant with  
a (barely) hidden agenda.

And don't think I'm afraid of your petty legal copyright threats.  By  
all means. Try me.  My lawyer will rip you apart.  Oh ... and try  
getting verification of IP addresses from Ginger.  Hope you like the  
Dewey Cheatham and Howe Page.  And you get to meet some of my fine  
lawyer friends who just love educational consultants to death,  
especially considering one of them was a survivor of a school you  
should be very familiar with.

You have been warned.  If you don't believe I'm serious, ask Jayne  
Longnecker.  I am not your typical program dropout.

Oh.  and If you're trying to protect Benchmark from that fairly long  
post in "Skills at TBS".... You can be damn sure I won't forget that.

> I know I can't stop it, but I sure won't stand by and allow forum  
> members to participate in it.

Then why don't you ban those who started the discussion of fornits.  
It wasn't me.

Can't you find a good reason to ban me.. Like an actual offense.  
This smacks of censorship.

Right now.  I'm being rude. Right now.  I'm being confrontational.  
Were you in a TBS?  When I was in raps i would rip people apart.  I  
was satan in raps.  I humiliated _staff_.  Keep that in mind when you  
judge my posts for content.  I try to be very respectful to posters  
on ST, regardless of how much I disagree with them.  The Amish thing  
was _not_ a joke.  NOT a  joke.  This has been done before.

Expect this to be posted (as well as all previous communication with  
Lon) on Fornits If I am not un-banned by 2PM est (yeah.. you might  
want to ask Lon about that...).

Having forgotten something, hit reply again and wrote:

PS:  Karen and I are friends.  That now now comment was said with a smile...

"Psy is a college student who was sent to a program by his parents several years ago. He is a strong advocate for NOT placing a teen in any program. He believes (with good reason) that the particular program he was in was abusive and harmed him. He has educated himself extensively on the roots of teen help programs and it is his sincere belief that they all have great potential for harm. He can explain himself more to you, but this is the Cliff's Notes version of why he participates on this forum. He is articulate, intelligent and respectful, but he does have strong opinions. [Smile]"

Is that what you Ban me for?  When that is what other posters think of me.

If you have any proof that I was the one to post that.. come forth with it.  Otherwise, don't expect me to write up a dirt list.  I'm done with program, and I don't snitch on friends for arbitrary infractions of absurd rules created for the purpose of creating an illusion of control.  Accuse me publicly of posting that, and I will very gladly sue you for libel.

For your reading pleasure... this is the post she edited.. deleted highlighted in green:

@SoSadMom

You can't be serious....  But hey.  Between a program and foster parents.  I'd have chosen the latter.  Why not ask some Amish?  Seriously!  They're religiously obliged to take your kid in if you ask them, and you can be sure they'll be treated well.  Maybe they can Exorcize your kid.  It's about as scientifically sound as most programs' methods.

(source  est.. Lifespring... Synanon.. all cults (i can cite sources for this if people want).  oh wow... that's impressive.)

@Twiglet:

Pot is a plant.  So-called "skunk" is simply a well-bred plant (a purer strain of Indica usually).  It's not "15 times stronger" or anything of the sort.  It's just like some coffee beans have slightly more caffeine.  Selective breeding can only do so much.  In any case, it simply means a person smokes less of it to get the same effect.  To my knowledge there have been no studies done citing permanent damage caused by pot.  There have been studies done citing a correlation between schizophrenia and marijuana usage, but it is not clear whether or not marijuana causes schizophrenia (very unlikely) or whether schizophrenics prefer to self medicate using marijuana.

You say his usage was "out of control" and yet it didn't affect his studies.  Furthermore, you didn't even notice it.  Experimentation with drugs is not exactly abnormal during the teenage years, and "heavy user" is a very subjective phrase, especially when organizations parents look to for education such as "DARE", or the "Drug Free America Foundation" were/are funded in part/chiefly by the very same people who bring you some programs. (Can't mention them here.  PM me if you want details)

Most people grow out of it.  Everybody tries it.  It scares parents.  That's natural.  This does not mean "let them"...  But please... Don't send them to program for it.  There are many other options.

Disclaimer: No, I do not smoke pot but my dad did in the 60s(Apparently, it was quite common around during that era), and he's fine now.  So did many of my coworkers and fellow college students.  Most get bored of it (especially when they can drink, which is far more potent and harmful (cirrhosis, physical addiction, poisoning).

So..  Hands up... what do you think I was banned for?

[ZenAgent]

None of the above...you pissed off Mose, you and that damned Overrlord guy with your Fornits agenda, scaring away business.

