For Ottawa

[Anonymous]

I would like to see programs like the ones at the CEDU schools improved upon,

Saying that Cedu can  be improved is like saying that concentration camps can be improved.  The only real improvement is elimination.

[Deborah]

Ottawa,
Here's a relatively short one for you.
You have me confused with someone else.
I have never said that my son was at peace with his experience or that I'd bring him to this site 'when he was ready'. He is aware of this and other sites and will participate if/when he chooses. For now, he is busy making up for lost time- the two years they robbed from him. I respect his decision.

Given what happened to me and my son, largely due to the perjured testimony provided by the program, anger was absolutely the appropriate response. You don't know even half of what transpired, and probably wouldn't relate if you did, given your opinion on programs.

If you have a need to believe that my anger is misdirected, so be it.
My activism has had an impact, and I'll continue to speak. And if the truth hurts the industry, so be it. Has nothing to do with regaining my power/control, and everything to do with exposing fraud.

[ottawa5]

Ginger, what in the world are you playing at here?

My planned absence, and hiatus from this site, among other things, is delayed until tommorrow, and I'm glad that it is, since I read your recent post, and I am just incensed!!!  "...hassling witnesses or potential witnesses"???

You have not yet, at least, crossed that line and actually accused me of a criminal offense such as witness-tampering.

I would really advise you to think very carefully before you do---I do not know the parameters of libel on an internet site, but I do know that there are limits, some even currently being decided in the courts.  I have four practicing attorneys, among my closest relatives, and I have worked as a scientific analyst for a major litigation law firm, and, believe me, if need be, I will be able to find out what my rights in civil or criminal court are, and do something about enforcing them.

We are going to get a few things straight, right now.

1) I am not and have never worked for CEDU in any way, shape, or form.  Not as a spy, not as staff, not as anything.  I am not in ongoing communication with anyone connected with CEDU. I thought we had that worked out yesterday, you said that you found it quite plausible that I was a parent interested in opening my own school. Now you've got me working on CEDU's "legal troubles", whatever that may mean?

I have over the years since my son graduated been in contact with various parts of  the school very sporadically, to get info on a reunion, to get some promotional materials for a friend, that sort of thing.  I am sure that I will do so again, since I am very interested in the whole program.

How about this, if I do start to work for them, do an internship with them, anything of that nature, and I am still actively involved with this site, you have my word that I will let you know that I am starting some kind of involvement, though I may not want to tell you the details, since I may not consider that to be any of your business.

2) I am aware that there have been a couple of lawsuits against CEDU, but this is true of most big companies in the litigious society that is America today. I have had no personal involvement in thses legal matters, would not even know where they are, or how they were disposed of, I have a dim memory of hearing that one or more of them was settled.  What are you talking about: "witness" for what??

All I can surmise from this message of yours, following on the heels of the post by the maybe-PhD-psychologist, is that there is some tie-in there.

I won't get into the details because it is not my style to divulge publically what is committed to me privately, but let me just say that it sounds as if some of my ideas about this guy are right on target.

I recognize the name in your post, Wyatt, as someone with a police force from California who some of the posters seem to think is going to prove that everything that they've been saying about CEDU is true.  

I don't know anything about that situation.  Sometimes police investigators stay in touch with people volunteering really strange stories (I was thinking, for example, of something like  "CEDU is a huge, powerful cult"), not because they believe them, but because the consideration is that such story-tellers may be dangerous, and the investigators want to keep an eye on them, so they simulate a friendly relationship with such "informants". Or there may be a real, ongoing investigation into a CEDU school out there, as I have heard some posters allude to. It's not impossible.

I am just guessing, but I am wondering if your post tells me that the maybe-PhD psychologist is who I think he is, and that you people are all in a tizzy over that fact.

Well, here's a heads-up for you if you confer with Mr. Wyatt:  

Again, without being too specific, any "data" that you have which involves communications with me, was initiated by a certain person, who asked me to contact him. It's not my fault if this certain person can't keep his stories straight and subsequently gave away his identity, I didn't exactly have to be "Perry Mason" to figure it out. And he didn't have to invite me to contact him, and he didn't have to respond to me when I did--so if he gave himself away, oh well, it's not my concern.

