PUBLIC SCHOOL ABUSE

[Whooter]

Keep the quotes proper, Anne:

Anne Bonney, Samara, CT, Froderik, Ursus, RobertBruce etc all sexually abuse their own kids and they just get mad when I expose them as sexual predators like I did to Ajax13.  I have to expose their double standards.

DUDE, enough already with your "you all abuse your own kids" crap!  Cut the attacks, Whooter.  This is below the belt.

That is libelous.

How dare you defend Whooter, DB.

I hear you, Samara.  This is what Whooter does when he gets frustrated - he starts calling people "child rapists" and accuses them of sexually abusing their own offspring (see "ajax13" et al).  He's scum, plain and simple.

This accurate quote sums up the poster "Whooter."  When he doesn't get his way he starts calling everyone a pedophile.

Why are you back to using multiple log in names, Dysfunction Junction/ Troll Control?  I thought you were going to start just using one?



...

[Troll Control]

Why do you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of sexually molesting their children, Whooter?  Is it one of your "issues"??

When I changed my name to Troll Control, "Dysfucntion Junction" was up for grabs.  I thought it was you using it.  Anyway, explain the constant charges of sexual molestation when you get mad.

[DannyB II]

Cyberbullying

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying

http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53

It still doesn't explain why he said this....

this whole comment she made to be a total farce or at best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.

I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying".  In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.

My apologies Anne, for reading something into your post that wasn't there. I did not show fair and balanced reading.

Because when you speak of your experiences of Straight and you compare them to the industry it is not fair reporting. Every program does not fit your scenario at Straight but yet you try to cram it in there, it seems every time you talk it is always a smack a the TTI. You can not possibly know everything you infer.
Should I go on......
Oh, one more thing, it seems every Monday you have this big story (experience) to share concerning the hot topic over the weekend. Hhhhmmmmmm.........
IDK I could be acting to hard on ya, Anne.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[DannyB II]

I'm confused by the questions on this poll. If I'm reading it properly I'm being asked which abuse is worst, abuse in a public school or abuse in a program? I guess my answer would be it doesn't really matter where it takes place, abuse is abuse and it is a horrible thing no matter where it takes place.

So is this recent feud about location or is it another rehash of the absurd numbers argument? Because if it is a rehash of the numbers argument I don't have much to say about that other than abuse is tragic no matter what the location and the kids who get abused in public schools have just as much empathy and so forth from me as the kids abused in programs. I just happen to chose to focus on programs, but if presented with a chance to help out a kid who is abused in a public school he/she will certainly have whatever I can contribute.

Haven't had much to praise you for lately but I must say this is some of your best passionate writing to date. Che I applaud and commend you on your empathy. You really are a rational man, thanks.
This is a conversation over "moment".   :cheers:

Joel thanks, we already established that.

[RobertBruce]

Well I think both programs and public schools can lose if abuse occurs. The school district and program can be sued.
As far as reporting the abuse that is really after the fact (the abuse has already occurred). In a program the child can walk to the nearest store and phone the police, or run away and notify police, report it to a staff member, tell their parents when they speak to them. There are many options to notify authorities. The person is immediately fired and a letter is sent to the other parents informing them of what occurred in the program.

But then this is after the fact, you cannot undo abuse for the child that was abused.

A. The child cannot 'walk to the nearest store' many of these places are out in the middle of nowhere for that exact reason. Further if a child tries to leave and is seen he is immediatly tackled to the grown and locked up in isolation indefinitely.

B. The child cannot phone the authorities because he does not have access to a phone. Many of the phones that are within reach have access codes placed on them to prevent just such a thing from occuring.

C. The child is free to tell the staff member who didn't abuse them and hope that particular staff member doesn't accuse him of lying or manipulating.

D. The child is restricted from speaking with their parents. Letters/emails are censored and will not be sent out until approved. Phone calls are monitored and terminated the moment a child tries to speak out. Visits can be taken away if theres a concern the child might not get with the party line.


E. Can you provide examples of abusive staff members being fired? My experience has shown they are neither not reprimanded at all, or are simpyl rehired a short time later.

F. What lettes did you recieve regarding incidents concerning your sons or their fellow inmates? There were situations that occured involving me personally during my incarceration at HLA that my own parents weren't told about, let alone other peoples kids.

