?We were not all molested and raped!?
It all depends on the definition that you associate with those words. Legally speaking, we were not all raped in the program, though I think there is a case for molestation (or other related charges). As a society, we generally view rape as, ?force to have sexual intercourse.? (Webster). This definition can cause legal uncertainty. For example, prison inmates that engage in forceful sexual activity are not charged with rape, they are charged with sodomy. You will rarely hear someone say, ?People get sodomized in prison.? You could hear someone say, ?People get raped in prison.? Here are the remaining definitions of rape: ?1, Forcible seizing and violation. 2, carrying off by force. 3, a plant grown for fodder and oil? 2, carry off violently.? (Webster) By these definitions of the word, many were raped in Straight. Molestation comes from the root word molest, which is defined as follows: ?1, trouble; interfere with injuriously. 2, to make improper sexual advances to.? (Webster) I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could claim they were not troubled by Straight.
?When will someone just report the abuse instead of stretch the truth for dramatic purposes? It just makes it all read like propaganda.?
Several media sources have covered the abuse. Many feel they were not as revealing as they should have been. Covering the abuse of Straight with a completely objective eye sounds like something that you have an acute interest in. Perhaps you should begin work on a book. Be forewarned that your involvement with Straight will point toward bias itself. Overcoming bias is one of the most difficult, if not unattainable, goals of the scientific method. After all, if one does not have bias how can one have interest? Much of the information is written in overly strong language; however, that is expected. I don?t mind the strong descriptors, but I am turned off by some of the cruel and outright slander that has taken place on this board. I do realize that these are just certain individuals that take place in such retaliation and that it is not common practice among survivors.
?Wes?s site,
http://www.thestraights.com is the same way. Written with an incredibly biased tone. I?ve had more people comment on the poor quality of the website?s impression on them, and the chaotic structure of information given, then say anything about the reason for giving the information to them in the first place.?
Wes is bias. I have never heard anyone claim he wasn?t bias. I also think that Wes and others have good reason to be bias.
I assume that you are trying to get your thoughts across to the educated community. Wes has done some great research, and I?m sure that you have gleaned plenty from it. It is written in strong tone, but his sources are reliable. He has posted his reference material so that you can check it out if you don?t believe him. The book is not even completed and in its final form may have any structural problems corrected. You shouldn?t criticize an unfinished work unless you are doing so to help assist Wes in correcting the problems. Wes has created one of the most informative and credible internet sites on the subject. If you can do a better job, please do. Wes? sight can be used as a great reference. Nothing is a great reference by itself. If you truly want to impress the educational community about this issue, use many references that all say the same thing. Wes? sight is just a good place to start from, not the end all and be all of Straight. Don?t complain that other people have not done what you are supposed to do. If you want less biased information, you need to build interest in someone that was not affiliated with Straight or the drug war in any way. Good luck. As you have already seen, some people just have a problem with this issue. They could use one of many excuses as to why they did not like the information. Some people will never accept what happened at Straight as wrong in any way. You will not convince those people of anything contrary, even if you use top scholarly journals.
?Opinions don?t belong in this war against Sembler and Co. The truth does.?
Don?t you have an opinion?
?Mel Sembler is not the Devil and he was not invented by Straight Inc. In fact he was a very wealthy highly respected local businessman prior to his involvement with Straight. His involvement also was on a business level; expansion, funding, etc. He did his job well.. too well in fact, much more so than the predecessor ever did. However, He DID NOT invent the techniques used in The Straight. Fuck, he didn't even know what was going on; instead the techniques were lifted by a handfull of Seedlings and Mrs. Peterman from the Seed. News Flash... Straight, inc. wasn't even his idea and he didn't even form the initial board of directors. It was done by a local dentist that had a kid in the Seed.?
I would like to know more about this. Where is the information that I can confirm this at? Do you have copies of documents that state and prove this?
?Straight was NOT a Holocaust for goodness sake?
The definitions of holocaust are, ?1, great destruction of life, esp. by fire. 2, (usu. Cap., with the) the systematic killing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.? (Webster). Only in the broadest sense could this apply to Straight, and if it is capitalized does not apply at all. I would like to see the usage of this word in correlation with Straight ceased as well.
?Mel Sembler is not a child rapist and it is unfair to call him one. Mel Sembler is not a child Molester, Mel Sembler is not "Wanted" and a miriad of other inacurracies posted on that website.?
These words may cause an inaccurate image of Sembler to come to mind. I do not think that Sembler ever forced a child into sexual intercourse with him. To my knowledge, Sembler never hung out in the cloak room coaxing the children to massage his penis. Sembler is also not on the top wanted list for the FBI or any state investigation agency. According to the definitions I posted earlier these definitions can apply, though they are not the definitions that immediately come to mind. The use of words is accurate, though they are inflammatory.
?Lies and fabrications discredit each and every one of your stories and experiences. They destroy opportunities to illuminate the truth and cause each of us harm in the future. The do not assist in preventing this abuse from reoccuring over and over again.?
Lies and fabrications do harm us. Using strong descriptors does little harm, and is a common practice in persuasion. We just have to be careful not to say things that are false. That has been a problem on this board, especially concerning posts in the Elan forum. If you want to bitch about something bitch about that, not some pissed off survivors using strong descriptors to get their message across. Some of that is needed to gain awareness.
