Wow, obama is going to win

[Anonymous]

Those “voices” gave sworn testimony and used their real names. Sworn testimony is used as the primary means to criminally prosecute and even inflict the death penalty on defendants.    So why are these people using their real names,(unlike you) testifying under oath, whose sort of testimony is “good enough” to serve as the base of judicial prosecution "not good enough" to be “credible” for you?

 

People who swear to experiences under oath, are quite “credible” because they are at risk for perjury charges(which can lead to prison) if they lie or leave things out. They are therefore more credible then the "families" you supposedly keep in touch with...

Shouldn't "edcons", after finding sworn testimony about institutions that provide care for "students" in "medical" confinement steer parents around orgs. that have multiple testimonies over through-out the decades, that are strikingly similar, are accompanied (if you search independently) by news-articles and information about the cult-connections, lack of credentials, and multiple civil and criminal charges about the orgnaization's leaders, consider  these accounts "credible"?

Shouldn’t you refer to orgs. that don't have 1000s of sworn, and unsworn accounts of imprisonment and systematized torture?

Thank you for helping shed-light on the "edcon" industry, KathyS.

You aim a shining light at an "industry" that "recomends" confining helpless adolescants in the "care" of people who intentionally inflicted brain damage through cultic violations for at least 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Those “voices” gave sworn testimony and used their real names. Sworn testimony is used as the primary means to criminally prosecute and even inflict the death penalty on defendants. So why are these people using their real names,(unlike you) testifying under oath, whose sort of testimony is “good enough” to serve as the base of judicial prosecution "not good enough" to be “credible” for you?

He is credible and I believe everything he said that happened to him.  But he is one person, guest.  If I produced a person who would swear on the bible that they were not abused and would recommend other peers  could be helped by going to FFS would you then change your mind and come over to my side?  If not then why do you think I should?  Shouldnt we gather “All” the evidence we can from many people and then make a decision based on that?

People who swear to experiences under oath, are quite “credible” because they are at risk for perjury charges(which can lead to prison) if they lie or leave things out. They are therefore more credible then the "families" you supposedly keep in touch with...

So if we elliminate everyone who didn’t testify in court then that wipes out everyone on fornits also.  So that stillleaves us with one opinion.  How do we decide a childsfate on just one persons account?  Shouldn’t we look at more people?

Shouldn't "edcons", after finding sworn testimony about institutions that provide care for "students" in "medical" confinement steer parents around orgs. that have multiple testimonies over through-out the decades, that are strikingly similar, are accompanied (if you search independently) by news-articles and information about the cult-connections, lack of credentials, and multiple civil and criminal charges about the orgnaization's leaders, consider these accounts "credible"?

Shouldn’t you refer to orgs. that don't have 1000s of sworn, and unsworn accounts of imprisonment and systematized torture?

We should try to look at everyone that is willing to speak on the subject and has experience first or second hand.

Thank you for helping shed-light on the "edcon" industry, KathyS.

Thank you ,but I don’t represent all edcons.  Not even close, I argue with them all the time.

You aim a shining light at an "industry" that "recomends" confining helpless adolescants in the "care" of people who intentionally inflicted brain damage through cultic violations for at least 20 years.

Oh lord another pagan cultic believer, I should have known, grow up for christs sake.  Why do you have to label everyone as cult or noncult? Who cares even if they are cults?  I am mad that you waste peoples time with this.  Do you really believe that these places are cults?  What is your definition?  I told myself that I wouldnt get in this with a guest and stay with psy and a few of the reputable people.  So I hope you dont see me as rude  by ignoring your future posts.

Kathy.

[Anonymous]

Those “voices” gave sworn testimony and used their real names. Sworn testimony is used as the primary means to criminally prosecute and even inflict the death penalty on defendants. So why are these people using their real names,(unlike you) testifying under oath, whose sort of testimony is “good enough” to serve as the base of judicial prosecution "not good enough" to be “credible” for you?

He is credible and I believe everything he said that happened to him.  But he is one person, guest.  If I produced a person who would swear on the bible that they were not abused and would recommend other peers  could be helped by going to FFS would you then change your mind and come over to my side?  If not then why do you think I should?  Shouldnt we gather “All” the evidence we can from many people and then make a decision based on that?