[Whooter]

So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused.  The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.





...

[Maximillian]

In my program, which has its own subforum here on Fornits, we did have a few "abusive" staffers if you want to call it that.  None were fired because they were actually very effective.  Some were given a a couple of days off "to cool down" after some intense encounters, but they always came back.  I view this as a good thing because the kids need some continuity in their lives.  So what if a staff member smacked a kid to get his attention?  It's nothing our fathers wouldn't do in the same situation.  It's really no different than your mom hitting you with the wooden spoon, is it?  I think Fornits puts too much emphasis on this type of caring touch and tries to demonize all programs that use it and label it as "abusive" when nothing could be further from the truth.  Sure, a staff member might have to give a kid a good knock upside his head, but if it's done for the right reasons, because they care about kids, I really see nothing wrong with that at all.  Plus you know that staff member would be right there the day he was allowed back to work with a candy bar or a pice of cake or something to cheer the kid up and show them it was for their own good.  The Fornits Mob tries to paint this as "abuse" and it's laughable, really.

[Anne Bonney]

Cyberbullying

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/bullying

http://on.cnn.com/9Xcq53

It still doesn't explain why he said this....

this whole comment she made to be a total farce or a (sic) best misleading posters to believe that all the abused in public schools are lying.

I never said that "the abused in public schools are lying".  In fact, I said the opposite - which is why I question his ability to read for comprehension.

Anne, why are you misquoting me?

Apologies if I did.  It was an honest mistake made from posting from my phone.

[Anne Bonney]

So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused.  The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.

No, "we" don't see that at all.  You've been asked several times to quit using "we" the way you do.  It's another slick marketing trick.  Don't pretend to speak for any of "us".

[Whooter]

So based on the information presented in this thread we can clearly see that public schools pose a greater risk of a child being abused.  The next step should be to look at the options a child has once he/she is abused.

No, "we" don't see that at all.  You've been asked several times to quit using "we" the way you do.  It's another slick marketing trick.  Don't pretend to speak for any of "us".

No one has asked me to stop using the word "we".  You just jump out and try to change the subject or derail a thread because you dont like the direction it is going.  Why do you have to put a "marketing" spin on everything?  What it is that you think people are marketing here on fornits?



...

[Anne Bonney]

No one has asked me to stop using the word "we".

I have plenty of times and I believe at least 2 or 3 others have as well.

 

You just jump out and try to change the subject or derail a thread because you dont like the direction it is going.

Nah, that's your job.


 

Why do you have to put a "marketing" spin on everything?  What it is that you think people are marketing here on fornits?

I think you make your living off of marketing for programs.

[Whooter]

I think you make your living off of marketing for programs.

So you wont have a problem if I post that I think you never went to straight or that you make up stories that are not true or embellish stories.

Is it okay as long as I "think" it is true?



...

[Shadyacres]

Whooter, please stop using the word 'we' as if you are speaking for all of us here on fornits, as if you could.  And I think Anne hit it on the head, you are obviously a gifted salesman, why would you spend so much time here if it was not connected to your income somehow?

[Maximillian]

So what if he does?  He has said very openly before that he thinks all kids would benefit from programs and he promotes them so all kids have opportunities to reach their full potential.  If a kid is off track and not flourishing, then he needs a program.  Whooter makes no bones about the ones he refers to.  They're great programs and every single kid is put back on track and they all go to college.  What's wrong with that?  So what if they were charged with "abuse" before and shut down.  The fact that they come back just shows they are needed.  The methods work.  Just because you view them as "abusive" doesn't mean kids don't need them.  One kid's "abuse" is another kid's "helping hand".  It's really up to the parents anyway.  You think they haven't read the reports online?  They have.  And they still choose to use those programs anyway.  Whooter sets the record straight when state agencies make misleading claims in their abuse reports.  He explains these events to parents and reassures them that it really is just the kids manipulating to get out of the program and not actually abuse.  He lets the parents know they shouldn't believe the kids until they have completed the program and are back on track again.  I think everyone knows that program kids lie.  Don't get mad at Whooter and me because we say it.  Kids that claim they are being abused can't be believed.  That's Whooter's message and any objective person knows it's true.