Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Who Am I Discovery/Whitmore

getting abused at the whitmore

<< < (35/39) > >>

Anonymous:

--- Quote ---On 2005-06-19 20:35:00, Anonymous wrote:

"as far as the situation with the horses in Canada, they were under a caretaker, and the judge said that since he was young and all, or something (he was not a minor though and knew what needed to be done) that he was going to charge Mark. The horse that you see in the pictures..the foal..it had a disease. I forgot what it is called, but it had something to do with its legs. They were going to put the horse down before it it got older (as it was only a few days old) but Cheryl didnt want them to put the little thing down. Even though it wouldnt be able to be ridden, she wanted to raise it. It was not abused though. (In other words, it would have been better if that baby had been put to sleep so all this trouble wouldnt have been started) As with the horses that were seized, some of them were given back because they said there was nothing wrong with them. There really wasnt, and anyone who knows them, knows that the horses were just fine. It is really a sad story because the horses were taken care of up there. Cheryl used to tell me all the time that if I want a good horse, I should go and find one of their old ones and buy it. "

--- End quote ---


Cheryl told me and Leah's mom and my sister that all the horses in Canada had been killed.  She had also told us previously that the horses in Mexico had been killed.  When I went to Mexico, where the Sudweeks' place was, I asked what had happen to all of the Sudweeks' horses.  I was told by everyone I asked that they never owned horses in Mexico.  I heard this from neighbors, workers, people who had shops in town, a man who took us on a tour.  Seems funny to me that all of them said the same thing, and Cheryl tells a completely different story.

Anonymous:
two different organizations seized the horses, and they were given 8 of the horses back.

Antigen:
From what I remember from last time I read the x-script, the judge concluded that the kid named as a caretaker could not be held at fault because Mark hired him to do it, w/o any false representation from the kid about his qualifications. In fact, he would have known the kid well, with the kid's sister being an informal adoptee of the Suds, ya' know?

Mark misjudged the kid, even knowing him as well as he did. The kid was more afraid of getting the Suds into trouble than of having to explain why the horses were starving and freezing to death. That's in the x-script. Look it up.

So why did Mark misjudge this kid's aptitude at overwinter horse care so badly?

That, I think, is the salient question. I don't know the answer.

Wanna know my guess? Ok (you're still reading, right?) Cause the kid was faithful. And, as any parent who still thinks the Whit is the best thing since sliced bread well knows, approval from the Whit is better than any mere highschool could ever bestow. Kids who are faithful to the Whit are to be trusted and honored--celebrated, even--above all others. They've got the gift of the Suds, after all! No need for silly certifications or scrutiny! They're endoursed by the Suds, what more do you need?

Same old song and dance. I know ppl who got off from drunk driving, hit and run, speeding and other moderately serious crimes because the cop on the scene was a Program supporter.

Same old song and dance. It's so obvious.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
--- End quote ---

Anonymous:
no..ive heard that too from one of the other kids that used to be in the program, but only one horse was shot in Canada, and the DID get some of them back

Anonymous:
the only thing that I am defending here is the fact that some of the horses were given back..I RODE ONE FOR OVER A YEAR!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page