Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > EdCons and referring organizations and agencies

Beware of referrals by Sue Scheff

<< < (15/23) > >>

Antigen:
Cool beans, HG. So far, it sounds like a relatively benign scam.

What were the rules? Is there a published or formal list of them that we could look at? And were they implimented or interpreted reasonably close to a normal understanding of how they were written?

Here's what I'm trying to get at. In Straight, we had lots and lots of rules. And they all looked relatively reasonable on paper. But anything (any damned thing) can be used for torment, just depends on the will and abilities of the people in charge. So a good sense rule like 'no talking behind backs' meant that, litterally, you couldn't say to your parents that somebody got confronted or started over. I mean litterally, you couldn't say "Somebody got...." It was verbotten.

The overall effect of this (in combination of other written and unwritten rules and practices) was that it was impossible to communicate in any meaningful way. After an extended time down this rabbit hole, many ppl found it difficult to impossibl to communicate w/ oneself--to think (which, ironically enough, was one of the rules; "Think, think, think".

Personally, I think that's why so many of us have such huge gaps in memory of those days. Thing happened, people said and did things. But you could not comment or respond nor see or hear anyone else's take on it. It was almost like it never happened. That's the mindfuck.

Is there anything close to that going on up at Glacier Mountain?
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs.  
-- E. Grebenik

--- End quote ---

hawaiianguy3:
No, there wasn't anything that extreme going on. The closest thing I could find to official rules is this link http://www.aboutglaciermtn.com/schedule.html
That's their official website.
The thing that was most wrong with the program is that the overseers were too lazy (Matt and Ramona)or didn't really care about us (Larry). The program was more like being at home, but having stricter parents. We could do basically the same stuff that we would do at home; hang out, talk, chores, but we couldn't watch TV or go out (until level 4 or 5). When someone did something bad they would just get dropped a level and have to stay in the program longer. So, everyone's incentive was to get out as quickly as possible, and to do that, you had to be good. The instances where there was abuse were rare. It happened about 4 or 5 times while I was there, which isn't good, but it's better than other places.
This program is not nearly as bad as some of the others out there. One kid just entered this program after leaving another in Jamaica, and he told us some pretty bad stories; but I don't think Glacier Mountain Academy helps kids too much, either. Jack (the school teacher), Larry (ran the program), and some other people who worked in the program were always nice to us. I like them and they're good people (actually, Larry isn't really that great a person, but he was nice). They are not qualified to work in what they are doing, though. Either because they lack the legal qualifications, or because they're in it for the money (Larry); and you can't be in that job for the money. I want you to want to help people if your program is actually going to help people.

Anonymous:
Hawaiiguy: What did your parents THINK they were paying for? Did your parents think you were getting therapy, an education, or WHAT?  Did they just think you were "hanging out with a bunch of kids with substitute parents who were just STRICT?"
What do you think qualifies as abuse? You said you only saw abuse 4-5 times.
Did you THINK that boy cutting his wrist with that knife was a suicide attempt that just might have required REAL psychological or medical attention; rather than ridicule?

hawaiianguy3:
Well, first of all, my mother did expect more of the program than what they did. Exactly what, I don't know.
Like I posted earlier, Matt held a boy against the wall by his neck and that's all that I saw myself. But, I heard that Ramona slapped a boy across the face, but there were no witnesses to that one. Matt sat on a kid to hold him down before I got there. Alot of kids saw that one, but that may or may not have been legitimate. Matt pushed and held one kid against the wall for no good reason, but again, no witnesses to that one, either.
It doesn't matter if that kid was trying to kill himself for real; that was a private and delicate matter and should have been dealt with as such. I honestly don't know if he really was trying to kill himself or if he was just trying to get out of the program.[ This Message was edited by: hawaiianguy3 on 2006-01-13 10:33 ]

Antigen:
Well, sounds to me asif GM is a relatively benign player in the industry. Ya' know, people joke around about setting up competing edcon outfits to ship kids off somewhere, give them all the pot and video games they want and just put the parents through a little LGA torment and say they're doing the same to the kids. But they're just joking, ya' know? The legal liability and real ethical issues .... WOW!

Also, sounds a lot like the Whitmore, only maybe having not gone off the deep end (yet? lately? who knows?)

But, right now w/ the limited information that I have, I'd mark GM as the best of the industry; a relatively benign experience for the kids, same great fleecing of the parents.



If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit  people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?  Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?

--Frederic Bastiat -- 1801-1850
--- End quote ---


_________________
Drug war POW  
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page