psy

[Anonymous]

a kid with a shithouse job can just walk away. A kid in a program just cant. I don't know about this idea of publically memorializing him without talking to family. Why not try and talk to them?

If I had a last name, I might try, but I'm pretty sure the program isn't going to give it to me.

They may be up for it. Or they may have legit objections. You dont know without trying to find out. However horrible and senseless this death is, these ppl have lost their child. They are going through the worst thing that can happen to a family.

Well.  Here's the issue.  Right now, the parents still most likely believe that their child was destined to commit suicide no matter what.  Broaching the topic, asking the question of "what if" may just be too painful.  What if they're far enough in the grieving process to not want to re-examine the past.  I can understand that.  It's really their choice.  That being said, nobody owns George, not the parents, not Benchmark, nobody, and if bring the events surrounding his death to light can prevent further occurrences from happening, I don't think he'd really mind that.  According to those I've talked to, he wasn't exactly a fan of program at the time he killed himself, anyway.

That being said, any memorial should be done in a tasteful manner, celebrating how he lived and who he was, not how he died, and not the last year or so of his life which, if I were him, would probably rather forget.  I mean.... I wouldn't really want Benchmark on my memorial unless it was prefixed with "fuck".  But that's just me, and I don't think anybody should put words in his mouth.  Memorials should be about paying respects, not grinding an axe (there are other times and places for that).

Well, it should both celebrate his life, and give details about his murder (yes, murder,) It should give details about how benchmark is run. People can draw their own conclusion, which will be obvious.

 A memorial's aim is only secondarily to "help others". The Vietnam Memorial is to honour the individuals who had their lives stolen  capriciously, callously, and cruelly, not make some political point, however valid. Any memorial for a survivor should work under the same principle.

THEY are the ones who are important.THIER loss is the anguish. THEY are the ones who are primarily being "helped", in the form of gaining some kind of justice, understanding, and love

[psy]

a kid with a shithouse job can just walk away. A kid in a program just cant. I don't know about this idea of publically memorializing him without talking to family. Why not try and talk to them?

If I had a last name, I might try, but I'm pretty sure the program isn't going to give it to me.

They may be up for it. Or they may have legit objections. You dont know without trying to find out. However horrible and senseless this death is, these ppl have lost their child. They are going through the worst thing that can happen to a family.

Well.  Here's the issue.  Right now, the parents still most likely believe that their child was destined to commit suicide no matter what.  Broaching the topic, asking the question of "what if" may just be too painful.  What if they're far enough in the grieving process to not want to re-examine the past.  I can understand that.  It's really their choice.  That being said, nobody owns George, not the parents, not Benchmark, nobody, and if bring the events surrounding his death to light can prevent further occurrences from happening, I don't think he'd really mind that.  According to those I've talked to, he wasn't exactly a fan of program at the time he killed himself, anyway.

That being said, any memorial should be done in a tasteful manner, celebrating how he lived and who he was, not how he died, and not the last year or so of his life which, if I were him, would probably rather forget.  I mean.... I wouldn't really want Benchmark on my memorial unless it was prefixed with "fuck".  But that's just me, and I don't think anybody should put words in his mouth.  Memorials should be about paying respects, not grinding an axe (there are other times and places for that).

Well, it should both celebrate his life, and give details about his murder (yes, murder,) It should give details about how benchmark is run. People can draw their own conclusion, which will be obvious.

 A memorial's aim is only secondarily to "help others". The Vietnam Memorial is to honour the individuals who had their lives stolen  capriciously, callously, and cruelly, not make some political point

Imo, that IS making a political point. Valid or not (i agree with you, btw) some people choose to believe different things, or have different perceptions.  The idea that so many died for nothing offends some.  A memorial should not, IMO speak for the dead when they might not approve of the message.  Although I am 99.9% sure George would approve of a "benchmark killed me" style memorial, I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting words in his mouth...  It leaves a bad taste in mine.  It's fine for me to say "benchmark killed him" but the place where he died, Imo should be devoid of any politics, no matter how much i'm sure he would have approved.  I just don't feel right about it is all, and maybe it's just me.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not impartial.  I don't think anybody would claim me to be.  I've seen enough evidence and long since concluded as to what needs to be done.  I am not the right person to put a memorial there, nor is Benchmark, or anybody on Fornits.  If anybody decides what would go on such a plaque, it should be his friends, those who knew him, and even his parents.  There is a time and place for politics and perspectives, but it's not on a tombstone.  He will be remembered, and I will point him out as an example of what can potentially happen, but not there, at least not by my hand.

This is why I said: name, date birth, date of death, and maybe a few statements from friends and family, perhaps that's one of the few things both Benchmark and Fornits can both agree on.  One brief moment of peace to honor the dead together.  Believe it or not, some counselors at Benchmark do care about the kids, they just have a fucked up and potentially very dangerous way they've been taught to show it (and that is why they call it "tough love").

[Anonymous]

a kid with a shithouse job can just walk away. A kid in a program just cant. I don't know about this idea of publically memorializing him without talking to family. Why not try and talk to them?

If I had a last name, I might try, but I'm pretty sure the program isn't going to give it to me.

They may be up for it. Or they may have legit objections. You dont know without trying to find out. However horrible and senseless this death is, these ppl have lost their child. They are going through the worst thing that can happen to a family.

Well.  Here's the issue.  Right now, the parents still most likely believe that their child was destined to commit suicide no matter what.  Broaching the topic, asking the question of "what if" may just be too painful.  What if they're far enough in the grieving process to not want to re-examine the past.  I can understand that.  It's really their choice.  That being said, nobody owns George, not the parents, not Benchmark, nobody, and if bring the events surrounding his death to light can prevent further occurrences from happening, I don't think he'd really mind that.  According to those I've talked to, he wasn't exactly a fan of program at the time he killed himself, anyway.

That being said, any memorial should be done in a tasteful manner, celebrating how he lived and who he was, not how he died, and not the last year or so of his life which, if I were him, would probably rather forget.  I mean.... I wouldn't really want Benchmark on my memorial unless it was prefixed with "fuck".  But that's just me, and I don't think anybody should put words in his mouth.  Memorials should be about paying respects, not grinding an axe (there are other times and places for that).

Well, it should both celebrate his life, and give details about his murder (yes, murder,) It should give details about how benchmark is run. People can draw their own conclusion, which will be obvious.

 A memorial's aim is only secondarily to "help others". The Vietnam Memorial is to honour the individuals who had their lives stolen  capriciously, callously, and cruelly, not make some political point

Imo, that IS making a political point. Valid or not (i agree with you, btw) some people choose to believe different things, or have different perceptions.  The idea that so many died for nothing offends some.  A memorial should not, IMO speak for the dead when they might not approve of the message.  Although I am 99.9% sure George would approve of a "benchmark killed me" style memorial, I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting words in his mouth...  It leaves a bad taste in mine.  It's fine for me to say "benchmark killed him" but the place where he died, Imo should be devoid of any politics, no matter how much i'm sure he would have approved.  I just don't feel right about it is all, and maybe it's just me.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not impartial.  I don't think anybody would claim me to be.  I've seen enough evidence and long since concluded as to what needs to be done.  I am not the right person to put a memorial there, nor is Benchmark, or anybody on Fornits.  If anybody decides what would go on such a plaque, it should be his friends, those who knew him, and even his parents.  There is a time and place for politics and perspectives, but it's not on a tombstone.  He will be remembered, and I will point him out as an example of what can potentially happen, but not there, at least not by my hand.

This is why I said: name, date birth, date of death, and maybe a few statements from friends and family, perhaps that's one of the few things both Benchmark and Fornits can both agree on.  One brief moment of peace to honor the dead together.  Believe it or not, some counselors at Benchmark do care about the kids, they just have a fucked up and potentially very dangerous way they've been taught to show it (and that is why they call it "tough love").

no, it's not political to say how benchmark is run, or even that he was murdered. Saying that he was murdered would be taking a stance, though. So don't say that  Put accurate info out there: your testimony of how you were treated , Other young adults' testimony, along with the lack of credentials, and ties to the abusive cult cedu isn't taking a stance, it's presenting accurate info. Let people draw their own conclusions.

[psy]

Well, it should both celebrate his life, and give details about his murder (yes, murder,)

I sort of disagree.  If anybody murdered George it was Mel Wasserman / C.E.D. reaching out from the grave.