Hmm..I made a weird typo..."Fornists"  We are all Fornists.

[Charly]

Sorry about this latest banning.  I don't get it.

[psy]

Sorry about this latest banning.  I don't get it.

I do.  totally.  Remember what I said about pissing in the pool.

The last thing Lonnie boy wants is a person tipping parents off in terms of what questions they might want to ask regarding a TBS. Take for example that blatant piece of propoganda that woman's daughter posted.  I bet she will find out that the girl either had ulterior motives, or she was pressured into advertising for the school.  I may be wrong.  But I doubt Lon wants to take that chance.  I'm bad for his business. It's that simple.

[psy]

None of the above...you pissed off Mose, you and that damned Overrlord guy with your Fornits agenda, scaring away business.

Hmm..I made a weird typo..."Fornists"  We are all Fornists.

It's "fornitscators"... coined by  :wink:  :wink:

[ZenAgent]

Psy, you made your case clearly every time on ST and made a friend out of Karen.

Being banned is proof you were influential. Nothing is worse for the "industry" than a person who knows the evil first-hand and can mount a lucid and sensible argument against it.

[psy]

Psy, you made your case clearly every time on ST and made a friend out of Karen.

Being banned is proof you were influential. Nothing is worse for the "industry" than a person who knows the evil first-hand and can mount a lucid and sensible argument against it.

I know...  I get flattered each time they ban me.  It's a compliment really.

Hey. there are now three posters endorsing my Amish idea:

check this out

[psy]

Psy, you made your case clearly every time on ST and made a friend out of Karen.

Being banned is proof you were influential. Nothing is worse for the "industry" than a person who knows the evil first-hand and can mount a lucid and sensible argument against it.

I know...  I get flattered each time they ban me.  It's a compliment really.

Hey. there are now three posters endorsing my Amish idea:

check this out

They sound like a bunch of Parents who want to send their Kid away or already have.
How creepy, you must have a strong stomach, Psy.

LOL.. That's exactly what I told Karen...

[ZenAgent]

Yeah, but do they get to run amok at 16 like the other Amish kids during Rumspringa?  My wife and I watched "The Devil's Playground", a documentary on Amish kids who get to taste the "English" world when they hit 16.  They throw some monster parties, up to 1500 drunk kids speaking Pennsylvania Dutch, smoking weed, meth, etc.

Surprisingly, most of the kids get a good dose of the modern world and decide to take the vows of the Amish faith and renounce worldly things.

[69]

Bah.

[hanzomon4]

Yeah psy you have an iron stomach and the patience of a mountain. I tried my hand at ST but got physically sick after a week. ST parents seem like the kind of people my mother warns me against making babies with. Have you ever heard the phrase about "planting a seed" or some such? Well I crown you the johnny apple seed of (un)common-sense, lord knows ST needs it...

Who knows you may just save a life or a psyche...

[nimdA]

I'll be back on ST one of these days. I've got something in the works. It will be most amusing.

[Nihilanthic]

Sorry about this latest banning.  I don't get it.

The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

Also - thats why we can't stand you!

You're really moving along quite nicely. Seems you CAN learn through osmosis.

[psy]

Just got a mail from Jena and responded...  Hope she feels the love.

From: Michael Crawford
Date: May 8, 2007 2:09:31 AM EDT
To: Jena Martin
Subject: Re: Your Posts at Strugglingteens.com


On May 7, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Jena Martin wrote:
I did not accuse you of posting.  I accused you of participating in the ST vs. Fornits game and being involved in some way.

This was my latest, and only post regarding fornits posted in the Parental advice section:

"
   Icon 1 posted May 06, 2007 11:56 PM      Profile for psy   Author's Homepage   Email psy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote  Now now Karen... Many of the posters over there find it difficult to stomach this site. There is always the fear that: "oh my god.... where is she going to send him/her..." It's a roll of the dice.

My parents were careful. They trusted an educational consultant. That educational consultant had alternative relations with the program in question. As a result, what was supposed to have been a "Boarding School"... Wasn't.

Lots of parents talk about how they are afraid that thier kids will end up dead, insane, or in-jail (not a cliche). I imagine that fear is somewhat similar to that which many Fornits posters feel when they read this site. Though you may hate the language, coarse content, and general distaste for program parents though you may; there is a general concern for the welfare of your kids, whether you believe that or not... Which fear is irrational? That is the main difference in general opinion between ST and Fornits.

...

"

That post was intended to diffuse, not increase tension between ST and Fornits.  Furthermore, I did not have knowledge of the re-post on Fornits until it was posted.  After it was posted.  I asked a certain person if it was he/she and found out who did it.  That is not "being involved" in the action of the posting, but rather "inquiring about".

