Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) => Topic started by: Anonymous on November 18, 2009, 11:36:43 AM
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
-
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine
That is a pretty big "if". If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a shopping cart. :roflmao:
-
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe?
And if frogs had wings then they wouldn't bump their asses on the ground when they hopped. But that's just not the case.
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
Ok then, I won't say it. How do you explain yourself?
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
Ok then, I won't say it. How do you explain yourself?
Why and how is the term not accurate? Seems to me that such a shoe fits many a foot in these parts! :D
-
To begin with the program i attended spent much of the 11 months i was there threatening me not to complain. in order to leave you had to sign a contract and write an essay about how great the program is and agree to the directors that you won't say anything bad or have contact with any students from the program. when i got home i was often threatened by my mother over every little thing that she would send me back if i did not do what she wanted. i was sent to the program because i have Asperger's and depression and my father just wanted a normal child. the program i was at thought Asperger's meant i did not know it was wrong to lie and steal. it took me three years before i could trust a therapist to tell her what happened to me. After leaving the ranch i suffered severe anxiety. The problem is many people don't get the help they need so they become self destructive and cannot get themselves together to speak out. i am lucky but it took 4 and half years of therapy before i am now brave enough to post online. i am not posting the name of the place i went to because i hear they cleaned up some of the worst behavior however i am sure it is not the ideal situation for most teens in need of help. the program i went to the complaints far outnumber happy customers especially those from 2001-2004 when the program was much worst.
i have never done drugs, i don't drink, never been arrested and am now a junior in college. now that i have found this site i feel i finally found a place were the truth is being told.
-
the program i was at thought Asperger's meant i did not know it was wrong to lie and steal.
Generally speaking, kids who have Asperger's are less likely to lie... They often have an obsession for this thing called "the truth." I bet your program did not know very much about Asperger's.
-
Even taking into account that OP is certainly a troll, I still feel its important to discuss this issue.
I believe it really boils down to the person you are and the experience you had with the program. Whether you are a parent, former detainee or just an interested party chances are you will either adhere to the opinion that the methods employed by the troubled teen industry can easily be classified as child abuse, or you think that for some reason these teens deserved the harsh treatment. I know that seems to be an over generalization but long story short it comes down to whether you have the capasity for empathy or not.
I actually find it funny, talking to my old program friends and aquaintences how many of them still believe that whole dead, insane or in jail bit... I mean you want proof of brainwashing?... How about the fact that they all give you the same line, without any evidence of that actually being the truth in their personal experience. Like our guest above said, most of us returned to bad behavior after we left far surpassing our childish attempts of rebellion before the program... and what do you know... were still here.
Not to mention the fact that many people actually enjoyed the fact that they were given absolute power over others, and were actually encouraged to mentally and physically abuse other students. For some, a situation like the program is the perfect outlet for their violent desires and these kinds of people have no mind to turn around and stand against a program that taught them that abuse was okay, as long as you think the victim deserved it.
Same goes for the parents... too many parents are just trigger happy to see someone else punishing and controlling their child. They feel they failed as a diciplinarian and that they lost respect from their child and the only way to gain that back is to let them live in hell for a few years so they might come home greatful and respectful. and sure that ruse can be upkept with threats of being sent back... but only for so long. Most times that just backfires and they get a kid who's lost even more hostile and disrespectful.
Thing is, this over generalized estimate of 1000 to 4 is probably not coming from a very reliable source... in my personal experience, talking to hundreds of former students not just from the school I went to but many many others, I find that your estimate is way off. I say more accurately its about 2 to 100, and a majority of that percentage could really care less and just want to move on with their lives. A lot of it has to do with the experience they had, for instance not everyone was physically abused, and every program had a different level of mental and emotional trauma. Just because a former student isn't pissed off enough to join the cause doesn't automatically mean they approve of the program... in fact most people choose to stay ignorant to the truth about the illegal and unethically activities of the program because they just don't feel like dealing with that massive realization.
It takes dedication to stand against the program and sadly... only about 4 out of 1000 really have what it takes to make a difference.
-
Well now Femanon Fatal,
That was some speech, I enjoyed your reason. I have to say your explaination was the best I have heard in a while. You posted on alot of different points and it all rolled together.
Thanks...WOW
Love it here really do.....
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: ...........Danny.....
-
A few random thoughts
I think the reason more kids praise programs then attack them is because more kids were helped by them. I really don’t think they look back on their time there as abusive the same as kids don’t look back on their lives at home as abusive. They don’t feel their parents were abusive because they were held accountable for their actions and had to face consequences like staying in their room or missing a Friday night out.
The kids who attend programs all know why they were sent there and had plenty of notice and or opportunity to adjust their behavior prior to being sent, but just just chose not to.
I can see, by reading here on fornits, why many would conclude that all programs are abusive. If there were a web site dedicated to talking about the abuses in public schools and how they were raped and humiliated by staff and teachers and omitting any positive experiences they had I think many would be leaning towards home schooling . Another example, I am sure that the kids who lived through the Columbine experience feel all the parents must be brainwashed into thinking that our public school system is safe and continue to this day sending our innocent kids to school to be slaughtered after seeing first hand that kids can get shot there. We must conclude that these parents have no feeling for their own kids safety or why would they send them off like that?
Many of the parents who send their kids to programs speak to other parents who had kids in the same school or speak to the kids themselves. So they are getting first hand information of the schools success. If you add this to the studies that some of these schools have done it is easy to conclude that the overwhelming majority of the kids who attend a program do well and continue on a healthy path after graduating.
Also, the absence of these children on websites, like fornits, is understandable. If a 1,000 people buy a flat screen from Walmart and 4 of them have trouble with their sets how many people do you think Walmart would hear from? The people who are happy are not going to take the time to call up customer service and thank them for such a great TV. The people who speak out are the ones who are unhappy, they don’t represent the majority, it is quite the opposite.
...
-
The kids who attend programs all know why they were sent there and had plenty of notice and or opportunity to adjust their behavior prior to being sent, but just just chose not to.
You reveal more than you realize in that statement. Your characterization of the reason that kids get sent to programs is one of punishment and behavior modification, plain and simple. They "just chose not to" adjust their behavior, so this is what they get.
Some kids come from abusive home situations, perpetrated by their parents, which the programs neither attempt to rehabilitate nor even address. I'm not exactly sure what behavior adjustment you think these kids should have effected to prevent their being sent to a program.
If these programs were actually what you claim they are, surely the "non-rotten apples" would be denied admission, and kids suffering from abusive family dynamics would be directed to more appropriate venues?
But ... in real life, this very rarely happens. Rather, it's a one-size-fits-all approach driven by corporate greed and tunnel-visioned ideology, where advancement is measured by confessions of wrong-doing and the ability to coerce others to do same, regardless of the verity of it all. Some programs even fraudulently market themselves as "specialty boarding schools" with some extra-special bonus perks, which include cult-like indoctrination of both the kids and their parents in LGAT seminars.
Some kids really don't do well in that kind of environment, previous maladjusted behavior or not. Utilizing a punitive approach coupled with a milieu of 24/7 peer pressure ... breaks some kids and more or less permanently warps others. That's why one hears tales of abuse. It IS abuse, plain and simple.
-
You reveal more than you realize in that statement. Your characterization of the reason that kids get sent to programs is one of punishment and behavior modification, plain and simple. They "just chose not to" adjust their behavior, so this is what they get.
I think it is clear to all of us. The kids choose not to adjust their behavior and/or they are not responding well to local services which are in place attempting to facilitate positive changes in the child’s behavior. Some kids refuse to work with the local people and therefore need to be helped off site. This is where the boarding schools come in. I dont see it as punishment but rather many parents have informed their children of what the next step will be if local services are not successful or if they are not willing to work together.
Some kids come from abusive home situations, perpetrated by their parents, which the programs neither attempt to rehabilitate nor even address. I'm not exactly sure what behavior adjustment you think these kids should have effected to prevent their being sent to a program.
Many programs are very effective in helping kids in abusive home situations. A big step is getting them away from the home where the abuse occurs, so boarding school is a good choice in this example. The schools, I am aware of, work with the parents to change the home situation.
If these programs were actually what you claim they are, surely the "non-rotten apples" would be denied admission, and kids suffering from abusive family dynamics would be directed to more appropriate venues?
The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent and will suggest other methods/therapies to these parents. Many programs require the child to be evaluated locally prior to being admitted to better understand the childs struggles. This insures that each particular program can better insure the success of each child in their program.
But ... in real life, this very rarely happens. Rather, it's a one-size-fits-all approach driven by corporate greed and tunnel-visioned ideology, where advancement is measured by confessions of wrong-doing and the ability to coerce others to do same, regardless of the verity of it all. Some programs even fraudulently market themselves as "specialty boarding schools" with some extra-special bonus perks, which include cult-like indoctrination of both the kids and their parents in LGAT seminars.
You seem to view all boarding schools as being the same. Aside from what I have read here on fornits I have never seen a one-size-fits-all approach in any of the schools. The programs provide a very individualized plan for each child. Many programs are beginning to specialize even further to focus on specific problem areas.
Some kids really don't do well in that kind of environment, previous maladjusted behavior or not. Utilizing a punitive approach coupled with a milieu of 24/7 peer pressure ... breaks some kids and more or less permanently warps others. That's why one hears tales of abuse. It IS abuse, plain and simple.
I agree that programs are not effective with all children. This is why I would like to see an independent evaluation be mandatory prior to any children being accepted into a program. This would help to insure the child would be matched with the right program and that the particular child would even benefit from a long term stay. Some kids don’t do well even after many months of behavior modification and individual therapy. I don’t expect to ever see a 100% success rate but it is important to find ways to continuously improve the process.
...
-
The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent
When constructing propaganda, remember not to inadvertently include statements that lead to solutions you don't like. Here, you have given a clear option for kids trying to avoid being part of the Pile.
-
The programs that I am familiar with will not accept a child who is violent
When constructing propaganda, remember not to inadvertently include statements that lead to solutions you don't like. Here, you have given a clear option for kids trying to avoid being part of the Pile.
Pile you make a good point, but,I think most kids are aware of this option. Kids know that if they start punching people out or resorting to other forms of violence then they place themselves in a different category and will have to deal with the consequences of the path they choose. If kids are not aware I think they should be told, very clearly and upfront,that violence will not be tolerated and will result in the kid being sent home (or another type of placement).
It is better for the school and the other kids if they can determine if a child would resort to violence ahead of time. It would save the parents and the program a lot of wasted effort and finances. This is another reason why a mandatory prescreening of all kids prior to acceptance would benefit not only the parents and child but also the program.
...
-
FYI, I don't usually spend much time reading responses to Whooter Goebels' trolls, either. So sorry if I missed something good.
Femanon, that IS about the best explanation I've seen. You really do have a gift for getting down to brass tacks without removing too much of the brass. I'd add one thing, though. Maybe 4 in a thousand speak out Maybe not. Seems to me most people vent a little, speak their peace and then get back to the business of living. So ya don't hear from them all the time and maybe forget they came breezing through. But they did.
There's also another even less visible contingent of folks who have reliably provided funding, promotion, recommendations and connections and help of all kinds without ever making much of a public splash. Some are concerned about their careers and/or peace and privacy in their family lives and social circles. Some are just plain shy and disinclined to speak publicly. But there are a lot of them! Enough that we don't have a lot of trouble raising funds when we're in a pinch nor finding any kind of professional talent at need.
Bottom line, I'm thinking that 1000 - 4 stat is probably just about ridiculous.
-
FYI, I don't usually spend much time reading responses to Whooter Goebels' trolls, either. So sorry if I missed something good.
Why resort to name calling? Why do you have this need to label people who have a different opinion than your own? I don’t agree with many of your opinions but not once have I made disparaging comments against you.
If you are against “prescreening kids” or “independent evaluations” prior to placement then you should argue that point. If you feel more kids are hurt than helped by programs then argue that to.
As I thought it over I have to say that I was a little reluctant in engaging you on this topic (particularly in this thread) but I have to say that attacking posters because of their opinions is just wrong in my opinion and falls more under the definition of trolling than any of my posts do.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter (John Reuben),
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29967 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29967)
I asked you in the above thread, "Can you say, with one hundred percent certainty, your collaborative partners don't have a track record of abuse?"
Personally, I don't have a problem with your cause rather STICC's collaborative partners who have a track record of abuse.
Joel, I think many people here would concur that I don’t mind answering people’s questions and I don’t shy away from controversy. If I were this person John Reuben I would happily answer your question. But I really don’t have the information to respond to you.
I do agree with you and I dont have a problem with this mans cause either. On the surface it looks genuine.
...
-
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[/list]
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)[/list]
-
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[/list]
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)[/list]
Wow, Ursus, thats a big round about way of saying you think I am this John Reuben guy too. Although it does play into Gingers Goebbels comment with the Nazi party theme. At one time I was thought to be woodbury for a few years, then an Aspen Director in Utah, then Peter H. in Virginia (Ed consultant), a partner for Hidden lake Academy (that was funny for awhile).. Deborah thought I was Rudy Bentz for aboput a year and then there were a few others and now John Reuben. I am flattered that my knowledge of the industry has progressed to the point that I am now considered a philanthropist.
You have shown your allegiance to Ginger by your attempts in burying her words and helping to push them back a few pages. If she were my friend I would be embarrassed for her too, would try to make others believe that her comments were out of character and do the same thing you are doing. You are a good person, Ursus, but you dont need to defend her, she is a big girl. I never said she was closed minded. I just warned her that labeling people because of their point of view was dangerous and the best way to avoid being isolated is to open up to more than one point of view.
Just let the information flow freely, be honest and let people choose for themselves!
...
-
Just let the information flow freely, be honest and let people choose for themselves!...
Okay, let’s start by having you answer the following:
Which programs meet your standards of approval?
What are the criteria by which you judge a program?
I take the unpopular point of view in the argument sometimes to play "devils advocate". I see myself as adding balance to a very biased and one-sided forum.
Like a guy hovering over an incest survivors forum with an intent to iterate over and over again comments about Freud having abandoned Seduction Theory would be anymore warmly received by the participating survivors ? I believe in looking at study results coming out of the industry where many here do not want to discuss facts and instead would rather put more energy into discrediting them then reading them and getting out what they can.
Which studies were those again? Does the “getting out what they can” necessitate turning off critical thinking and not taking into account factors like how the study was run or who funded the study etc.?
I point out the successes that programs have produced and as a result am called a shill for the industry. I am received by being called a liar, troll, industry shill, EdCon, Aspen employee, John Reuben, Peter Forne, Alan Newman, Dirk Grey, Nazi……… But I am just a program parent.
You’re more than that. You’re a guy who has for years tenaciously clung to this survivor’s forum in the role of devil's advocate. So creepy.
People who are opened minded and dont mind a balanced and honest debate dont seem to have a problem with me.
Which brings us neatly back to:
Just let the information flow freely, be honest and let people choose for themselves!...
Okay, let’s start by having you answer the following:
Which programs meet your standards of approval?
What are the criteria by which you judge a program?
-
Okay, let’s start by having you answer the following:
Which programs meet your standards of approval?
What are the criteria by which you judge a program?
No thanks, we tried this approach. Also, Look at how "Studies" are received here on the forum.
Like a guy hovering over an incest survivors forum with an intent to iterate over and over again comments about Freud having abandoned Seduction Theory would be anymore warmly received by the participating survivors ?
If the incest survivors where selling the idea that all parents have sex with their kids then yes I would hover and argue that point with incest survivors.
Which studies were those again? Does the “getting out what they can” necessitate turning off critical thinking and not taking into account factors like how the study was run or who funded the study etc.?
