Tell me the Class Action is NOT about PURE...yeah right.

[Carey]

There is one last thing I want to point out about one of the posts on this link.
No were could I find a reference to tell the worried dad to contact anyone for alternative placement; or anything at all, besides giving him information over and above what he?d get on the BBS.
He would certainly have been free to disregard it and follow the advice he got from the legions of Faithful; But at least he would have had the opportunity to consider a wider span of information, upon which to make life altering decisions.

Don't worry Karen, he and I talked.  I told him what I had run into with Dundee and why I was concerned.  We exchanged several emails about Dundee.  I won't share them here, as he is an innocent bystander, unlike those affiliated with Sue.

Karen, why am I not surprised that you make reference to offering "alternative placement?"
You and Sue are just a like.  This is how it works:  Pull the teens from the WWASP programs so that you and Sue can find them "alternative placement"  and yet you know nothing about this kid.

It is not my place to tell anybody else what is in the best interest of their child and you know what, it is not yours either.  It is my responsibility  to share what I have personally seen and heard...that is what being a witness is all about.  But it is not my place to whitewash or bloat the truth.


I would like to note that when I first put that email on the web I forgot to delete his last name and his email address.  I owe him an apology for that.  Gil, I am sorry.

[Anonymous]

This whole business of professional (sic) parents referring kids into programs for a "finders fee" ($$$$ paid by the referred program) is despictable.  Bravo to Carey and others for taking a stand against these scumbags.

[Deborah]

Question:
How would you and the other members of your list serve feel about a one time member posting the private messages on public forums?

That depends on the context of the discussion.
An informational message would be acceptable. If the message included anyone's name or personal information, I don't believe it is appropriate to do so without permission from that individual.

As to Carey's purpose for posting the message from Sue, I can only imagine her intention.

Perhaps her sole intention was to show more of the behind-the-scenes dialogue with the Pure people, and establish that Jeff has an affiliation with Pure and was "monitoring" me and my "board". If that is the case, great, thanks Carey for the heads up. I believe it would've been more appropriate to send it to me privately, but, so much for lack of internet etiquette.
Still, its neither here nor there. My list is not consumed with disiphering who's who in the ongoing debate about Pure. I don't think the members have ever discussed Pure, pro or con.

If it was an attempt to prove I have an affiliation with Pure, it was lame. I believe she is consumed with identifying us and them- who is with Pure and who is against. If that is how she wants/needs to spend her time right now, I say go for it- best case scenerio, some good will come from it. Worst case scenerio- she will loose credibility due to her methods and/or have some apologies to make in the future.

If she continues to think that I have any connection to Pure, she will have to sit with her distressed imaginings until a time when she is able to be more objective, as I believe that nothing I could say at this point would matter. Time, if nothing else, will expose the truth about us all.

Deborah

[Carey]

Actually Deborah, my reason for posting that email had nothing to do with you.  My point was, as it was titled "This one is a joke...Sue's not in it for the money...right."

Though it does tend to tell more than just that.   It says something about Jeff and Sue and how they operate.

[anon]

[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-17 18:16 ]

[Carey]

Karen, wrong again.  

No were could I find a reference to tell the worried dad to contact anyone for alternative placement; or anything at all, besides giving him information over and above what he?d get on the BBS.

Are you saying you did not make the above statement?  Is that not you saying "no where (although you did not spell the word correctly) could I find a reference to tell the worried dad to contact anyone for alternative placement."  Then you go on to say "or anything at all, besides giving him information over and above what he'd get on the BBS."  Let me explain it to you.  The second part of the post is taken from the BBS.  Do you get it now?  

Your point was, why did I not try to help this dad.  FYI, I did.  I shared with him my issues and concerns with Dundee.  That is how I try to help parents and teens.  I don't try, as you and Sue do, to find or suggest "alternative placement."

[Deborah]

Actually Deborah, my reason for posting that email had nothing to do with you. My point was, as it was titled "This one is a joke...Sue's not in it for the money...right."

Carey,
I'd like to believe you, but I don't.
If it had nothing to do with me, you would have eliminated my name or just left initials.

Further, leaving my name in the message was not necessary to expose what you claim you were exposing. Probably one of the reasons people get angry with you- drawing third parties into things when its not appropriate or necessary.