Something I read in Cults In Our Midst made me think... Cults are organized like an upside-down T.  You have the leader on top and all the followers on the bottom.  Only one ultimately has power and makes the decisions.  The rest, more or less, simply wait for instructions from the higher-ups.  So if they're trying to help how culpable are they really? (and I'm not saying all are, some get drunk with power, some are just naturally sadistic fucks)  IMO, the leader should be shot, hung, staked, drawn, quartered, run over by a buick, encased in lead, and sent hurtling into the sun(metaphorically of course :wink: )... They deserve no mercy at all, but what if the leader is dead?  What happens then?

What if the Leader's immortality is not part of the religion (and even then, it's not saying it would stop true believers... look at scientology)?  What if the Leader himself is not seen as sacred, but the idea he stood for, his sacred science (the ideology, dogma, practices, language, etc).  A religion is born, the worship of an idea.  What stops cult members form continuing to practice what they were taught, teach it to others, and "spread the gospel".  It's a bit of a monster running around with it's head chopped off.

What if the current person on top (that would be Jayne) truly believes what she is doing is the right thing, that it's the only way that is possible to save kids who are destined to die?  What if she isn't the typical sociopathic cult leader, but a wayward follower spreading her gospel, trying to save the lives of others.  Does she believe the way she does becuase she needs to justify what she does (a-la willful suspension of disbelief)?  Hypothetically, could she ever snap out of it meaning it would entail accepting responsibility for such harm?

I once saw Joelle, Jaynes daugher, crying in Deborah's office speaking about how the program really was "not working".  She had stood in between two students who were in love and couldn't really be kept apart.  They AWOLed.  She was devastated.   I overheard, and of course, interrupted, suggesting that maybe since what she was trying "wasn't working" maybe she should change the program (and I suggested several things).  This was a woman who was very upset.  Somewhere in there was a heart.

Love has nothing to do with control and everything to do with letting go.  A program should not be controlling, for example, the sexual lives of it's "students", judging if they are sexually enlightened, ready to date, or forbidding the choice of partner.  For chrissakes, you have to write a proposal to have sex at Benchmark.  Life is about learning and experiencing these things on your own.  It's pretty safe to say with all the horny teenagers in Benchmark the primary cause of AWOLs (at least when I was there) does tend to be un-approved relationships (a-la elopement).

I tried to explain to Joelle that she was fighting a losing battle over the control over her "students" genitals, but she seemed to truly believe that leaving the students to their own devices would somehow result in contamination (since "two sickies(addicts to whatever)" don't make a "wellie" and since "sickies" end up dead-insane-injail 97% of the time, the multiplied probabilities almost guarantees failure.)  It all comes out of AA dogma and has no basis in science, but to Joelle, it was the truth.

Who, then, do you hold responsible?  What if the reason she deceives the outside world is because she feels it is necessary to accomplish a greater good (ends justify means thinking).  What if i'm dealing with a rogue cult who'se leader has long since died and the followers never figured out they were getting conned.  The dogma (originally designed for one purpose: making money) lives on and continues to do damage.

I'm not saying this is the way it is.  It is very possible, even likely that the higher-ups at benchmark know full well that the program is designed for the sole purpose of making money, justifying it as a "working" system.  Jayne preaches lifespring/est, so does Joelle...  A religion that requires the virtual abolition of the conscience to the point where there is only what works and what doesn't.

It would be at this point of full realization that I would assume a cult member could be fully informed about the inner workings of a cult and still respect it as valid, a working system - becoming a member of the inner circle.

I am not looking for revenge.  I just want this to stop.  Ignorant or intentional, the harm inflicted needs to stop.  So what happens if the program shuts down.  What if the staff simply migrate as they usually do.  What if cutting off one head is simply producing more and more.  There are three solutions to stop growth, as I see it:  jail em all, kill em all, or convince the staff that what they are doing is harmful and wrong.  The first two aren't... er.. "working systems".  If the latter is the only hope to stop growth of the industry, how does one possibly reach them?  If Margaret Singer is right, presenting enough information should do it.  What if we could somehow exit-counsel staff while still in program?  What if instead of a fist, we simply offer information...  What if even one was reached.  What would happen, I wonder.

Anyway.  sorry for the sleep-deprived rant. I really should get back to replying to several hundred emails, packing, editing many hours of DV footage, restoring SueScheffTruth by Christmas day as a present for Sue (can't forget here now)...  etc...