If you were new here I would re post them. But we all know the studies are valid but rejected here on fornits because of the outcome, let’s not fool each other. There are plenty of studies which show the effectiveness of various programs. Even though some of the studies were conducted by research facilities people here rejected them because researchers within the firm had prior experience with the industry they were studying. If you were going to fund a study of your business would you choose a research firm who had no experience with what you do or one that was familiar with your type of business?
I dont think you could find any research firm that doesnt employ people with experience in the area of the research they are conducting. We all know this but I think it helps everyone here justify ignoring the facts and maintain a white knuckle grip on the idea that programs never help anybody.
You’re more than that. You’re a guy who has for years tenaciously clung to this survivor’s forum in the role of devil's advocate. So creepy.
Not as creepy as those who log in and say they are survivors day after day.
Okay, let’s start by having you answer the following:
Which programs meet your standards of approval?
What are the criteria by which you judge a program?
I think what may be helpful is to start rating the programs on a scale of 1 to 10 so that parents who read the forum can gain a better understanding of which programs to avoid and which programs have had very little complaints. The survivors on this forum may be in a better position to compile this info and it would be more pro-active than just trying to convince people that teenagers don’t have any problems and turn a blind eye to the situation.
...
-
Don't forget who Whooter really is. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29342) He clearly has a financial stake in the TTI and has admitted it many times over the years only to come back to deny it now. His "I'm a just regular parent" meme is false and hackneyed. Click on the links to Whooter's posts in the above-linked thread to see in his own words that he's part of the TTI and not just some "concerned parent." That assertion is laughable.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter wrote:
I think what may be helpful is to start rating the programs on a scale of 1 to 10 so that parents who read the forum can gain a better understanding of which programs to avoid and which programs have had very little complaints. The survivors on this forum may be in a better position to compile this info and it would be more pro-active than just trying to convince people that teenagers don’t have any problems and turn a blind eye to the situation.
What criteria would you use to rate a program?
The rating system would have to evolve and include input from many survivors who have had experiences from many places. I see maybe a rating system like an A thru Z system or the 1 thru 10 that I mentioned earlier.
It could start at:
A – No negative reports filed
B – Some Undocumented complaints
C – Numerous complaints filed, there have been lawsuits filed with no findings
D – Documented Reports of Abuse
F – Closed down/ under state investigation due to abuse.
I think this would be easier to understand, Maintain and expand upon versus a “star rating system”. A star rating system implies (to me anyway) that they are all good programs ... just some are better than others.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter,
You are aware you left out other factors/criteria, yes? I am not sure they would make a difference. I worked for programs and can honestly say a rating system would be useless.
Joel, I just intended the post to be a first pass. I believe much more can be added but I expect if survivors chimed in it would evolve into something meaningful. The rating could help parents that check into fornits to get an idea of how bad the program they are considering really is. If a parent were considering a place like Tranquility Bay they would see that maybe an Aspen Ranch type of place would be a better choice. The way it is now all a parents hears here is all programs are the same, which is no help at all. So they may make a bad choice.
For example, many families believe that kids should read books, entertain themselves with board games and avoid TV all together, because tv viewing, in general, isn’t good for child development. But if they must watch it there is a rating system available to them that helps guide them to make the best possible choice, even though some people maintain that all tv is harmful the system would guide a parent away from an ”R” rated movie for a young child. This way the child is poisoned with a little lower dose.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If a parent were considering a place like Tranquility Bay they would see that maybe an Aspen Ranch type of place would be a better choice.
I assume you are aware abuse takes place at Aspen Ranch. Would you send your child there or refer another child there?
Abuse happens everywhere, Joel. Hospitals, churches, public schools, by drug dealers, by violent boyfriends, by public school teachers, by abusive parents, by underpaid staff, by overpaid staff,...... but some places are a higher risk than others. This is where a rating system would help. I dont think we would ever find a place that is truly 100% safe... but If I were going to place my child I would pick places like ASR, Aspen Ranch etc. and a few other over Tranquility Bay and Hyde (although Hyde just became accredited so they seem to have cleaned up and deserve a second look).
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Abuse happens everywhere, Joel. Hospitals, churches, public schools, by drug dealers, by violent boyfriends, by public school teachers, by abusive parents, by underpaid staff, by overpaid staff,...... but some places are a higher risk than others. This is where a rating system would help. I dont think we would ever find a place that is truly 100% safe... but If I were going to place my child I would pick places like ASR, Aspen Ranch etc. and a few other over Tranquility Bay and Hyde (although Hyde just became accredited so they seem to have cleaned up and deserve a second look).
Whooter,
Accreditation is a selling gimmick. Programs receive extra funding upon accreditation. It would be virtually impossible to construct a rating system to ensure the safety of children in programs. I know from first hand experience because I worked for programs. Having said that, it does not make me special. The safety of children is at the top of the totem pole. What boggles my mind is your choice of schools. They have a reputation for abuse and are not safe.
The rating system would not be constructed to insure the safety of children, like you said this would be impossible. Just like the rating system for the movie industry cannot insure that kids will not be scared or harmed. But they at least do the best they can. The rating system would help to guide parents to make a better decision.
If, through your experience, you feel Tranquility Bay is a safer and less abusive place for a child than ASR or Aspen Ranch then your information would be part of the equation which builds the rating system and this would be passed onto parents who visit Fornits. This wouldn’t have any effect on the programs themselves at least this wouldn’t be the initial intent.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
The rating system would not be constructed to insure the safety of children, like you said this would be impossible. Just like the rating system for the movie industry cannot insure that kids will not be scared or harmed. But they at least do the best they can. The rating system would help to guide parents to make a better decision. If, through your experience, you feel Tranquility Bay is a safer and less abusive place for a child than ASR or Aspen Ranch then your information would be part of the equation which builds the rating system and this would be passed onto parents who visit Fornits. This wouldn’t have any effect on the programs themselves at least this wouldn’t be the initial intent.
Whooter,
Rating systems are useless because they don't reflect what takes place behind the scenes. There are other reasons.
Hey, Joel, its okay. I respect your opinion. I personally think a rating system is better and safer than just telling parents that all programs are the same.
...
-
Accreditation is a selling gimmick.
Also for insurance purposes. It behooves a program to qualify for health insurance payments since it broadens the spectrum of clients it can enroll.
-
The rating system would not be constructed to insure the safety of children, like you said this would be impossible. Just like the rating system for the movie industry cannot insure that kids will not be scared or harmed. But they at least do the best they can. The rating system would help to guide parents to make a better decision.
Now what would happen if fornits had a rating system with which to access the credibility of its posters? :D
Jes' sayin' ...
-
Which studies were those again? Does the “getting out what they can” necessitate turning off critical thinking and not taking into account factors like how the study was run or who funded the study etc.?
If you were new here I would re post them. But we all know the studies are valid but rejected here on fornits because of the outcome, let’s not fool each other. There are plenty of studies which show the effectiveness of various programs. Even though some of the studies were conducted by research facilities people here rejected them because researchers within the firm had prior experience with the industry they were studying. If you were going to fund a study of your business would you choose a research firm who had no experience with what you do or one that was familiar with your type of business?
I don't think you could find any research firm that doesn't employ people with experience in the area of the research they are conducting. We all know this but I think it helps everyone here justify ignoring the facts and maintain a white knuckle grip on the idea that programs never help anybody...
I'm not even going to bother derailing on the qualities Whooter would look for in a program... but I would like to get some clarification on this "research study" subject.
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion but generally, I believe it's common knowledge when a "study" is being conducted by a biased party result will surely vary in favor of the party who is paying to have the research done.
Isn't that just about the same as fixing an election? Obviously the school prescreens the participating "subjects" with their opinions already in mind and picked specifically for those reasons, and they also provide the criteria in which the researcher will report on... there is just so much room for tampering that there is no way I could really take any outcome as an absolute FACT.
