Kids in Program Credible?

[Anne Bonney]

2)  There was a writer who spent 14 months (I thought it was 16 months) inside a program and then wrote a book about his findings

And that would have nothing to do with the fact that he's trying to sell his book, right?  

To find answers, Marcus gained unfettered access to students, staff,
and parents at the Academy at Swift River in the hills of western
Massachusetts.

Sure he did.     Yeah, I remember when Beth Polson of 60 Minutes came to Straight to do a 'report'.  Things were very different at Straight when she was in the building.  No beatings, no harsh confrontation.....none of the abusive crap that we endured daily.  She ended up with a book deal out of it too.   And a movie.

What we're looking for....what is really needed to objectively evaluate these places are clinical, longitudinal studies by qualified persons.  Not people looking to line their pockets with a book deal.

[Anne Bonney]

Hey, I'm not a her.  And chicks dig a man in a uniform.

Where's the embarrassed, red faced emoticon when I need it.  I'm so sorry!    

And I definitely dig a man in uniform!

Dont feel embarrassed,  I thought it was funny,  I sometimes do the same thing.

Was I talking to you?  No?  Then STFU.

[BuzzKill]

I have always argued that any one person, telling the kinds of stories we're all so familiar with about any program, facility or school would lack credibility. After all, the accounts of what takes place are incredible. This is why it is so easy for the program staff to get the parents accepting it is all lying manipulation. What makes the accounts credible are the multiple, consistent, persistent accounts of these incredible things.

When you have someone telling a story that deviates significantly from what is consistently expressed there may be some reason to have doubts. There are a couple of occasions where I have thought some embellishment has taken place, simply b/c no one else ever made a similar claim. But for the most part, given time, you'll find multiple witnesses to even the most hard to believe accounts.

When you have persons from many various facilities, scattered across the world, describing the same kinds of abuses, neglect and deprivation you have to accept the allegations are credible. If you don't, it is simply b/c it pays you not to - and I hope this "blindness" will end up costing you. . .

[Awake]

I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:

..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.

Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  

.

Have you had enough time to think of what your answer is here? You're not trying to avoid it are you?


.

[Whooter]

I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:

..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.

Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  

.

Have you had enough time to think of what your answer is here? You're not trying to avoid it are you?


.

Wow, you are picky here Awake.  I went back to look at our conversation and you asked why I stated someone lacked the bandwidth to understand techniques of mindcontrol and thought reform.  As I reviewed my comments I found that I did not insinuate that, I was stating Heretik may lack the bandwidth to follow Awakes and my conversation.  To point this out to you I segmented the part where I stated this specifically without pasting the rest.  I find it easier to read if I cut and paste just the comment itself.  Another approach is to cut and paste the entire post and then hi-light the area in question.  I just chose the earlier one.

Here is another way I could have communicated the same thing:

Heretik, Why just step in and attack me like that? I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation. I have made an honest effort in answering Awakes question and I think she has responded well to my requests without resorting to attacking me. I have noticed that you struggle with conversations which involve critical thinking and as a result you resort to attacking and labeling people which is apparent in this post to me and that is why I have rarely engaged you in conversation here on fornits.

Do you see what I mean?  They both accomplish the same thing but the first one is easier to follow in my opinion and gets my point across with less words.



...

[Awake]

I’m not sure I understand. You were in the middle of insinuating someone might not be open minded enough and ‘lack the bandwidth’ to understand how individual techniques of thought reform and mind control could be abusive. Then you make a specific example out of hypnosis in that regard. Now you are saying not only do you not have any idea whether you believe using hypnosis can be abusive, but you don’t know what it is?

I didnt insinuate that anyone lacked the bandwidth to understand mind control techniques.  At least I dont think I did.

Speaking to Heretik I stated:

..... you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.

Why did you cut your own single sentence quote short? This is what you really said.

I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation.  

.

Have you had enough time to think of what your answer is here? You're not trying to avoid it are you?


.