[psy]

a kid with a shithouse job can just walk away. A kid in a program just cant. I don't know about this idea of publically memorializing him without talking to family. Why not try and talk to them?

If I had a last name, I might try, but I'm pretty sure the program isn't going to give it to me.

They may be up for it. Or they may have legit objections. You dont know without trying to find out. However horrible and senseless this death is, these ppl have lost their child. They are going through the worst thing that can happen to a family.

Well.  Here's the issue.  Right now, the parents still most likely believe that their child was destined to commit suicide no matter what.  Broaching the topic, asking the question of "what if" may just be too painful.  What if they're far enough in the grieving process to not want to re-examine the past.  I can understand that.  It's really their choice.  That being said, nobody owns George, not the parents, not Benchmark, nobody, and if bring the events surrounding his death to light can prevent further occurrences from happening, I don't think he'd really mind that.  According to those I've talked to, he wasn't exactly a fan of program at the time he killed himself, anyway.

That being said, any memorial should be done in a tasteful manner, celebrating how he lived and who he was, not how he died, and not the last year or so of his life which, if I were him, would probably rather forget.  I mean.... I wouldn't really want Benchmark on my memorial unless it was prefixed with "fuck".  But that's just me, and I don't think anybody should put words in his mouth.  Memorials should be about paying respects, not grinding an axe (there are other times and places for that).

Well, it should both celebrate his life, and give details about his murder (yes, murder,) It should give details about how benchmark is run. People can draw their own conclusion, which will be obvious.

 A memorial's aim is only secondarily to "help others". The Vietnam Memorial is to honour the individuals who had their lives stolen  capriciously, callously, and cruelly, not make some political point

Imo, that IS making a political point. Valid or not (i agree with you, btw) some people choose to believe different things, or have different perceptions.  The idea that so many died for nothing offends some.  A memorial should not, IMO speak for the dead when they might not approve of the message.  Although I am 99.9% sure George would approve of a "benchmark killed me" style memorial, I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting words in his mouth...  It leaves a bad taste in mine.  It's fine for me to say "benchmark killed him" but the place where he died, Imo should be devoid of any politics, no matter how much i'm sure he would have approved.  I just don't feel right about it is all, and maybe it's just me.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not impartial.  I don't think anybody would claim me to be.  I've seen enough evidence and long since concluded as to what needs to be done.  I am not the right person to put a memorial there, nor is Benchmark, or anybody on Fornits.  If anybody decides what would go on such a plaque, it should be his friends, those who knew him, and even his parents.  There is a time and place for politics and perspectives, but it's not on a tombstone.  He will be remembered, and I will point him out as an example of what can potentially happen, but not there, at least not by my hand.

This is why I said: name, date birth, date of death, and maybe a few statements from friends and family, perhaps that's one of the few things both Benchmark and Fornits can both agree on.  One brief moment of peace to honor the dead together.  Believe it or not, some counselors at Benchmark do care about the kids, they just have a fucked up and potentially very dangerous way they've been taught to show it (and that is why they call it "tough love").

no, it's not political to say how benchmark is run, or even that he was murdered. Saying that he was murdered would be taking a stance, though. So don't say that  Put accurate info out there: your testimony of how you were treated , Other young adults' testimony, along with the lack of credentials, and ties to the abusive cult cedu isn't taking a stance, it's presenting accurate info. Let people draw their own conclusions.

I'm not sure if "murder" is quite the right word.  IMO, perhaps "negligent homicide" would be more precise.  Jayne, if she is a sociopathic cult leader after nothing but cash in her "working system" had nothing to do with George's death.  The buck does stop at Jayne for pretty much the tinyest decision, but she is rarely ever actually at Benchmark and (at least when I was there) had practically no interaction at all with the students themselves.  It was her underlings, practicing their "tough love" that they truly believe in, who, in my opinion, most directly contributed to George's death. It's sort of like somebody who believes they can perform a tracheotomy without experience, unwittingly kill the person (and don't stop there... just because it didn't work that once doesn't mean it wont' in the future... choking people are going to die anyway (screw waiting for the ambulance with qualified and trained personnel))

[Ursus]

Culpability is heaviest at the top; it doesn't matter whether Jayne was rarely there, she was responsible for how things were run.  If they weren't run right, it is her head that is more on the block and rightfully so.  Otherwise, you are using the same argument that Mel Sembler used in washing his hands from what happened inside the Straight facilities.  He claimed no personal interaction too.