However, first let's talk about a different kind of study, how about the clinical research that has been done on "behavior modification" and particularly Aversion Therapy. Such practices have been criticized for many years by licensed and knowledgeable professionals, some that have dedicated their careers to this topic. One that particularly comes to mind is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which is the ultimate cautionary tale for the kinds of methods that are readily practiced in MOST of the BM facilities. Considering that this study was created in a prison there are a few areas that may not correlate with conditions in a BM facility, and more importantly many other methods that are unique to this industry that have not been properly studied but I believe the outcome of facts stay constant... when you create this kind of an environment, things often become corrupt and abusive not because initial intentions aren't good but because cruelty is an unfortunate aspect of human nature.
The problem is that the system currently set in place, or more accurately a majority of the techniques employed by these places are antagonistic of this particular nature, in many ways bringing the abusiveness out in people even despite good intentions. Putting it simply, and maybe solely from my experience but these methods are actually teaching people that it is okay to hurt someone as long as you can justify it, and in the same way, accepting abuse because someone forces you to believe you deserve it. I just don't think that's a healthy way of thinking... and I find Ursus' quote to actually refer to this subject more so than to you personally, because in the grand scheme of things the whole doctrine of the BM industry is really just this big fat elaborate lie that everyone involved is just trained to adopt, leaving no breathing room for analytical thinking.
Lets also touch on another point you mentioned here, violence. I know that there are varying degrees of what is referred to as "restraint" in programs, even some that employ a strict hands off policy, but in my experience violence was something they used as part of their everyday behavior modification strategy. What it really boils down to is that programs employ a type of "negative enforcement" or punishment system which effectively keeps kids in line for fear of being physically, emotionally or even sometimes sexually assaulted. Notice I said the word "effectively", and I think this explains why a program and a handful of supporters may come to the conclusion that a program like this would technically "work" because it does produce a result... mind you a cruel and misguided result but a result none the less.
So herein lies that age old question, that in which both sides have been warring over for some time now... Do programs really work?
However one also needs to question what kind of long term effects such reprogramming can create... Can the fear of being punished by a program really carry on into adult decision making? To effectively warp the perception skills of the subject to the point where they will always do as they are told or does it actually create a lingering and global sense of fear of authority. However in my experience, I've only seen it push kids with already vulnerable psyche (as many troubled and or addicted teens are) into a complete adverse reaction. I think if a real study was done in this area the actual outcomes would be so varied that one would simply need to succumb to the conclusion that every child is different and will have different psychological reactions to the same treatment.
Common sense would lead most to realize that using the one-program-fits-all approach is typically not going to "work" for a minority of the subjects in placement, that would be expected in any similar setting but add to that the massive amount of mismanagement that tend to plague these places, and you're going to end up with a significant majority of the said public that are simply being imprisoned and not being rehabilitated. You may find a few here or there that can accredit their time in the program as the defining moment they stopped being a "bad kid" but can you really say that it was these draconian methods that created that change or might the same result occurred if the same child were sent on a "therapy cruise" for a similar span of time? Considering that the only option these kids had was to abstain from their previous troublesome behaviors, what knowledge would they really have about making responsible decisions when they got back into the real world?
None, absolutely no comprehensive skills are taught, (which in my opinion completely defeats the purpose of a program in the first place but thats neither here nor there) and that is why I am of the opinion that the program doesn't work because it does not teach. It does not instill healthy life skills and it does not give them any practice at making any choices on their own. Instead it just throws them out on the street and says... "not our problem" and this is the main reason so many survivors have quickly turned back to drugs and many other unhealthy behaviors after leaving and even graduating the program. Once the initial threat of being sent back to the program is at bay, and when there are no viable coping skills or will power techniques to fall back on its really only a matter of time before there is a relapse.
Another point I'd like to touch on before I will have to publish this novel is what exactly constitutes a success story? and how would you know the difference between a genuine program's influence and the general progression of maturity? In many instances staying "sober" is the only criteria that is considered, especially in home-made consumer reports like that of the aforementioned "research studies". Well how would you go about judging someone's personal life 1, 5 and 20 years after treatment? Do short periods of relapse count? Would the subject be assumed to have been a full blown addict at the time treatment was sought? Are any pre-existing mental disorders factored in? Can one become a moderate user of legal or even moderately illegal substances and still be considered a success? I don't think that any paid general researcher would have half the amount of insight into this particular category in order to factor in all the grey areas nor the resources to conduct such an elaborate study. No, the only outcome to such a report could only be based on whether the provided subjects are either back on the bottle or not and despite the obvious fact that the program would not be willing or able to provide a large enough populous in order to properly report an accurate statistic, the problem remains that most people who were hurt or simply NOT helped would not be asked to participate in such a study.
I'd LOVE to see a proper research study done, in fact I recently conducted a mini survey myself, centralized on Darrington Academy by simply reaching out to former students on MySpace and facebook and asking them a few basic questions. I did my best to make the initial group invites as un-biased as possible, citing that although the page is affiliated with an advocate group, all opinions and personal experiences would be respected and encouraged to be discussed. The outcome was an absolute landslide in unsatisfaction. Now does that small percentage I could reach and hear from speak for all of the people who have ever attended Darrington Academy? No, and although it's obvious that there were some problems, considering it was investigated and shut down and Rich Darrington himself has been charged with assault, a generalized study like this would simply not be able to provide an accurate statistic that would lead me to accept that outcome as absolute fact. Because even with insurmountable evidence that a program like this was poorly run and inadequately staffed, there are still those, and many I may add who believe that the program in one way or another helped them.
However I think this speaks of the problem we frequently run into... the subjects perception of their experience. Some can accurately identify that some if not most methods used in the program were un-ethical at best and downright torturous in some cases. However some maintain that the end justifies the means in that despite the backward sedu-psychological methods used against them, they were in some way able to get something good from it. Contrary to what you may believe I can applaud the optimism, but I have always maintained that despite these good people's capacity to forgive, (or in many cases just ignorance) there is no justification for continuing to administer a broken system and furthermore have the audacity to market it as some miracle cure. I honestly just want to shake these people and plead with them just to WAKE UP and face the reality of what has been going on here, it truly baffles me that some people can be so blind or too weak and stubborn to see the truth.
well I'll just conclude with this, unless there is a comprehensive study done, not only on the industry but the underlying psychological methods used in these programs I believe it would be foolish for any of us to take anything else seriously, and especially naive to assume that the kind of marketing scam they are referring to are actual "facts". Actually, thats pretty absurd. lol :beat:
-
Funny I did a little mini survey on Darrington,Hidden Lake and Straight here in Georgia with in state folks every testimony was negative so far, some worse then others. I am not done so I will refrain from saying anymore but I couldn't resist some comment.
My novice study will be with specifically Georgia residents that attended these treatment facilities. Like I said I am a novice at best and these folks will know who I am and what I am trying to accomplish. I have already shunned about 30% of the folks I've interviewed for various reasons most for inauthentic stories. Facts and emotions are hard to divide sometimes...Sometimes I don't think it matters.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Danny.....
-
Wow that is a novel, FemanonFatal. Thank you for responding to this subject. There are so many people out there who just reject these studies out of hand or out of sheer ignorance because they don’t like the outcome and make comments like the researchers were paid off etc., without providing evidence
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion but generally, I believe it's common knowledge when a "study" is being conducted by a biased party result will surely vary in favor of the party who is paying to have the research done. Isn't that just about the same as fixing an election?
There absolutely is a bias in everyone, I do agree with you. From the doctors who conducted the Framingham heart study to the person on fornits telling of their own experience inside a program. Each person will be biased by their personal experiences and ties to the subject at hand. According to many peoples logic, who have responded here on fornits regarding studies, heart studies should be conducted by people who are not connected to the medical field and have no medical experience at all. Maybe auto mechanics/engineers can conduct heart studies and the doctors can conduct crash tests on cars. That would certainly take out some of the bias.
Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? Many people here have a hard time with research being conducted by people who have past ties to the industry they are studying.
As to the election comment, I don’t think it is like fixing an election at all unless when a survivor, for example, is telling their story they are so pissed that they omit anything positive and embellish their story in an effort to make the program appear as bad as possible. Then maybe I could see your point. But how many people here do you think would be anti-program enough to spin a bias into their story? I don’t think it would be any more biased then a story from a kid who did well in a program.
As far as research facilities go, corporations pay these research firms to conduct research on the effectiveness of what they do. This is done everyday on thousands of corporations. Other than getting the government to pick up the tab I don’t know who else would work for free. You worked for free when you conducted your study on Facebook but like you said you yourself must be biased because you have connections to the industry so your results need to be tossed out also because the questions may have been biased and the population wasn’t random enough possibly?
Obviously the school prescreens the participating "subjects" with their opinions already in mind and picked specifically for those reasons, and they also provide the criteria in which the researcher will report on... there is just so much room for tampering that there is no way I could really take any outcome as an absolute FACT.
I have never seen where this has been documented or written about. Where did you get this info?
well I'll just conclude with this, unless there is a comprehensive study done, not only on the industry but the underlying psychological methods used in these programs I believe it would be foolish for any of us to take anything else seriously, and especially naive to assume that the kind of marketing scam they are referring to are actual "facts". Actually, thats pretty absurd. Lol
So based on your conclusion there isn’t anything we can believe because we are all biased and we shouldn’t take any of what we hear about programs seriously until a proper study is conducted, i.e. Everyone is pushing their own personal story.
So, in my opinion, until a proper study “is” agreed upon by people here and performed we need to rely on the studies that are made available, the kids accounts of their time spent inside a program and feedback from parents who had kids go through the process.
I think this is where we are at right now. We just all need to decide which venues are the most reliable and base our decisions on them. This is probably an area where we can most closely agree.
...
-
From the doctors who conducted the Framingham heart study to the person on fornits telling of their own experience inside a program. Each person will be biased by their personal experiences and ties to the subject at hand. According to many peoples logic, who have responded here on fornits regarding studies, heart studies should be conducted by people who are not connected to the medical field and have no medical experience at all.
Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do?
..
No that is your logic that you run to. The major difference that you seem to have a hard time keeping in context is that
people in heart studies study hearts. The therapists (or people simply acting like them) in programs proclaim to be experts in how to be 'you'. They think they know how to tell you correctly be yourself. You want to take the 'you' out of self evaluation. You blame personal bias for distorting a viewpoint on a proffession that is focused on the idea of 'individual' and 'self'.
Don't you see how your justifications are in error?
or in your own words, 'Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? '
-
No that is your logic that you run to. The major difference that you seem to have a hard time keeping in context is that
people in heart studies study hearts.
Agreed … “people in heart studies study hearts “ and people (in research firms) who conduct studies for programs study Programs. They don’t work for programs, they work for research firms. Some may have a background working in a program the same as the doctors that study hearts may have a background in the particular field of medicine.
The therapists (or people simply acting like them) in programs proclaim to be experts in how to be 'you'. They think they know how to tell you correctly be yourself. You want to take the 'you' out of self evaluation. You blame personal bias for distorting a viewpoint on a proffession that is focused on the idea of 'individual' and 'self'.
Don't you see how your justifications are in error?
No, Not sure how this ties in with “Study Results” or the research firms. The research firms look at the “results” of a business and measure their output. They don’t work with the children to try to help them or perform therapy on them. This would alter the study results. The same as the people studying hearts are not going to interfere with the doctor patient relationship and suggest a patient exercise more. They just focus on the study itself. I think you confused one of the concepts I laid out.
or in your own words, 'Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? '
Yes, I think we agree here, I don’t think you would want people with no background in the industry doing a study on it the same as you wouldn’t want a person without any medical background performing a heart study. It is helpful to have some knowledge of what the firm they are studying does.
...
-
I would like to get some clarification on this "research study" subject.
Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop here... I'm reminded of this topic but can't place the name of the school that did this study. Maybe you can fill in that blank and I'll go read into it before I give you my personal opinion
FemanonFatal, Here is one of the Studies that was being referred to in the earlier post:
Between August 2003 and January 2006, Aspen Education Group participated in the nation's first large-scale study of its kind, measuring the effectiveness of Aspen's private residential programs for teens and their families. The study collected survey responses, both at program admission and then again at discharge, from 993 young people ages 13-18, enrolled in Aspen's residential programs. The study also collected responses from their parents or guardians. The following are highlights that might prove valuable in evaluating your decision to enroll your child in a private residential program.
8 out of 10 teens who came to Aspen residential programs previously participated in individual and/or group therapy.
The majority of teens entering the program were experiencing emotional problems that minimized the individual’s own control of their feelings. Teens were often experiencing high levels of:
Anxiety
Depression
Attention Problems
One Year After Discharge
Teens and parents both reported that the emotional issues the teen experienced were normal. In other words, they were behaving just like any other typical teenager.
Link to Study (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/outcomes.html)
...
-
Link to Study (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/outcomes.html)
:roflmao: "Funding for this study was provided by Aspen Education Group"
The above link makes you wade through 'bout two pages of Aspen's summary of the "study" before you come to another link, promising you access to the actual study (download) ... but which merely yields yet another glossy Aspen brochure, essentially a repeat of the same material.
In fine print at the bottom of one of these pages of marketing hype, you are informed that you need to contact Aspen in order to get more information or details about the study.
At NO point was I able to ascertain the identity of the researchers, where the research was conducted, and in what eminent peer-reviewed scientific publication I would be able to find said material. This would have been standard protocol had these results been anywhere near up to snuff.
Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough. :D
I say, "Bogus schmogus, baby!"
-
Yeah looks like you missed it Ursus its at the bottom of page one... same size print as the rest of the page and they even highlighted it so it pops out of the page. Here take another look!
Link to Aspen study (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/outcomes.html)
To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
Funding for this study was provided by Aspen Education Group.
Who else would you expect to step in and pay for the study? You dont seem to be too familiar with independent research firms, Ursus.
Here, Take a look at what WIRB provided (I dont think they work for free either):
The study was subjected to oversight by the Western Institutional Review Board. This review board insures that the study was conducted in compliance with the Department of Health and Human Services and investigates and resolves such concerns as:
Financial conflict of interest.
The investigator or study staff will be considered to have a financial conflict of interest if the investigator, investigator’s immediate family, the study staff, or the study staff’s family
• Has a financial interest in the research with value that cannot be readily determined (for example, stock that is not publicly traded);
• Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds $10,000 other than payments for conducting the trial as outlined in the clinical trials agreement;
• Has a financial interest in the research with value that exceeds 5% ownership;
• Has received or will receive compensation with value that may be affected by the outcome of the study;
• Has a proprietary interest in the research, such as a patent, trademark, copyright, or licensing agreement;
• Has received or will receive payments other than payment for the conduct of clinical research from the sponsor that exceed $10,000 in the last 365 days;
• Is an employee of the agency or company sponsoring the research;
• Is on the board of directors of the sponsor;
• Has a financial interest that requires disclosure to the sponsor or funding source; or
• Has any other financial interest that the investigator believes may interfere with his or her ability to protect subjects.
http://www.wirb.com/ (http://www.wirb.com/)
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter,
You support Aspen from what I've read in your replies. Do you refer children to Aspen type programs and/or assist families who want to place their child in a therapeutic boarding school? I ask these questions in lieu of your support for Aspen.
No, Joel, I dont. If a family contacts me I tell them my experience (which is with Aspen programs) and would refer them to get in touch with Aspen because I know they were successful with my daughter the same as yourself or anyone else would if they had a good experience.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter,
You support Aspen from what I've read in your replies. Do you refer children to Aspen type programs and/or assist families who want to place their child in a therapeutic boarding school? I ask these questions in lieu of your support for Aspen.