Perhaps I missed it, or was expected to read between the lines again, but which statement in her email is an example of or proves she's "in it for the money"? It doesn't seem to be a good example of that, unless her reference to the "diary" infers something that I/we know nothing about.

Everyone knows she's in it for the money, placing teens is her livelihood. That's not a point that needs to be proven or clarified.

Deborah

[Anonymous]

//Let me explain it to you. The second part of the post is taken from the BBS. Do you get it now? //

I can see that  - and No, I don't get it now.  Once more I am thinking,  So what?  


//Your point was, why did I know try to help this dad//

Honestly, Carey - I think I would be the better judge of what my point was/is.

You did as you tend to do - scanned over something very superficially, jumped to the conclusion your paranoid imaginings dictated, and made a statement based on just that.

My Point is; No body asked you to write this man about anything other than your experience. No body said ?have him call me? - or anything else - at all associated with trying to make a buck. In fact anonamy was requested.

I in no way ment to be commenting on weather or not you  wrote him. I assumed you had. I?m saying thats ALL that was suggested you might want to do.

I'm just  pointing out, what you posted here, in no way makes the case you clam it dose.

Thats my point.

And I?m not even trying to point it out to you, but to others, who might not take the time to read it, and assume you know what your talking about b/c you posted it.

I know trying to reason with you to be as foolish a waste of time as singing to cats in the rain.

[Anonymous]

Karen Z., for someone who claims to be such a thorn in PURE's side, how is it that you know so much about the founder, Sue Scheff?  Don't you think people are wise to you, by now, and know not to trust a word you say because come another day, you will sing another tune?  

Can we say F.L.A.K.Y. here??

 :scared:

[Carey]

I'd like to believe you, but I don't.
If it had nothing to do with me, you would have eliminated my name or just left initials.

I did not know that the Deborah in that email was you.  That is why when the anon asked if it were the same Deborah or not, I did not answer.  However, knowing now that it was you, helps to explain some of the other emails that I had also recieved in the past.

Further, leaving my name in the message was not necessary to expose what you claim you were exposing. Probably one of the reasons people get angry with you- drawing third parties into things when its not appropriate or necessary.

Who gets to deem what is necessary or appropriate? You?  Sue?  Who?  Not me.  I just tell what I know firsthand.  Besides I did not drag you into this conversation, Jeff and Sue did.

I have made a lot of people angry over the past year in my attempt to expose the truth.  I am not telling what I know to win friends, I am telling what I know because it is necessary.  

Perhaps I missed it, or was expected to read between the lines again, but which statement in her email is an example of or proves she's "in it for the money"?

I believe I titled that post "its a joke" not "here is proof".
 
Just like you yourself state:  "Everyone knows she's in it for the money, placing teens is her livelihood."  She, Sue that is, thinks she is convincing others that she is in it because she cares. She said she is not in it for the money.  That is the joke!  Get it?

Karen, How do you know so much about Sue?  That is a very good question?  Especially since you claim to have such a limited association with her, or so you say.

[anon]

[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-17 18:21 ]

[anon]

[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-17 18:22 ]

[Anonymous]

Whether or not Sue Scheff is in it for the money or not, is not important.  There are many others that are helping families because they really do care and are also paid for what they love to do.  That's NOT a bad thing.   :wink:

[Carey]

My assocation with Sue was/is exactly what your was/is; except as I pointed out before, You were let go (twice) and I quit.

I believe you referred to it as "kicked off" when you were "let go" from the WWASP BBS for expressing your own opinion, one in which did not parrallel WWASP's views.  You can call it what ever you would like, it is all the same to me.  Anyway, it was necessary.  You know why?  Because, IT WAS AN EYE OPENING EXPERIENCE.  This helped me to see who and what kind of people were associated with "the group."   I would much rather be able to express my views and opinions than to have to keep them to myself just so I could belong to "the group."

You quit.  That is funny.  Does that mean you were working for them?  Sounds like it.  Of course you are still gumming for them, every chance you get.  Defending PURE to the bitter end.

[Anonymous]

Karen's song and dance is nothing but a smoke screen to cover up her inconsistencies.  

 :flame: