Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry

Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan

<< < (2/9) > >>

Carey:
You are wrong.  I don't know who you are.  But what I do know, is that you are not a "proud" ex Trekker other wise you would say who you are.

And, I do know that you have called me a liar and are afraid to admit to that, other wise, once again you would say who you are.

You are not "proud" you are ashamed and you make an accusation (calling me a liar) you can't even stand behind.

Anonymous:

--- Quote ---On 2004-01-04 07:32:00, Carey wrote:

"I don't think its paranoia.  I think the poster is not "proud to be an ex Trekker" and I think they want to call me a liar without having to prove it.  How many times have I been accused of that on this board and asked those accusing me of lying to tell me what I have lied about?  They can't, I have not lied, its plain and simple.



"

--- End quote ---


I agree this is not paranoia. The proof is in the pudding.  Carey has consistently provided documentation to support her allegations where as these folks have brought nothing to the table but personal attacks and threats of retaliation.  Not just directed at Ms. Bock, but virtually anyone who does not support their personal agenda.  When and if these people care to produce documentation to boost the credibility of their own allegations, I will listen.  Until then, I see no reason to cut these people any slack, much less enable them to do what apparently they do best: Blow smoke up everybody's ***.

 :wave:

Anonymous:
Bump

scottT:
"Why don't you come out of the henhouse?" says the fox; "Is it because you're just CHICKEN?"

    In today's forum we have a person who has admittedly accepted substantial compensation from the loathesome ones ( for providing information which they deemed  useful in their litigation onslaught) demanding that people reveal their identities, and impugning their honor if they fail to comply.    

    I guess once you start taking money for "naming names,"  you realize there may be an untapped career opportunity.  However,  by any definition -- dictionary, vernacular, or legal --accepting money for services makes you an affiliate of their organization.  Obviously, if you can encourage more disclosures, and get more identities,  your paymaster will likely be more than willing to show his gratitude in the traditional way.  Once you're bought and paid for,  its fair to presume that you stay bought.

    The desire for confidentiality is in no way inconsistent with being justifiably proud of participating in a worthwhile cause.

    Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.  Today's inquisitor would have you believe that their efforts were not honorable and decent, simply on the ground that they didn't advertise their identity.

    In my opinion,  the conditions to which people are subjected in extra-judicial seizure and incarceration programs  are a fair topic for public debate -- even if the program is run by a for-profit, commercial entity.  Revelations of treatment conditions which led to reform of mental health hospitals in the 19th and early 20th century are an analagous example. (Less litigious times, thankfully).   Even if unpleasant and messy,  such discourse (including the discourse on this very forum) is vital,  and should NOT be limited to those who are willing to bear the expense of defending SLAPP suits from our inquisitor's employer.

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:26 ]

Carey:

--- Quote ---Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.
--- End quote ---


Scott, do you not see the irony in your argument.

Slaves/ kids....WWASP programs / Sue's programs

What you condone freeing slaves/kids in order for someone else to have the opportunity to exploit and prosper off of them?  I don't.  When you stand behind Sue you are not standing for protecting the rights of children. You are swapping one set of unregulated programs for another.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page