There are many other people supplying similar testimony. Why have you not looked them over? They are on CAFETY and are availble at the GAO's site and a variety of others. There are many articles in "mainstream" journals (and I use "mainstream" correctly, not the way apply it, to P.R. materials)

You'd think that if an edcon "beleived" an org. was sytematically exposing kids to cultic-abuse, as you claim you do, he'd stop sending kids to that org., but as you show, that isn't the case. Thank-you for drawing attention to that.

Thank you for helping shed-light on the "edcon" industry, KathyS.

Thank you ,but I don’t represent all edcons.  Not even close, I argue with them all the time.

Like it or not you do, Kathy. You are the only ed-con who has ever engaged in public dialogue, like this. Thank-You for the quality of your example.

You aim a shining light at an "industry" that "recomends" confining helpless adolescants in the "care" of people who intentionally inflicted brain damage through cultic violations for at least 20 years.

Oh lord another pagan cultic believer, I should have known, grow up for christs sake.

“Pagan" cultic believer? I'm sad to add "bigot" to the list of adjectives that describe your character. Academicaly and journalistically,  non-Christians also are not "unreputable" sources.

[Anonymous]

Why do you have to label everyone as cult or noncult? Who cares even if they are cults?  I am mad that you waste peoples time with this.  Do you really believe that these places are cults?  What is your definition?  I told myself that I wouldnt get in this with a guest and stay with psy and a few of the reputable people.  So I hope you dont see me as rude  by ignoring your future posts.

 I am going to ask now that you stop verbally abusing me by telling me to "grow up" describing me as "unreputable," and saying  I  deserve to be ignored." I am a teen survivor of these institutions. I deserve to be heard.

It is unethical to deem victims who describe their abuse with an appropriate term worthy of being ignored. It is unethical for you to ignore victims because you feel they describe torture that is "very" intense as opposed to "somewhat" intense.

 Thank-you for showing readers that "edcons" (you and your team) ignore teen survivors who use the term "cultic" to describe the torture they experienced at their "schools." Do you only ignore kids who use the term "cultic abuse," or do you also ignore kids who simply describe cultic abuse.

If so, you "ignored" the testimony of majority of Family Foundation "school" victims for the past 20 years. You also ignore that kid you just now claimed to have beleived.  I can see why  you find so "little" credible accounts of systematic torture at  Family Foundatin School as so many victims explicitly or implicitly decribed cultic abuse,.

You also ignore the testimony of the survivors of: Straight, Kids Helping Kids, The Seed, Deisto, Elan, and CEDU.

You also gnore the testimony of psychiatrists and behavior scientists on this issue. By your rationale, all of these doctors and survivors are automatically unreputable, and Straight, The Seed, and Desisto are "good" schools.


 

Why do you have to label everyone as cult or noncult? Who cares even if they are cults?  I am mad that you waste peoples time with this.  Do you really believe that these places are cults?  What is your definition?

A cultic organization is an authoritarian, hierarchal organization that deliberately and methodologically exposes its prisoners or followers to systematic thought reform or coercive persuasion. It will usually do so in a deceptive manner, presenting a facade with a "noble" aim and system, while in reality its aim is financial gain for the leader and/or self-serving domination of human beings, and in reality it maintains a different system.

For example, the  deception the family foundation "school" engages in includes calling itself a "school" though it abducts and holds its "students'" prisoner. That's behavior is not keeping with the defintion of a "school," as you know

Their m.o included forcing "students" to torture other students by terrorizing them with a complex system of rewards and punishents. They were deceptive by hiding the methods they used to control students:

"I experienced interventations only as a witness - I was once responsible for helping wrap another girl in a blanket and taping her wrapped shut. There was slight slapping involved but no brutal beating, althogh the experience and method is brutal enough. We were also forced to hold and pin a girl down shoving fish sitcks down her throat (which she was allergic too) until she threw up…. "


FFS is not a cult by traditional understanding, because unlike a cult it does not expose its constituents to coercive persuasion; it exposes them to "thought reform." This is because, like all of America's cultic-gulags it captures its victims’ through abduction, holds them in forced imprisonment, and “cleanses their minds” immediately through explicitly brutal methods, not the "softer" manipulations of traditional cults.

It is closer to the Gulags studied by Lifton in "Though Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" than a cultic organization like Scientology

However, because it is not a state run organization but an independent group, because it incorporates “modern” softer methods of coercive persuasion, because it must resort to deceptions to remain “legal” and because its aims aren’t political but financial and personal, it is not merely a thought-reform gulag. It is half cult, half gulag, a "cultic-gulag."