Wow, you are picky here Awake.  I went back to look at our conversation and you asked why I stated someone lacked the bandwidth to understand techniques of mindcontrol and thought reform.  As I reviewed my comments I found that I did not insinuate that, I was stating Heretik may lack the bandwidth to follow Awakes and my conversation.  To point this out to you I segmented the part where I stated this specifically without pasting the rest.  I find it easier to read if I cut and paste just the comment itself.  Another approach is to cut and paste the entire post and then hi-light the area in question.  I just chose the earlier one.

Here is another way I could have communicated the same thing:

Heretik, Why just step in and attack me like that? I think that it is possible it is because you may lack the bandwidth to understand and follow along in Awakes and my conversation. I have made an honest effort in answering Awakes question and I think she has responded well to my requests without resorting to attacking me. I have noticed that you struggle with conversations which involve critical thinking and as a result you resort to attacking and labeling people which is apparent in this post to me and that is why I have rarely engaged you in conversation here on fornits.

Do you see what I mean?  They both accomplish the same thing but the first one is easier to follow in my opinion and gets my point across with less words.
.

Actually I asked why you Insinuated someone didn’t have the bandwidth to understand techniques of mind control and thought reform and then went on to example hypnosis and scare tactics, and then said you only have a laymans knowledge concerning hypnosis.

You may mistake being picky for being diligent in this case, I could understand if this is uncomfortable for you though. I want to get to the truth about abuse in programs and I think those kinds of inconsistencies get overlooked all too often. And, I still don’t understand. You aren’t insinuating anything by your statement above?

Do you think you are making insinuations with these comments you made to Heretik in the very same post?  I don’t know the history you and Heretik have together, but just because emotional arguments arise doesn’t mean someone is closed minded or lacks knowledge.  Sometimes emotions are valid Whooter. I know you don’t like to show yours, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing if you did.

If you could step back and open your mind a little what you will see that I am saying is that submerging an individual into brainwashing or mind control (as they are defined by the use of them on POW’s in North Korea) is in my opinion abusive. Using individual techniques which were developed during this process may not necessarily be abusive whatever they are. For example Hypnosis is not abusive if the person chooses it. If a person is removed from a harmful environment then this isolation from these people would not be considered abusive either. Scare tactics is another technique that could be used and not be abusive. So just to name a few it seems clear that there is room for discussion in an area in which you have closed your mind off to (too bad for you).

Heretik if you look at your input in this thread you will notice that you have avoided any discussion and as a result of your lack of knowledge you resort to an emotional argument among other strategies to protect your closed mind. If this works for you then that is fine you can leave the discussion up to myself and Awake and if at any point you feel threatened again or feel the need to purge then feel free to jump in and attack me anytime you like, I can take it because I care much more for the truth than I do about what people, like yourself, think about me.

Well, I guess hypnosis appears to be too unfamiliar a subject to be commenting on at this point, so we’ll leave it for later. But how about scare tactics? When does the use of scare tactics become abusive in the TTI to you Whooter?

.

[Gonzotherapy]

Link


...

http://canyonrc.com/experience.html

This is a psychologist that makes her money off of selling programs . I'm sorry Whooter, but anybody who profits from programs has reason to lie and fabricate positive info on programs. You know, like you.
And she is based in Utah, the state of WWASPS. Which is very well known for buying off pro-program legislation and legislators. No chance they would purchase a psychologist to pump their poison as well? HMMMMM.
Well we could just look at the bottom of her page, whats that, Aspen Education is a client of hers? You don't say.

Any links to any info that it not tainted with program money?

[Whooter]

I'm sorry, I thought I clearly stated for you to show some PROOF to back up your ridiculous claims. I know it is pointless to ask since you have none, but thanks for playing.

Hey, Gonzo, be nice.

Here are a couple of links for you:

1)  This was a study conducted surveying 1,000 parents and graduates of a few programs.  The study was overseen by WIRB (The Western Institutional Review Board) and they also approved the study.  The results were presented at the Annual meeting of the APA American Psychological Association.