Such accusation was made due to your own comments in your post.  Sue away.

Well you did not post a reason for my banning at all, so there is no reason to.

You were reinstated upon your own self-imposed conditions.  If those are arbitrary rules...well, you came up with them.  What am I supposed to do about that?

I offered a lot of things when I was negotiating for re-enstatement, however you, nor lon did not insist on anything, merely stating:

"Michael,
 
I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.  I wanted to think about your request for reinstatement before taking action.
 
I will allow you to return to ST.  I think you understand the rules and are willing to adhere to them.
 
Jena"


"The rules" for posters does not include "no posting in the parental advice section of the forum".  You should have clarified had you wanted me to follow additional rules.  You let Overlordd post in the parental advice section.  You let other people who are not parents post.  Just not me.



Your threats fall upon deaf ears.  I am not a hysterical newbie to the internet.  I have been the target of various trolls, flamers and various other internet trash and never suffered a scratch.  Personally, I'm not worried.

You misunderstand the nature of my threats.  I do not intend to do anything illegal or unethical.  I merely intend to put ST under a microscope and publicize my findings.  In addition, you, not personally, but ST as a whole, has earned a part in my upcoming senior project (3d animation) about this industry.  I do good caricatures. You won't be flattered.

If your threats were against Strugglingteens.com,. then it would be an issue between Lon and yourself and I suppose your lawyers.

Well my threats are against strugglingteens.com in general.   But unless you do anyting illegal, or state anything libelous about me, i will leave the lawyers out of it.

There are many things about me, my role at ST and why things are done the way they are that you do not understand and make no effort to learn about.  Your wild assumptions have sent you way off base, but people will believe what they want to believe.  If you ever would like to know the truth...ask away.  I am not the enemy you think I am.

Ok.  I have a few questions:

you and your role:

Why aren't program names allowed to be mentioned.  I have already stated reasons why it's not because you're worried about legal culpability.  So what then is the reason?

Why don't you want me posting in the parental advice section of the forum?

the way things are done:

The IECA includes program owners on it's board of directors. Correct?

The IECA receives donations from programs.  Correct?

The IECA recommends programs or families of programs.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury is a member of the IECA.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury gets more business as a member of the IECA than if he were independent.  Correct?

NATSAP is associated with the IECA.  Correct?

NATSAP also has program owners on it's board of directors (not coincidentally, some of the very same that are on IECA's board).  Correct?

Lon Woodbury refers to NATSAP schools.  Correct?

NATSAP does not inforce it's "principles of good practice".  Correct?

NATSAP does not investigate complaints of abuse.  Correct?

NATSAP lobbies for industry self-regulation and against state controls that could help prevent abuse.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury argues for industry self-regulation.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury is a member of the industry.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury does not react to complaints of abuse unless they have been substantiated by the state.

Kids cannot call the police in many programs.  Correct?

Lon Woodbury, by arguing against inspections and regulation by the state, and at the same time, expecting the state to substantiate abuse, has absolved himself of any and all responsibility (and substantially decreased the likelyhood of embarrassment) for the placement of his client's children.

Functionally, both NATSAP and IECA function to put parent's mind at ease, assuring them that their members, both programs and consultants respectively, follow largely unenforceable (honor code) "principles of good practice".  Correct?

What other function do such principles serve if there is no method of enforcement, and indeed, enforceable regulations are actively lobbied against?

As I'm describing it, could the partnership between IECA, NATSAP, and associated schools be seen as unethical?

Hypothetically, Since the IECA has no effective method of investigating it's members other than ethics boards based on reports of unethical behavior, if Lon Woodbury were taking "finder's fees" from industry schools (say... a check in the mail), nobody would ever know.  Correct.

Even if he doesn't, He doesn't have to, since he gets lots of business by being part of "the club" (NATSAP, IECA) et al.  It is in his interest to maintain that networking.  correct?



You wanted questions...

[ZenAgent]

Your threats fall upon deaf ears. I am not a hysterical newbie to the internet. I have been the target of various trolls, flamers and various other internet trash and never suffered a scratch. Personally, I'm not worried.

Jena the Teflon Queen of Mean.  "Internet trash"?  I guess that's how she views posters on ST who have a different opinion?  I'm a little more irritated with the ST folks as I read this thread.  Some retaliation seems in order, a solid punishment for being obtuse.

If Lon's serious about the slipshod BM's popping up, he should make it the topic of his next ST "opinion".  He won't, it might run off potential advertising dollars.