I hope you understand what the term "cultic organization" means now
Next time you hear a child you placed describe the "school" they were imprisoned in as a "cult," you won't have to ignore them.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

Kathy,

I don't expect that anything I say will change your mind about things, and I doubt anything anyone else says will either.

This is the only thing I can hope, and the reason I have put in the effort to talk to you is to help you to ease your judgments on us, and take the message we are trying to send out seriously.

Heres an example:

We look at the good the bad and the ugly but not, I am sorry to say, “Voices from the Gulag” is not one of our credible sources, come-on

I've seen you make statements like this before and this really throws me off about you. Why is it that you are so quick to discredit a source, especially a seemingly neutral source simply because it came from a website that uses words that indicate they harbor a different stance on this issue?... Why is that okay in your mind? to me that is complete avoidance of an issue that should be addressed. This article is about a young girl who DIED at the hands of staff in a program that utilizes the same manner of restraint that I described in my experience in High Impact and the same kind of restraints that are commonly used in WWASP as well as many others. Have you ever scanned through one of the death lists on ISAC.org or Secretprisonsforteens.uk or Heal.org? Do you realize this is a common thing, for children to DIE from the restraint methods used by this industry? Why are you willing to discredit the death of children in these programs an account of "terminology" that happens to be in opposition to your beliefs? I would encourage you to look past these judgmental tendencies, and be open to take the general message from these sources. Because if you continue to find trivial reasons to discredit and brush off our claims its just the same as burying your head in the sand and ignoring these red flags just to justify yourself and this industry. I challenge you to separate yourself from for a moment from the here and now and try to take an outsiders perspective on the issue as a whole. Yes weigh out the good and the bad but take it all of face value, as much as you want to discredit us believe me it is just as easy for us to discredit your sources... so just take it as it is and weigh it out. I'm confident that deaths, and allegations of abuse far outweigh the few program parents and kids who say (while on the phone with and Ed-Con mind you) that the program helped them. I really encourage you to let your pride and defense of your career go for a single second and realize that you could have been mislead. Although there might be some good that has come out of these programs, most times there is way more bad. and you arent going to get a phone call about it, instead those people are going to be talking to us... and we are relying this to you. We are not liars and we have no ulterior motives here, you must understand we have great reason to have opposing views on this subject and you can either respect that and take from our words what you need to go make a difference, or you can continue to judge and there will be very little good that will ever come from our communications and we will continue to go back and fourth with no resolution.

I am glad you came here to speak with us, I would be very happy to see that you were able to change some of your judgments on us and the other survivors that have had the courage to speak out, and to not deny the existence of those who have not. We need someone like you to hear us and take us seriously despite the "terminology" differences in our lingo. You must not see that YOU are in the perfect position to MAKE SURE that kids arent being abused anymore and if you cant do your job properly, then we will simply HAVE to oppose the industry all together.

[Anonymous]

I've seen you make statements like this before and this really throws me off about you. Why is it that you are so quick to discredit a source, especially a seemingly neutral source simply because it came from a website that uses words that indicate they harbor a different stance on this issue?... Why is that okay in your mind? to me that is complete avoidance of an issue that should be addressed. This article is about a young girl who DIED at the hands of staff in a program that utilizes the same manner of restraint that I described in my experience in High Impact and the same kind of restraints that are commonly used in WWASP as well as many others. Have you ever scanned through one of the death lists on ISAC.org or Secretprisonsforteens.uk or Heal.org? Do you realize this is a common thing, for children to DIE from the restraint methods used by this industry?

When I read thru some of the stories I shake my head because I know I cannot direct parents to those sites because it would discredit myself and the agency.  I understand that the message that is being sent via the stories is sincere but I have had parents read some of those sites before and they all have the same reaction... why did you waste my time, how do we know which part is true.  Parents are already flooded with “mom my teacher is a Nazi, its like a prison in that school, can I stay home today”?....”Dad my gym teacher is trying to kill us, he forced us to do 100 push-ups and Sally almost died”.  It just doesn’t work sending parents to read that.