For God's sake, this is not the Mafia and the Witness Protection Program you're talking about here, have some sense of proportion.

So, tread carefully, Ginger, and do not get this poor Wyatt man, who may be a legitimate investigator, onto a track where he believes something false that you tell him about me and gets himself in trouble with his superiors over it.

By the way, I have saved and have hard copies of all communications, private and public, in relation to this matter, that is, what I think is the "data" you are talking about. So no point in trying to misrepresent it, now is there?

So, I will be checking in when I can as well as having a little legal conference with some friends and relatives in the business, not exactly what leisure time activities are meant to be, but it is always well to be prepared.

[CEDU IS A CULT]

It is fucking hilarious!!!  Ottawa you are a fucking mole and it's a fucking joke!!!

Now you're trying to claim all your big hotshot legal connections!!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

You dumb bitch!  What the hell do you think most of our parents were in order to afford CEDU?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Bring it on!!  

Go have your "little legal conference" !!!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

It's fucking hilarious what you'll try and resort to!!!


You know something- you're a fucking joke.

First tactic is caring psychologist interested in our experiences.

This became cold unemotional mother.

This became bitchy menopausal cunt belittler downplaying the abuse.

Then you became superior being who laughs at our little "complaints."

Now you're trying "person with big time legal connections- so watch what you guys say!"
coupled with playing on our personal fears of coming out about our abuse and throwing into question the validity of past lawsuits and the legitimacy of Chuck Wyatt.

I wonder what you'll try next.

I'm just waiting for sobbing apologetic freak!

You know something Ottawa.  I think I speak for many in saying this:

Go to hell.  You will never silence us.

[Anonymous]

Ottawa, I vehemently disagreed with your posts about CEDU but I believed that you were a mother of a child there who was happy with her experience.  As you became more and more involved with this site, it raised some questions, and I am very disappointed to see what you have resorted to.  Your last post, in my view, serves to scare people off the investigation.  It's intimidation of people who were harmed by a program. The fact that you never addressed wrong doings by CEDU, in fact, dismissed them, is highly suspect.  Any parent I know would never be so callous... Even if they felt they had a positive experience, they would show interest in cases of wrongdoing.   It's not about disagreeing with your purported experience , it's about compassion shown to others, which you seem to lack. I was really hoping you were a good person with a VERY divergent view from mine.  I am sorry to see that you have chosen to act as a bully.

[ottawa5]

Since my absence from the site is delayed for a day, I must not let this latest bit of what I perceive to be "damage control" go unchallenged.

Maybe you are a PhD psychologist after all, I can see why that may be true, based on the sum of the evidence available to me, although your presentation originally caused me to doubt it on the grounds that I listed. Maybe you are just not the type of psychologist that I would ever want to be.

You know, when I first found and came to this site, I told my advisor that I was doing so, in order to see the other side of how the emotional-growth industry is perceived.  She certainly had no objections, in fact thought that getting all sides of the picture was a very wise thing to do, if indeed I might start one of these programs someday.

I have been told by other professionals, as well as by her, that a psychologist should never present his or her credentials in such as way as to either be self-serving, or to smear another person for a non-therapeutic purpose.

That is why I have gone to great lengths to say that I am here as a parent, a concerned individual, not in any therapeutic role.  The only reason I even mentioned that I am studying psychology is that it seemed genuine in terms of self-disclosure. And in any situation where someone seemed to be confused about my role here, I have been scrupulous, really scrupulous, about re-directing them to this point: I am here as a parent, a fact-finder, someone who may start one of these schools one day, but not as a therapeutic professional.

Fast-forward to you, sir.  You come to this site, you flaunt your credentials in some kind of weird one-upman-ship over whether I am this or that, you start throwing around terms like "histrionic" and "borderline" (although now you're trying to deny what you clearly did say: I printed it out, for heaven's sake), you take it upon yourself to advise me, when I am not a client of yours, about what is and is not psychologically healthy for me in terms of the length and frequency of my posts, as well as other matters that have nothing to to do with your practice of psychology and which are clearly none of your business.