No, Joel, I dont. If a family contacts me I tell them my experience (which is with Aspen programs) and would refer them to get in touch with Aspen because I know they were successful with my daughter the same as yourself or anyone else would if they had a good experience.
...
Does Aspen give your contact information to families who will place their child in an Aspen program? There are other ways they could obtain your contact information. The reasons I could think of would be work as an educational consultant, affiliation with non profit organization(s) and/or employment within program(s).
No, I dont have any contact with Aspen and they dont have any with me. I was a brief customer to them years ago.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
How do families obtain your contact information prior to placing a child in Aspen?
Families use to contact me thru fornits. Parents would read here and contact me for advice. I use to have my email public but I dont think it is anymore.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
What advice would you give them? How many parents did you speak with about your son's experience at Aspen?
PM me, we can talk off line.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Wow that is a novel, FemanonFatal.
Yes, and sometimes I wonder why I bother.
Do you think studies of the teen help industry should be conducted by people who don’t have any knowledge of what they do? Many people here have a hard time with research being conducted by people who have past ties to the industry they are studying.
Case and point. No, on the contrary I believe that the only people who would be qualified to conduct such a study, and have the ability and experience to do so in a legitimate manner are licensed psychological research professionals. I would also be interested to see a non-biased team of graduate researchers possibly at a university conduct one as well. I would surely give credit where credit is due if those who were conducting these studies did not have a financial interest that depended on the outcome of the study.
As far as research facilities go, corporations pay these research firms to conduct research on the effectiveness of what they do. This is done every day on thousands of corporations. Other than getting the government to pick up the tab I don’t know who else would work for free. You worked for free when you conducted your study on Facebook but like you said you yourself must be biased because you have connections to the industry so your results need to be tossed out also because the questions may have been biased and the population wasn’t random enough possibly?
lol, yea of course companies do this all the time, but that is usually to test the quality of their cheese wiz, not to answer such an enigmatic question as "does "Tough Love" work?" I think you prove my point exactly by the mention of this, this is not a serious study, this is simply a company funded consumer report. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind of unbiased control set up to ensure that an appropriate statistic is even reachable within the means of such a generalized study. Not to mention that the populous provided for this endeavor was provided by the company who is funding the project. I'm a little worried that someone who has to be at least half way intelligent wouldn't be able to spot a bought and sold marketing scheme when they see one. Denying the existence of tampering in such a case would be quite naive considering that the amount of effort that would be needed to conduct a proper report in this case is simply outside of the capacity of such a research company. The school provided every bit of information that they wanted the company to consider, and in that regard it is MUCH like fixing an election because it is simply showing the public what they need to hear and omitting those past and present critical issues. In many ways they denied the right of those who may have been hurt or just scammed by this company to provide their side of the story because not one of the participants held a significantly negative opinion of the program. The reporting populous of this study would lead you to believe they don't exist, but we all know that they do, and there are many of them, but were any of them contacted to participate in aspens "research study"? You can ask but I highly doubt it.
So based on your conclusion there isn’t anything we can believe because we are all biased and we shouldn’t take any of what we hear about programs seriously until a proper study is conducted, i.e. Everyone is pushing their own personal story.
Sure, if you would like to go that far I would support that notion. From the outside looking in its hard to decide who to believe... generally the kids say one thing and the parents say another. But what I have a hard time understanding is why when I tell my personal story people tend to realize that I have genuine reason to feel the way I do about my experience, but many of those who support the programs tend to push my experience aside as an isolated event while claiming that because they know so many people who had good experiences at their schools so it MUST be completely different. Well what about those people who have said they had a good experience in the same school I had a bad experience in? Does that somehow nullify the abuse I suffered? So what if a few kids say they were helped by the program, does that justify sweeping another few hundred or so under the rug? I can tell you from experience regardless of everyone's level of positivity everyone hated the program when they were in it... now many people have moved on and can attribute that experience to a turning point in their lives but that is surely to be expected anytime a person is isolated from their daily lives and dragged through a traumatic experience.
I'm not going to write another novel, I'll just say this... let's all try to use a bit more common sense and god forbid a little empathy, if we could all just grasp that one little concept this world would be a much better place.
-
There are a lot of details about the study that we don’t know. Like any study that is done, the raw data is held by the research firm.
There was an independent agency involved to insure there was no financial conflict of interest and to oversee the study (Western Institutional Review Board).
We know that there were about 1,000 families that were surveyed (the kids as well as the parents). Were they a representative cross section? We don’t know. I think everyone assumes it was but we would need to ask the research team how the population was pulled. Maybe they were 1,000 consecutive enrollees. But in any event even if the sample was biased (worse case) they were still able to present 1,000 kids and their families during that time frame to respond and they presented the results.
So what we do know is that the programs are at least effective for some kids and their families. So we are starting to see programs hiring independent firms to study their programs along with oversight from independent agencies to insure the studies are done in conformance to the Department of Health and Human services.
I would like to see some of these Universities come in also, like you said, Femanonfatal, to help confirm some of these numbers we are seeing. But overall the numbers look encouraging and as more and more of these studies are completed we should be able to get a better picture of the program models which are the most effective.
On your other note. I don’t think that the kids who do well outweigh or nullify the ones who claim they were abused. Quite the opposite I think people are well aware that abuse can occur anywhere and typically does. The programs need to just keep working to make the places as safe as possible the same as the public school sector and private school sectors do with a goal of eliminating all abuse.
...
-
I would like to see some of these Universities come in also, like you said, Femanonfatal, to help confirm some of these numbers we are seeing. But overall the numbers look encouraging and as more and more of these studies are completed we should be able to get a better picture of the program models which are the most effective.
On your other note. I don’t think that the kids who do well outweigh or nullify the ones who claim they were abused. Quite the opposite I think people are well aware that abuse can occur anywhere and typically does. The programs need to just keep working to make the places as safe as possible the same as the public school sector and private school sectors do with a goal of eliminating all abuse.
...
See herein lies my point, it may seem that the "numbers look encouraging" because those are the "numbers" Aspen paid for... I don't have any problem with a program conducting an in-house customer satisfaction survey, in fact I'm in full support of such efforts but the only problem is that people like you go on public record referring to these numbers as "facts".
If we paid the same research company to take a poll here at fornits about the TTI I'm pretty sure our numbers would be discouraging, because that is the pool we are fishing those numbers from, and although I side with most of the opinions of my fellow fornitcators I would in no way use this outcome to refer to fact. I would need to have experienced something myself to refer to anything as fact, and that is exactly what I am doing. I don't have any experience with Aspen so you won't see me bashing them, but I do have experience with other programs that operate a very similar program structure and I believe it is a FACT that many of the methods used by these programs are unethical and DO NOT WORK.
I really feel that many people who are claiming the program worked for them are not willing or able to properly identify what techniques can be harmful, and especially those that violate the human rights of the patients. Most of them, parents and kids included blindly trust these programs without having any knowledge of what practices are appropriate for these types of environments. It honestly bothers me that anyone with a degree in psychology could choose to work at one of these places because many of the basic principles of the program go directly against what they should have been taught in college. This is the main problem I have with these places... the system is not based upon the healing type structure of what you would expect a "therapeutic boarding school" to be, instead it focuses on re-enforcing negative energy and controlling people with fear and judgment. You may think that I am biased because I believe all programs are bad, but I don't think that's all true. Actually, If there were a program that ran a completely different kind of "program" than the whole "tough love" model I could actually be in support of families seeking these services, but as it is, I truly believe they have the whole concept backwards. No amount of changes in their "safety policy" would fix the problems the TTI has had since its conception, what they need is to completely abandon their current strategy and be open to creating a whole new one... only thing is, most of these people are in such denial that their particular program is so different or better than the rest they haven't been open to ANY of our feedback. Instead they hate, blame, insult and even come after us legally even though we are simply making our experience with their company available to the public... in that way, Fornits is like the ultimate consumer report.