Why are you willing to discredit the death of children in these programs an account of "terminology" that happens to be in opposition to your beliefs? I would encourage you to look past these judgmental tendencies, and be open to take the general message from these sources. Because if you continue to find trivial reasons to discredit and brush off our claims its just the same as burying your head in the sand and ignoring these red flags just to justify yourself and this industry. I challenge you to separate yourself from for a moment from the here and now and try to take an outsiders perspective on the issue as a whole. Yes weigh out the good and the bad but take it all of face value, as much as you want to discredit us believe me it is just as easy for us to discredit your sources... so just take it as it is and weigh it out. I'm confident that deaths, and allegations of abuse far outweigh the few program parents and kids who say (while on the phone with and Ed-Con mind you) that the program helped them. I really encourage you to let your pride and defense of your career go for a single second and realize that you could have been mislead. Although there might be some good that has come out of these programs, most times there is way more bad. and you arent going to get a phone call about it, instead those people are going to be talking to us... and we are relying this to you. We are not liars and we have no ulterior motives here, you must understand we have great reason to have opposing views on this subject and you can either respect that and take from our words what you need to go make a difference, or you can continue to judge and there will be very little good that will ever come from our communications and we will continue to go back and fourth with no resolution.

I dont discredit the deaths of any of the children.  If I had the time I would clean up some of the articles myself create a website called” feedback for parents” or “My turn to speak” and turn these into letters to the parents.  FemanonFatal, I am not just hard on fornits.  I am just as frustrated with the information I get from some of the programs and schools.  Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids.  Some programs outright deny that any child was ever hurt just like fornits denies that any children are ever helped.  So it is tough getting clear and believable information from both sides.  If you really ever sit and speak with some of these kids who leave the programs and listen to what they have to say you will hear that they struggled, they disliked portions of the program and liked certain staff, disliked others.  Some felt the program helped them others felt it was a waste of time.  Many kids are equipped with a list of things they would like to see changed or improved.  
If you speak with Programs you just get the cream off the top.  If you speak to fornits you just get the dirt off the bottom.  If you speak to the kids and just listen you get the real story most of the time, but it is important to get “All” the info.  I am not saying that the kids on fornits are lying or the programs are lying.  You are both just trying to get out the information which will best serve your interests.
I cant mention any names but I have read certain threads where kids are talking about their time and I know certain teachers and staff are the most caring people in the world.  I have met them and have received overwhelming feedback from other students who have passed thru, yet every story on this school presented on fornits omits talking about them.  Why?  I know they must have touched their lives in a positive way or inspired them.
I feel the same about the schools themselves on why they dont discuss their restraint policy with parents or on their web sites and discipline policies etc.

I am glad you came here to speak with us, I would be very happy to see that you were able to change some of your judgments on us and the other survivors that have had the courage to speak out, and to not deny the existence of those who have not. We need someone like you to hear us and take us seriously despite the "terminology" differences in our lingo. You must not see that YOU are in the perfect position to MAKE SURE that kids arent being abused anymore and if you cant do your job properly, then we will simply HAVE to oppose the industry all together.

I have enjoyed and continue to learn by reading (and now speaking) on fornits.  I am sorry to be too harsh and appear to be uncaring.  I do believe the stories I read here and I realize they are worded to be read by other kids and I am getting use to the lingo and you are right I should get past it.  Who am I to try to tell people how to talk to one another.
I place way more kids than I need to for me to get by financially.  So if I dont believe a child needs to be placed I recommend against it and I am not driven by who pays the better commission or any commission at all.  I need to sleep well at night and look forward to hearing from the families and children.  My wall is pasted with families and letters, invitations to graduations which I try to attend when possible.
I am not the most well like education consultant.  I have been criticized that I spend too much time with families, make unnecessary trips and have the lowest “contact to placement” ratio or what ever they call it now adays.  I love my job .  If I get fired tomorrow it means the 2 friends I do have just passed this on to the people who cut the checks.  (so be a friend Diane and Holly).
Thank you for treating me kindly.  It was difficult to start posting here, It felt good to air my frustrations to someone and I was surprised how much more I learned about you and everyone by posting then just reading.  I really enjoy the posting and being able to say what I feel.  I sincerely apologize to anyone I was rude too,  I would be so embarrassed if we actually met in person,but I guess it made it easier to talk openly knowing that I was anonymous and we would probably never meet.
Kathy

[psy]

When I read thru some of the stories I shake my head because I know I cannot direct parents to those sites because it would discredit myself and the agency.

That seems a little inconsistent.  You claim you refer them to Fornits and this isn't exactly a parent-friendly site at _all_ (i mean.. shit.. I wouldn't refer parents here, or at least without a lot of warning).  My cynical mind immediately thinks "of course... that's the point..  send them to the freak show* to scare them off all critics.")  What about ISACCORP?  Do you refer them there?

* And I love this freak show.  But it takes some getting used to and is hardly parent-friendly (or really anybody-friendly...  lol).  I mean, would you send parents to a biker bar?