Gee, I might as well start a company that sells kids toys painted with uranium.  When they come to take me away, I'll blame it on the salesmen.  After all, I had no personal interaction with the stuff.

[psy]

Culpability is heaviest at the top; it doesn't matter whether Jayne was rarely there, she was responsible for how things were run.  If they weren't run right, it is her head that is more on the block and rightfully so.  Otherwise, you are using the same argument that Mel Sembler used in washing his hands from what happened inside the Straight facilities.  He claimed no personal interaction too.

Gee, I might as well start a company that sells kids toys painted with uranium.  When they come to take me away, I'll blame it on the salesmen.  After all, I had no personal interaction with the stuff.

Well.  What if some cult leader had convinced you that Uranium was good for you?  Yellowcake anyone?

[Ursus]

Well. What if some cult leader had convinced you that Uranium was good for you? Yellowcake anyone?

Who cares what some cult leader convinced Jayne to do?  The buck has to stop somewhere.  Jayne is running a business.  It doesn't really matter if she has snow or cheese between her ears, she still has certain responsibilities inherent to running a business.  Period.

If she were giving out the Benchmark wisdom by handing it out to people on a street corner for free, then you can wax poetic about whether she was snowed or is snowing.  Realistically, as everyone here knows, it is more than a little of both.

Do note that there is a difference between personal culpability and professional culpability.

If a staff member's actions were outside the company norm, then that individual could be held to task, on an individual basis, for destructive actions towards George.  From what I've read, those actions were within Benchmark's standard modus operandi.  They were, in fact, SOP.  Correct me if I am wrong here, please.

Even in such a case, i.e., with regards to an out-of-line staff person, Benchmark would still be culpable because they did not train or supervise their staff appropriately.  And they have a responsibility to do so, contractually as well as that just inherent to running any kind of business.

When Larry Dubinsky could not be dissuaded from keeping his pawing fingers off of female students at Hyde, and a parent sued, both Larry Dubinsky and Hyde School were deemed culpable.  Dubinsky's actions were beyond the pale – individual culpability, both personal as well as professional (he was faculty, even dean of Students at one point). Meanwhile, Hyde was not only negligent in that they were not able to keep him in check (they apparently did not try, probably because they did not take the years of complaints seriously), but also since they continued to require contact between the Plaintiff and Dubinsky even after formal complaints were made.

Note that what I said above has to do with legal justice, which is but a crude approximation of true moral justice.

[Ursus]

Sorry if I'm on a yammer re. legal justice, it's not personal... Off-forum I've been working my way through the dozens of pages of Richard Ofshe's testimony in the West Memphis Three case and I am duly outraged...

http://www.wm3.org/

[dishdutyfugitive]

URSUS


Well said.


professional cultability

[Anonymous]

Now Ursus, you know you are not being fair to me by portraying me as coming from that place where people absolve programs. You know full well I've spent the past year taking apart the Hyde clock and putting it back together. But, and your post bears me out, suicide is not endemic to Hyde, even though Hyde is as much a brainwashing and abusing facility as any.

You ridicule Hyde for its piss-poor academics; it would seem you like to come across as intellectually superior to everyone else here.  You also like to ridicule survivors who take too long, in your estimation, to "get over it."

Everyone makes fun of Hyde's piss-poor academics, you more than anyone. And yes, I think your 40-year Hyde obsession is a laughable copout for a wasted life.

You actually tried to use my posting an article about the inherent pathology of Lifespring and its destructive use of psychology – as proof that Hyde could work, if it only got rid of Joe Gauld!  Namely, you thought Lifespring was an example of something that was okay!

What in the fuck are you talking about? I don't even know what Lifespring is! Post it.

The reason I'm touchy about what strikes me as a false allegation is owing to Che Gookin, aka TheWho, aka Botched Programming, aka you name it. At exactly the same time he barged into the Hyde forum like he owned it, although he's unaffiliated with the school, and I asked him not to dishonor the memory of a certain Hyde teacher, we were hit, literally five minutes later, by a plague of incredibly vile and truly pathological polls and posts from various personae claiming to have been Hyde students sexually molested by this teacher. The idiot didn't make it too hard to figure out the author. The idiot utterly defiled our discussions, and what was a vital, vibrant, much visited forum is now a dead, smoking ruin. That's why I don't apathetically just swallow any allegation I hear on Fornits anymore. It has nothing to do with a need to absolve programs.