It is factual that you did not use a full DSM-IV diagnosis, but what do you suppose a licensing board would think of you, a psychologist (if your claim is correct) using psychological terms, about me, someone you had never met, in a way that had nothing to do with therapy, since I am not your client?  

I mean, the fact speaks for itself, that if you are using such terms about me you are in the process, if not at the end-point, of considering a diagnosis. And given the public way in which you did this, so much for confidentiality, though that is moot, since I am not even your client.

And other comments in your post ("Folks, we are getting WAY off course here" and "We have more important battles.."), seem to pretty clearly illustrate that you see this site as "your" place.  Face it, your comments at "your" place involve using psychological, diagnostic terms to try to discredit me, someone you had never met, and who you had no right or ability to diagnose as anything at all.

And by the way, I have always functioned quite well within the various aspects of my life and have never been diagnosed with any condition, making your comments still more outrageous. No one in my program or in my life has any concerns about my personal functioning, but somehow you just happen to know better?

In your latest post, there is some amount of back-peddling, it seems, perhaps you realize that you are out on an ethical limb though you don't wish to say it.

You say that you post anonymously because you don't think you'll be here much and don't want to bother to register.  Ummm, I have my own opinions about that. Then you just dig yourself in deeper by saying that my writing is "borderline", as if one can tell anything conclusively about personality issues in the kind of extravagent forum that a chat room like this represents.  You seem to lack any clinical or ethical judgment at all, to make such a statement.

I find that your behavior here has been self-serving and unprofessional to the point of being outrageous.  Please do not act this way again. Psychology is an important, serious, personal business.  These posts to me illustrate a serious lack of understanding about your own personal boundaries and confidentiality in psychological evaluation, among other issues.  

I am still only a student, it is true, but you have given me a really good example of how not to behave as a clincial psychologist once I have finished my program.

[CEDU IS A CULT]

Does anyone notice how Ottawa is scared to answer any questions?  I wonder if she allows her advisor to read her disgusting posts?

There is no advisor, there is no son, and there is no ottawa.  

She's a fucking spy/mole and I 100% believe it.

I am not joking.  She is a fucking spy.

Don't you hesitate to believe she doesn't give out information to CEDU.  She holds regular conversations with CEDU and plans to hold more in the future.  That is her statement!

She hates us with a passion, and would go to any length to quiet us.

I'm sure if it doesn't come out in the wash, it will come out in the rinse.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I am always prepared to give benefit of doubt, but it doesn't add up.

[Deborah]

Ottawa, you said this, days ago:
It seems kind of strange: I am perfectly willing to consider that the emotional growth school experience was, FOR REASONS THAT ARE YET TO BE DEFINED, negative for some people.

I have seen survivors explain in great detail the abuse and horrific 'therapy' they were subjected to. I have continually noticed that you ignore or minimize their experiences. THAT makes survivors suspicious of your true intent and question your integrity. It would be a trip to read your thesis when it's completed.

You have also said numerous times that you want to hear the good and the bad. Yet you ocassionally make comments such as this:

Yet, at this site, I have NOT SEEN MUCH INTEREST IN LOOKING AT WHY SOME ADOLESCENTS DO WELL after the CEDU experience, and go on to live happy, good lives, with positive memories surrounding the years spent in these schools.

Which also raises suspicion. You obviously haven't grocked that this is a SURVIVOR SITE, or else, you really do have a covert agenda. Why would survivors, of abusive 'treatment' be interested in hearing success stories or chatting it up with people who perceive the abuse to be a postive experience? For some, this may be the only venue they have for telling their stories, stories that the average american would not believe or relate to.

There are multiple boards where you can access all the pro-program rhetoric and opinions you could possibly want to hear. Why do you continually hold the expectation that you will get that kind of feedback at a survivor site?

Pay close attention when visiting those pro-progam sites. You won't find any survivors speaking there about the abuse they endured under the guise of 'therapy'. Might you put forth the same challenge at those sites-- " I'M LOOKING FOR GOOD AND BAD STORIES. I HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH INTEREST HERE IN LOOKING AT WHY SOME ADOLESCENTS DO NOT DO WELL IN CEDU/ XYZ PROGRAM. WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE IT DIDN'T WORK FOR? WHY DON'T I HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE HERE?"