[psy]

I dont discredit the deaths of any of the children.  If I had the time I would clean up some of the articles myself create a website called” feedback for parents” or “My turn to speak” and turn these into letters to the parents.  FemanonFatal, I am not just hard on fornits.  I am just as frustrated with the information I get from some of the programs and schools.  Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids.  Some programs outright deny that any child was ever hurt just like fornits denies that any children are ever helped.  So it is tough getting clear and believable information from both sides.

I'm just gonna point something out I said in another thread:

The problems you are seeing with me being on this site is a "red flag".  Fornits does not welcome people who see boarding schools as helpful, as I and most others do.  Reputable sites, as you probably know, do not attack people who have opposing opinions and post peoples personal information.

The site isn't attacking, you. Individual posters may have.  What you would call a "reputable" site is one where all negative or dissenting opinions are deleted or edited out, leaving the illusion that everybody has had a good experience with programs.  This illusion is naturally profitible to those who are in charge of the site and are selling referrals.  Here is the only truly "free" place on the web can speak any and every opinion imaginable without fear of somebody in charge with a vested interest deleting or editing their post.  There is nobody here making sure programs get bad reputations.  It's happened naturally.

I can give you names of sites where there is open discussion by people who have attended boarding schools where your information is also secure.

Really?  Open discussion you say?  Would I be allowed to discuss my views?  What you're asking this parent to do is to step into your "bubble" where you control communication.  Through controlling the commerce of ideas you control what ideas can be shared, and thus how and what people can think.  Again. If the site is so open, would I be allowed in.  I have attended a "boarding school" as have many others here.  Pam is a parent, as is Buzzkill and many others.  Would they be allowed?  Would the former staff members on this site be allowed?

I hate to point this out, but when you were talking to Marcy, or whatever her name was, you represented these other sites as a place for "open discussion".  Now you say "Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids".  I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting things, but it certainly seems that way.  Perhaps you can explain.

Like it or not, this site is the only place where actual open discussion occurs.  It can get damned ugly sometimes, but I'm not sure how that could be avoided given the subject matter.  This site is "both sides".  You're here.  Any bias in the general consensus is natural.  As the disclaimer says, it's a snapshot of the Troubled Teen Industry and there is nothign pretty about it.

[Anonymous]

When I read thru some of the stories I shake my head because I know I cannot direct parents to those sites because it would discredit myself and the agency.

That seems a little inconsistent.  You claim you refer them to Fornits and this isn't exactly a parent-friendly site at _all_ (i mean.. shit.. I wouldn't refer parents here, or at least without a lot of warning).  My cynical mind immediately thinks "of course... that's the point..  send them to the freak show* to scare them off all critics.")  What about ISACCORP?  Do you refer them there?

* And I love this freak show.  But it takes some getting used to and is hardly parent-friendly (or really anybody-friendly...  lol).  I mean, would you send parents to a biker bar?

There are certain discussions on fornits which I have parents visit by supplying them a link which gives them a feel for the down side of placing a child in a program.  I warn them ahead of time that they could be offended if they go off the path I supply them and that the forum is unmonitored.

[Anonymous]

I dont discredit the deaths of any of the children.  If I had the time I would clean up some of the articles myself create a website called” feedback for parents” or “My turn to speak” and turn these into letters to the parents.  FemanonFatal, I am not just hard on fornits.  I am just as frustrated with the information I get from some of the programs and schools.  Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids.  Some programs outright deny that any child was ever hurt just like fornits denies that any children are ever helped.  So it is tough getting clear and believable information from both sides.

I'm just gonna point something out I said in another thread:

The problems you are seeing with me being on this site is a "red flag".  Fornits does not welcome people who see boarding schools as helpful, as I and most others do.  Reputable sites, as you probably know, do not attack people who have opposing opinions and post peoples personal information.

The site isn't attacking, you. Individual posters may have.  What you would call a "reputable" site is one where all negative or dissenting opinions are deleted or edited out, leaving the illusion that everybody has had a good experience with programs.  This illusion is naturally profitible to those who are in charge of the site and are selling referrals.  Here is the only truly "free" place on the web can speak any and every opinion imaginable without fear of somebody in charge with a vested interest deleting or editing their post.  There is nobody here making sure programs get bad reputations.  It's happened naturally.

I can give you names of sites where there is open discussion by people who have attended boarding schools where your information is also secure.