Bullshit.  The Hyde forum fell into disarray when you started stalking me all over fornits, misquoting me in my wake as having posted lemonparty links, calling everyone you disagreed with "Ursus," misquoting me, libeling me, and turning a discussion about Sumner Hawley's sexual involvement with returning alums into a circus about child molestation and worse.

What in the fuck are you talking about? Post my stalking posts. I left the Hyde forum only once, to post, in the appropriate forum, a complaint about pornography. You posted after me. I started the SH child molester circus? Post it.

There are other people that follow the Hyde forum than exclusively former Hyde students, what exactly did you expect to happen?  I vacated myself for awhile, thinking that perhaps my posts would simply add more fuel to an already blazing fire.  But you kept it up.  Had you any interest in genuine discussion re. Hyde matters, you would have returned once things calmed down, but it does not appear as though you have.

The Hyde forum was assigned a moderator after the blowup, who promptly deleted several of Che's posts. I don't trust it anymore.
I find it humorous that you link Che Gookin, TheWho, and Botched Programming with one another, since these three have distinctly different posting styles.  I find it especially ironic that you would single out TheWho as – of all posters on fornits – you are most like him in your manner of obfuscation.  You attempt to discredit by exaggeration, derail by taking details out of context, and ridicule and discount anything that you can get away with.  One might think you simply want to argue for argument's sake.

As for the real identity of TheWho, reread the "Willfull Suspension of Disbelief" thread again. I'm like the Who? Demagogue.

FAIR??  Lols, don't get on your high horse to me about fairness.

Did I say something about fairness? I pity you, dude.

Jesus Christ! I see you're putting your Hyde character assination skills to good use. That's what group was like, i bet. Your nastiness to someone who is quite polite to you, despite your weird trolling, is evidence of how screwy YOU are. Whether by Hyde or some character defect.

Character defect.

I get defensive when I find myself in a peer-controlled conformity culture and someone rallies the group against me.

Go kill that Who.

[stina]

Go kill that Who.

Amen, go sister, soul sister

[stina]

........ Yeah he probably was suffering prior to Benchmark, but the POINT IS that Benchmark did not help him. Obviously. I don't know what happened on that day, but that's NOT the point. These places are supposed to help children, they're not supposed to be just a holding pen, or worse a place for impotent adults to find some kind of power. And your weak Mcdonalds comparison, well, working somewhere voluntarily and being placed somewhere against your will with your civil rights ripped away from you and no one to count on are completely different animals.

The McDonalds wasn’t a good analogy, I agree.  The point I was trying to make was the guy showed up at Benchmark and he was suicidal and eventually committed suicide.  I can see that it is determined that Benchmark did not help him enough to prevent this, but they cant be held responsible for his death.  We don’t know what triggered it… a letter from his girl friend or phone call from a family member, staff member not being compassionate etc.  It could be anything, so this isn’t a death we can attribute to the program, friend, staff member, boss at his job....

Right...and you know this HOW? You make all sorts of statements like they're fact, but the reality is that most of us didn't know George, we don't know what his state of mind was when sent to Benchmark, or who he was as a person, he may or may not have been suicidal, but without all of the facts you absolutely CANNOT absolve Benchmark for whatever their responsibility may be.

I don't know what your deal is, why do you have such a raging hard on to try to deflect any accountability these programs should take for the havoc and cruelty and pain they've wreaked on minors? I got lucky in the sense in that I was never sexually abused, or beaten, or restrained, and after the first year spent at RMA I decided to just deal with it and try to come out of there with something worthwhile. And I did. And I didn't. I have good friends from there to this day. At the same time, those places change the way your mind works. Period. It's hard to come back out into the real world. Adjustment sucks, especially when the school does nothing to prepare you for post-graduation life, they actually expect you to fall flat on your face and you're not allowed to have any contact with your friends still at the school for 6 months. I'm sorry, but isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

Whatever, I've rambled at you long enough. I just don't understand how you can read some of the posts on here about the unbelievable cruelty that has been inflicted and still try to push whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. You have no business being here.