To be honest, most of us would be in support of complete irradiation of the Troubled Teen Industry because what's even scarier than the program staying the same ol duck factory we know and love, is the thought that these places through their self-moderation are mutating into what's being marketed as a "better program" all the while continuing to turn a blind eye to the fact that their core methodology is terminally flawed. So these places clean up on the surface, enough to convince the mildly suspicious critic and then they are really given free rein to fuck these kids up in ways you can't even imagine. They may instill a hands off policy, but when one form of control is removed from the tough love system they have to up the ante on the emotional and mental control... these are the kinds of things I can really see getting out of hand, as I'm sure they already are.
I can't tell you I have personal experience with every program, in fact it has been 8 years since I was in one, but I can tell you that too often does the evidence of the same program structure reveal itself in even some of the highest rated programs today. That's what we have got to see changing, we can't nitpick and tell them to change this little thing or that, somehow we have to prove that the fundamental principals of the tough love industry need to be changed or there is absolutely NO program that you could trust to treat these children appropriately. Forgive my lack of optimism for the ability of a program to shape up their act, but considering the people I dealt with, abuse and mind control are things so deeply ingrained into their lives that I don't believe they are even capable of coming to the realization of it all let alone be willing to make the appropriate changes.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
why can't I delete my own posts?
-
One more thing, and maybe this is just a personal question to you Whooter... You say your daughter went to an Aspen program. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm generalizing here, but you credit this particular program for your daughter's personal success in life. What really blows my mind is how a belief like this really takes credit away from the level of hard work, maturity and growth that your daughter was intelligent enough to achieve. When had it been a different outcome, you would not blame the program for her failures.
What I find funny about this whole "program saved my life" thing is that how can you really tell that if she weren't to have gone to that particular program that her life would really be over. I just find it hard to believe even a handful of the thousands of kids run through these programs would really be dead, insane or in jail had it not been for the god sent program... lol I mean, seriously how many teens can REALLY be on such an intense path of destruction by the tender age of 15?... that's really quite a tall order to fill.
Yet SOOOO many people resite this mantra like its some kind of biblical truth... and WERE the crazy ones? hahaha oh wow.
the sad part is, there are many kids after having completed or at least spending a considerable amount of time in a program that ARE dead, insane or in jail or in some cases, all three. Now let me ask you who is responsible for them? did the program save their lives or were they responsible for their own choices? You can't have it both ways, either the program made us who we are success or failure aside or we are still in control of our destiny and regardless of if the program "worked" or not, its not responsible for the choices we make from the day we left that place.
I hate when people say AA keeps them sober, No you idiot YOU keep YOU sober and the same goes for the program. The program doesn't save lives, it simply provides an opportunity to put things into perspective. That being said, I dont think being a privately funded prison gives these places the right to mistreat kids for what they have mistaken to be their own good. Somehow these people need to come to this realization, and hopefully so before they ruin anymore lives.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If we paid the same research company to take a poll here at fornits about the TTI I'm pretty sure our numbers would be discouraging, because that is the pool we are fishing those numbers from, and although I side with most of the opinions of my fellow fornitcators I would in no way use this outcome to refer to fact. I would need to have experienced something myself to refer to anything as fact, and that is exactly what I am doing. I don't have any experience with Aspen so you won't see me bashing them, but I do have experience with other programs that operate a very similar program structure and I believe it is a FACT that many of the methods used by these programs are unethical and DO NOT WORK.
Oh, now I understand your point of view. A friend of my sister was the same way and wouldn’t believe anything unless she experienced it herself. It use to frustrate the crap out of my sister but everyone is different and entitled to their own opinion and they are still good friends today.
One more thing, and maybe this is just a personal question to you Whooter... You say your daughter went to an Aspen program. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm generalizing here, but you credit this particular program for your daughter's personal success in life. What really blows my mind is how a belief like this really takes credit away from the level of hard work, maturity and growth that your daughter was intelligent enough to achieve. When had it been a different outcome, you would not blame the program for her failures.
What I find funny about this whole "program saved my life" thing is that how can you really tell that if she weren't to have gone to that particular program that her life would really be over. I just find it hard to believe even a handful of the thousands of kids run through these programs would really be dead, insane or in jail had it not been for the god sent program... lol I mean, seriously how many teens can REALLY be on such an intense path of destruction by the tender age of 15?... that's really quite a tall order to fill.
Yet SOOOO many people resite this mantra like its some kind of biblical truth... and WERE the crazy ones? hahaha oh wow.
the sad part is, there are many kids after having completed or at least spending a considerable amount of time in a program that ARE dead, insane or in jail or in some cases, all three. Now let me ask you who is responsible for them? did the program save their lives or were they responsible for their own choices? You can't have it both ways, either the program made us who we are success or failure aside or we are still in control of our destiny and regardless of if the program "worked" or not, its not responsible for the choices we make from the day we left that place.
I hate when people say AA keeps them sober, No you idiot YOU keep YOU sober and the same goes for the program. The program doesn't save lives, it simply provides an opportunity to put things into perspective. That being said, I dont think being a privately funded prison gives these places the right to mistreat kids for what they have mistaken to be their own good. Somehow these people need to come to this realization, and hopefully so before they ruin anymore lives.
My daughter did all the hard work, not the program. If my daughter had not done as well it would not be the fault of the people running the program. It may have been because she didn’t apply herself or maybe the particular program structure wasn’t a good match for her. There are people who attend great Universities and they go off and get menial entry level positions. Should this diminish the University at all? Should the university take credit for the successful students? In my opinion it is the student who does the work and makes him or herself successful. The schools provide the tools and knowledge for the kids to be successful. Whether the kids utilize the information is up to them.
So I think we agree 100% here,femaononfatal.
But to expand a little here, children do need help. There are 1,500 to 2,000 kids who commit suicide each year and many more end up arrested for illegal activity. Not sure how many go insane (LOL). But parents would be crazy not to try to help them. Very few of these parents have experienced a program personally so they need to rely on studies and word of mouth to decide if a program is right for their family. 80% of the kids in programs have received local services and found them to be ineffective for them. Like we mentioned earlier some kids are not helped by these programs and continue down a dark path or are helped and then decide to go back to their past behaviors.
So I think we agree here that if a child leaves a program and does poorly we cannot blame the program for their failure the same as we do not credit the program for their successes. The same with AA, the individuals need to do the work they cant just rely on the meetings. If they start drinking again or commit suicide no one is going to blame AA for their choices.
Good discussion, Femanonfatal.
...
-
Whooter's holding out on you people here.
He is still claiming not to have any ties to the TTI, but you can see right here where he admits he is indeed deeply involved in the TTI. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=245433#p245433)
Ask him why, if he's just a "regular parent" he would be advising TTI players "where the real money is - the TBS industry." (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16007&hilit=chicago&start=1470#p245461)
He's just jerking your chains, Joel and Fem.
-
I hate when people say AA keeps them sober, No you idiot YOU keep YOU sober and the same goes for the program. The program doesn't save lives, it simply provides an opportunity to put things into perspective
I think your are right on the money. You could not have said it any better.
Joel, This is an area which we all agree. We cant give the programs full credit for how well the kids do after they leave the program. They (the kids) do a tremendous amount of work and it is up to them to continue on a healthy path once they leave. The programs just provide the tools which make the children successful.
If a child moves on to a happy and productive life or returns to a destructive life we cant blame or credit the program for the child’s decision. I think there are excepts, though, one being where the program isn’t a good fit for the child and the time there isn’t beneficial. If a program knowingly accepts a child who doesn’t fit their acceptance profile than they should be held accountable for the child not progressing or getting better.
...
-
" WAY OFF TOPIC BUT YOU STARTED IT........ :shamrock:
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&start=4 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&start=4)
"I hate when people say AA keeps them sober, No you idiot YOU keep YOU sober and the same goes for the program. The program doesn't save lives, it simply provides an opportunity to put things into perspective. That being said, I dont think being a privately funded prison gives these places the right to mistreat kids for what they have mistaken to be their own good. Somehow these people need to come to this realization, and hopefully so before they ruin anymore lives."