Those boards are censored. Given that, you should feel fortunate to even have access to the stories here, and should treat the posters here with due respest-- If indeed you are looking to understand what doesn't work. The least you could do is read the posts and draw your own conclusions without humiliating and harrassing those who are trying to recover from their 'treatment'.

You know, or should, that if you want to gather truly objective material for your little project, that you should not be engaging the posters here. You should not be engaging in arguements or making comments that frighten or enrage survivors. You are influencing the outcome of your research by doing so. Check with your advisor on this.

I'll say again. I think you've already drawn a conclusion about survivors- wrongly placed/ severe psychological problems; and that you're really here to gather proof to support that conclusion. It is terribly unethical of you to act the way you have. If I were your advisor, I'd require you to leave this site completely, or monitor it without participating.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-08-01 14:16:00, Bryan Felsher wrote:

"Does anyone notice how Ottawa is scared to answer any questions?  I wonder if she allows her advisor to read her disgusting posts?



There is no advisor, there is no son, and there is no ottawa.  



She's a fucking spy/mole and I 100% believe it.



I am not joking.  She is a fucking spy.



Don't you hesitate to believe she doesn't give out information to CEDU.  She holds regular conversations with CEDU and plans to hold more in the future.  That is her statement!



She hates us with a passion, and would go to any length to quiet us.



I'm sure if it doesn't come out in the wash, it will come out in the rinse."

I think it's already come out in several places, one I already mentioned is that she sure knows alot more about CEDU than any parent I ever met. But by arguing with her and not just ignoring her we're giving her exactly what she wants.

[ottawa5]

Well, I imagine that you are out there, whether you say you only come here rarely or not, you seem to respond pretty readily when I post about you.

The good news is that you had the insight and realization that your post of earlier in the day was very, very unprofessional.

The bad news is that others saw it before you had the presence of mind to delete it, and I had the presence of mind to print it out.

Have a very nice evening!

[Deborah]

It is my understanding that anons can not edit or delete their posts. Which message are you refering to? Scan and post it.

[ottawa5]

Now Deb--I think that you know I am not very computer-literate, and the idea of scanning a piece of paper to you is more than I am capable of doing. And no member of my family that knows about these things is home, due to a little weekend carnival in the area.

Perhaps not everyone would agree that it is unprofessional to call someone "hysterical", hystrionic" and "probably borderline" on the basis of a couple of internet posts on a topic in which the "unprofessional" has a vested interest.  I guess that I just hold the profession to a higher standard.

P. S. Oh, I get it, you're a communicant of FCT, Former Cedu Therapist--I saw FCT on one of your posts this week, I didn't make the connection until just now!

[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-08-01 18:59 ]

[Antigen]

I try to be careful to state as fact only that which I can prove as fact and to state my opinions as such. If I've mistated anything, please let me know. I'll be happy to appologize, retract the inaccurate statement and then expound (perhaps at length) on what I meant to say.

On 2004-08-01 13:03:00, ottawa5 wrote:

you said that you found it quite plausible that I was a parent interested in opening my own school. Now you've got me working on CEDU's "legal troubles", whatever that may mean?

I consider both of the above possabilities to be  equally plausible. Here's another, even more plausible, IMO. You may be a Program parent who's working (i.e. providing service of value) for CEDU on a volunteer basis (like the Wendy's® unofficial spokesman)

This, of course, is just my opinion. Pure conjecture. And, fwiw, if you really are doing just what you say, I consider you just as dangerous as any of a number of other former Parent Group members who have gone on to seek wealth and glory through the private incarceration of young people. So don't waste your time trying to sell me on the idea. From my pov, it doesn't help your position a bit.

A multitude of laws in a country is like a great number of physicians, a sign of weakness and malady.


--Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.

[Anonymous]

Deborah, just ignore Ottawa. We all recognize histrionics when we see them - and some of us recognize borderline traits. Ignore her. Just drop it. Not worth your time. She's been making threats, so the "discussion" part of this forum is lost. Let her rant and rave and you keep posting your intelligent observations!