[Anonymous]

........ Yeah he probably was suffering prior to Benchmark, but the POINT IS that Benchmark did not help him. Obviously. I don't know what happened on that day, but that's NOT the point. These places are supposed to help children, they're not supposed to be just a holding pen, or worse a place for impotent adults to find some kind of power. And your weak Mcdonalds comparison, well, working somewhere voluntarily and being placed somewhere against your will with your civil rights ripped away from you and no one to count on are completely different animals.

The McDonalds wasn’t a good analogy, I agree.  The point I was trying to make was the guy showed up at Benchmark and he was suicidal and eventually committed suicide.  I can see that it is determined that Benchmark did not help him enough to prevent this, but they cant be held responsible for his death.  We don’t know what triggered it… a letter from his girl friend or phone call from a family member, staff member not being compassionate etc.  It could be anything, so this isn’t a death we can attribute to the program, friend, staff member, boss at his job....

Right...and you know this HOW? You make all sorts of statements like they're fact, but the reality is that most of us didn't know George, we don't know what his state of mind was when sent to Benchmark, or who he was as a person, he may or may not have been suicidal, but without all of the facts you absolutely CANNOT absolve Benchmark for whatever their responsibility may be.

I don't know what your deal is, why do you have such a raging hard on to try to deflect any accountability these programs should take for the havoc and cruelty and pain they've wreaked on minors? I got lucky in the sense in that I was never sexually abused, or beaten, or restrained, and after the first year spent at RMA I decided to just deal with it and try to come out of there with something worthwhile. And I did. And I didn't. I have good friends from there to this day. At the same time, those places change the way your mind works. Period. It's hard to come back out into the real world. Adjustment sucks, especially when the school does nothing to prepare you for post-graduation life, they actually expect you to fall flat on your face and you're not allowed to have any contact with your friends still at the school for 6 months. I'm sorry, but isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

Whatever, I've rambled at you long enough. I just don't understand how you can read some of the posts on here about the unbelievable cruelty that has been inflicted and still try to push whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. You have no business being here.

i could never be friends with people who abused me, even if they aren't responsiblel for it mentally

[TheWho]

........ Yeah he probably was suffering prior to Benchmark, but the POINT IS that Benchmark did not help him. Obviously. I don't know what happened on that day, but that's NOT the point. These places are supposed to help children, they're not supposed to be just a holding pen, or worse a place for impotent adults to find some kind of power. And your weak Mcdonalds comparison, well, working somewhere voluntarily and being placed somewhere against your will with your civil rights ripped away from you and no one to count on are completely different animals.

The McDonalds wasn’t a good analogy, I agree.  The point I was trying to make was the guy showed up at Benchmark and he was suicidal and eventually committed suicide.  I can see that it is determined that Benchmark did not help him enough to prevent this, but they cant be held responsible for his death.  We don’t know what triggered it… a letter from his girl friend or phone call from a family member, staff member not being compassionate etc.  It could be anything, so this isn’t a death we can attribute to the program, friend, staff member, boss at his job....

Right...and you know this HOW? You make all sorts of statements like they're fact, but the reality is that most of us didn't know George, we don't know what his state of mind was when sent to Benchmark, or who he was as a person, he may or may not have been suicidal, but without all of the facts you absolutely CANNOT absolve Benchmark for whatever their responsibility may be.

I don't know what your deal is, why do you have such a raging hard on to try to deflect any accountability these programs should take for the havoc and cruelty and pain they've wreaked on minors? I got lucky in the sense in that I was never sexually abused, or beaten, or restrained, and after the first year spent at RMA I decided to just deal with it and try to come out of there with something worthwhile. And I did. And I didn't. I have good friends from there to this day. At the same time, those places change the way your mind works. Period. It's hard to come back out into the real world. Adjustment sucks, especially when the school does nothing to prepare you for post-graduation life, they actually expect you to fall flat on your face and you're not allowed to have any contact with your friends still at the school for 6 months. I'm sorry, but isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

Whatever, I've rambled at you long enough. I just don't understand how you can read some of the posts on here about the unbelievable cruelty that has been inflicted and still try to push whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. You have no business being here.

psy mentioned he was suicidal when he showed up on Benchmarks doorstep.