Link

2)  There was a writer who spent 14 months (I thought it was 16 months) inside a program and then wrote a book about his findings

Link

A Pulitzer Prize-winning writer untangles the mysteries of the
teenage mind as he witnesses troubled kids transformed by fourteen
months at a school that offers therapy for adolescents in
crisis.
Millions of parents struggle to grasp what goes on in their kids' heads,
on their computers, and among their friends. As an education correspondent
for U.S. News & World Report, David L. Marcus wrestled with similar
questions while reporting on the welter of pressures American teenagers
now face – a resurgent drug culture, proliferating temptations and threats
on-line, skyrocketing suicide rates (three times higher than in the
1960s).
To find answers, Marcus gained unfettered access to students, staff,
and parents at the Academy at Swift River in the hills of western
Massachusetts. The kids at Swift River had already ventured down a
number of perilous paths all parents fear their own children might
take – drug use, violence, theft, internet addictions, eating disorders,
promiscuity. Known for combining intensive academics, a wilderness
program and group therapy, the school helps troubled teenagers emotional
health.



...

[Gonzotherapy]

Neither of those links prove anything at all. I know this is a pointless game to play because you have no proof to back up anything you say. So somebody wrote a book saying that Swift River helped these kids. Well we could put all of your BS posts together and call it a book too. The other link is to a Psychologist who is paid by Aspen Education.

PROOF Whooter, with facts. Haha, talk about your oxymorons.

[Whooter]

Neither of those links prove anything at all. I know this is a pointless game to play because you have no proof to back up anything you say. So somebody wrote a book saying that Swift River helped these kids. Well we could put all of your BS posts together and call it a book too. The other link is to a Psychologist who is paid by Aspen Education.

PROOF Whooter, with facts. Haha, talk about your oxymorons.

sorry it hurts so much Gonzo.  The book was independent.  (you cant shake that).  The study was independent too (had oversight by a third party).  Cant shake that either.

Do I think for a moment that you will accept this?  Not at all, how could you?  How could anyone here on fornits?  What would happen to this site?

But the studies are out there.  It was also presented to the APA annual meeting.  I have a friend who thinks all the cancer studies are fixed because the researchers are doctors who work for the industry.  He can think what he wants just like you can Gonzo.

You wanted Studies and a book by a Pulitzer prized winning author.. you got it lol and I provided links

If you want to reject them, it is up to you.


...

[heretik]

I have always argued that any one person, telling the kinds of stories we're all so familiar with about any program, facility or school would lack credibility. After all, the accounts of what takes place are incredible. This is why it is so easy for the program staff to get the parents accepting it is all lying manipulation. What makes the accounts credible are the multiple, consistent, persistent accounts of these incredible things.

When you have someone telling a story that deviates significantly from what is consistently expressed there may be some reason to have doubts. There are a couple of occasions where I have thought some embellishment has taken place, simply b/c no one else ever made a similar claim. But for the most part, given time, you'll find multiple witnesses to even the most hard to believe accounts.

When you have persons from many various facilities, scattered across the world, describing the same kinds of abuses, neglect and deprivation you have to accept the allegations are credible. If you don't, it is simply b/c it pays you not to - and I hope this "blindness" will end up costing you. . .

Thank-You   :notworthy:

[Awake]

@ Whooter. I found myself feeling interested in some comments of yours saying  that today’s programs don’t contain the same kind of ‘brainwashing’ tactics (I prefer the term thought reform for certain reasons) and abuses that they did 30 yrs ago in programs like Seed and Straight.

But along with abusive programs like the Seed and Straight you have included Cedu in your list of program models you think have been sufficiently removed from the program mainstream, yet Cedu closed in 2005. 5 yrs ago is not a long time. May I ask what it is about Cedu that makes you personally consider it abusive?

.

[RobertBruce]

I'm actually still interested to see if he'd be willing to name a single program currently operating in the US that he would consider to be abusive.

[Anne Bonney]

I'm actually still interested to see if he'd be willing to name a single program currently operating in the US that he would consider to be abusive.

I'd like to see that too.  It doesn't seem that there's one that we've discussed here that he disagrees with.

[Whooter]

I'm actually still interested to see if he'd be willing to name a single program currently operating in the US that he would consider to be abusive.

I'd like to see that too.  It doesn't seem that there's one that we've discussed here that he disagrees with.

Maybe they closed all the abusive ones down and only good ones are left.  We should look into that.



...