Really?  Open discussion you say?  Would I be allowed to discuss my views?  What you're asking this parent to do is to step into your "bubble" where you control communication.  Through controlling the commerce of ideas you control what ideas can be shared, and thus how and what people can think.  Again. If the site is so open, would I be allowed in.  I have attended a "boarding school" as have many others here.  Pam is a parent, as is Buzzkill and many others.  Would they be allowed?  Would the former staff members on this site be allowed?

I hate to point this out, but when you were talking to Marcy, or whatever her name was, you represented these other sites as a place for "open discussion".  Now you say "Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids".  I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting things, but it certainly seems that way.  Perhaps you can explain.

Like it or not, this site is the only place where actual open discussion occurs.  It can get damned ugly sometimes, but I'm not sure how that could be avoided given the subject matter.  This site is "both sides".  You're here.  Any bias in the general consensus is natural.  As the disclaimer says, it's a snapshot of the Troubled Teen Industry and there is nothign pretty about it.

When “I” speak with the programs some of the contacts I speak with  don’t want to discuss the problems they are having or had in the past,  which is polar opposite to fornits who typically don’t discuss the good side of programs.  
There are groups for “open discussion” on the industry.  These are not the same sites.  I do not recommend parents to an individual school or programs  forum.  This would be too restrictive and focused on just that one school.  I like parents to be able to get a feel for all schools and the benefits and problems of having a child away from home.

[Anonymous]

I hate to point this out, but when you were talking to Marcy, or whatever her name was, you represented these other sites as a place for "open discussion". Now you say "Their web sites are the polar opposite of fornits and are unwilling to discuss anything negative that occurred to these kids". I'm not accusing you of misrepresenting things, but it certainly seems that way. Perhaps you can explain.

"KathyS" has flipflopped on a couple other things too. The whole appearance of "Martha" and how that whole deal went down smells phoney baloney to me. "KathyS" would have us believe that EdCons read this site with great frequency but, quite frankly, I just can't imagine that to be true. I'm sure they read it from time to time, but it is hardly a financially fruitful use of their time.

So why is "KathyS" here all of the time all of a sudden? — "Oh my, I must have an internet addiction!"  

This seems more like a fishing expedition for reasons of developing market strategy or trying out venues of damage control, pretty much exactly what TheWho was doing here too.

[Anonymous]

KathyS is TheWho.

Nobody comes to fornits for advice. 99.99% of those posts are fakes.

Why doesn't Kathy sign into her screen name? HMMMMMMMM... .I WONDER?

[psy]

There are groups for “open discussion” on the industry.

What sites, pray tell, might these "open" places be where discussion of good and bad is permissable?  Perhaps they would allow me to voice my opinions, if it's so open.  As you have seen, I can be quite diplomatic.  Perhaps Pam, Buzzkill, or other parents or ex-staff members could be permitted to speak as well.

[psy]

What about ISACCORP?  Do you refer them there?

* And I love this freak show.  But it takes some getting used to and is hardly parent-friendly (or really anybody-friendly...  lol).  I mean, would you send parents to a biker bar?

There are certain discussions on fornits which I have parents visit by supplying them a link which gives them a feel for the down side of placing a child in a program.

Such as?

I warn them ahead of time that they could be offended if they go off the path I supply them and that the forum is unmonitored.

Ok.  Fair enough.  but do you refer them to isaccorp?  That's a great informational website with a good list of warning signs and a high threshold for putting a program on it's watchlist.

Here's another question: could you get fired if you referred a parent to isaccorp?

[Anonymous]

What sites, pray tell, might these "open" places be where discussion of good and bad is permissable? Perhaps they would allow me to voice my opinions, if it's so open. As you have seen, I can be quite diplomatic. Perhaps Pam, Buzzkill, or other parents or ex-staff members could be permitted to speak as well.

There are discussion groups which are set up in a yahoo group account.  These groups are for parents who have children in a program or are considering sending their child to a program.  There is a moderator who grants access.  I have nothing to do with it but I do refer them as I do fornits.

Such as?

If I tell everyone the thread it will get re activated and ruined I fear.  Its better if I dont bring it up.  Well, I should not have

Ok. Fair enough. but do you refer them to isaccorp? That's a great informational website with a good list of warning signs and a high threshold for putting a program on it's watchlist.

Here's another question: could you get fired if you referred a parent to isaccorp?

Yes,  Because we refer to schools/programs which are on their list.  This is in direct conflict with what we do.