:shamrock:
Well,"I am sorry you "HATE" that people say AA keeps them sober". That you think we are "IDIOTS", (no offense taken).
Obviously you have never been in the throws of alcoholism or drug addiction, I don't mean smoking a joint and drinking a beer one to many times you pissed your pants and were embarrassed. I mean no other choice, knocking heads with curbs and I can go on.......
So your doing everything in your life eh.....all by yourself, "how's that working for ya". I'm sure your real happy you would say.
AA was based a upon Judea Christian Philosophies, God is mentioned in the book hundreds of times. When folks say," AA saved their lives", they are basing it upon spiritual principles that AA wrote about. Which you could also get from the Bible or your good ole gramma.
This my dear Fatel, is based upon 22 yrs. of sobriety and being clean. Ex-Junkie/Alcoholic 11/2/88 DOS
proud member. Read the book and then read it again....separate personalities from principles. ( AA is the literature not the people (per say) ) AA is and always will be a "Design for Living".
I am so happy you found your way to live, can't you be happy for folks that found a way to live practicing the principles that AA wrote about. Which really are basic life principles.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Danny......
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
:shamrock:
-
Whooter,
The average cost for a child to go to a therapeutic boarding school or wilderness program, including assistance from an education consultant, is $115,000 - $125,000. What are your thoughts on this figure?
Joel, it is a tremendous amount of money. Either the demand is extremely high or there is a shortage of beds but it seems to have leveled off because the price has been fairly steady at $6,000 a month over the past several years. Ten years ago it was $4,000 - $5,000 a month so we have only seen about a 30% increase over the past decade. After the economy improves a little more I expect we will be seeing another increase.
This is very difficult for the average person to afford. ( Presently the lion’s share of the industry is controlled by only a few players.) If the programs become regulated by the government then the average family will be able to attain low interest federally insured loans to cover these costs and will also become tax deductible which would ease the burden on the family. As more families become eligible for loans (or covered by insurance) then the industry would expand, more programs would open and the cost would eventually come down creating an environment for a more competitive industry thereby lowering the cost.
But for now only a small portion of the population are able to seek this level of help for their children the rest are falling through the cracks and we are all paying for it through existing federal assistance programs and rehabs.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter,
I understand you, as a parent of two troubled teens, sent your children to programs. One had a very serious substance abuse issue. Your youngest son had emotional issues. Which caused them to acquire more strenuous intervention then most kids would require and as a result you were introduced to the world of intervention programs like wilderness programs and also therapeutic schools. And fortunately, they were a great help to your kids.
I had a daughter who went to SUWS of the Carolinas and then on to Academy at Swift River. You must be confusing me with another parent.
...
-
Whooter,
I understand you, as a parent of two troubled teens, sent your children to programs. One had a very serious substance abuse issue. Your youngest son had emotional issues. Which caused them to acquire more strenuous intervention then most kids would require and as a result you were introduced to the world of intervention programs like wilderness programs and also therapeutic schools. And fortunately, they were a great help to your kids.
I had a daughter who went to SUWS of the Carolinas and then on to Academy at Swift River. You must be confusing me with another parent.
...
No, he knows exactly who you are. You must be confused by all your lies.
-
Look, Dysfunction Junction, Now that we have forced you out into the sun light, by requiring you to log in with your user name, you have been struggling with how to redefine yourself, i.e. should you troll me with your user name or create some aliases…lol. We all understand that your trolling came abruptly to a halt after the new rules set in. How about if you try communicating naturally by participating in the discussion. You may find you have something to offer. The rest of us have a lot of patience so don’t worry, step out of the shadows and give it a go.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter,
Do you have a son named Justin?
Which education consultant did you go through?
No ed consultant. I learned of the place through friends. I dont have a son named Justin. Whats up with the 20 questions? You should take this to another thread.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter
I was listening Dore Frances radio show aired July 6, 2009 with John Reuben who seemed fond of Aspen, like yourself on Fornits. In addition, you are quick to defend STICC. The only owner/founder I have seen defend his program was Ken Huey of CALO.
Joel I moved your discussion over here:
Joel's Questions (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=357596#p357596)
...
-
Whooter's holding out on you people here.
He is still claiming not to have any ties to the TTI, but you can see right here where he admits he is indeed deeply involved in the TTI. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=245433#p245433)
Ask him why, if he's just a "regular parent" he would be advising TTI players "where the real money is - the TBS industry." (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16007&hilit=chicago&start=1470#p245461)
He's just jerking your chains, Joel and Fem.
This is the only post I made in this thread (before this one). And, IMHO, it's the only one relevent to Whooter, who is, let's say, far less than honest about who he is and what he does. He just hates being called out and hates it more that he actually wrote those posts then gave away his username and now can't "disappear" the evidence that nullifies everything he has claimed since (e.g. "I'm just a regular parent with no ties to the industry."). You should continue to point out his past comments and how they simply don't jive with what he tries to present now. "Was he lying then?" or "Is he lying now?" are the only two relevent questions to pose about Whooter. He just can't have it both ways. Ask him about those comments above until he answers. Don't entertain anything he has to say until he explains himself about his own previous comments admitting to his criminal record and his involvement in the TTI. He admitted it before, so have him explain why he lies about it now. See how out of whack he gets when I point it out? That tells you something right there ; )
And, Whooter, you must have some serious delusions of grandiosity if you believe you've "forced" me to do anything, ever. You're just some impotent, dishonest shill on an internet message board. Don't fancy yourself any more, son. :roflmao:
-
Prior to the conversion to the new forum rules we were asked to ignore the trolling, but I thought I should respond since this thread seems to be already side tracked.
This is the only post I made in this thread (before this one).
This is great DJ. I know it must be tough (different) for you to have to log in each time, your frustration comes out in your posting. Your posts still have a trolling style to them, though, and you seem very confrontational with your first couple. I think once you have logged in a few times you will put down the sharp stick and begin to participate in the conversation a little more. One of the reasons it was decided to require people to log in was to facilitate the conversations, help to keep them from getting side tracked and reduce the attacks on people who want to debate the issues. Hope you understand, there were more people posting anon and causing trouble besides yourself so dont take the new forum rules personally.
And, IMHO, it's the only one relevent to Whooter
Yes I agree, your posts do seem to be directed at me personally, whereas the rest of us were discussing programs and a specific study that was released recently.
Posting your questions and personal attacks in “Joel’s Questions” thread may help to keep them all in one place and keep the other threads (like this one) from getting sidetracked until such time as you feel comfortable jumping in with the conversation.
Welcome back DJ, I hope that you continue to log in and contribute.
...
-
All I'm saying is that readers should consider the source when dealing with Whooter. Whooter is involved in the business end of the TTI. If he says otherwise, he's lying. Again, read his previous posts and you will see his assertions today are conraindicative of his assertions prior. That is, he is a liar. If Whooter wants to call the comparison of his current and previous statements "trolling" then that's on him. If Whooter wants to call the pointing out of his obvious fallacies "trolling" then that's on him, too. I don't care either way what he thinks or says about it.
Now, if Whooter would simply be honest and explain why he chairs TTI meetings in Chicago or why he educates TTI players where "the real money is - the TBS industry" then I would quit asking. So far all he has done is skirt the questions and attack me with ad hominems unrelated to objective reality.
Keep asking him, kids. Maybe you'll get him to explain his position in the TTI and why he made those comments he now denies. Maybe if you respond to his every post with the links to his previous posts he wants so desperately to avoid you'll either educate the reader or get an answer. Either way, it's worthwhile to let everyone know they're being duped by a phony whenever they engage Whooter.
-
DJ, we are all sorry that you are forced into the sunlight like this. It must be difficult for you and I think that most of us understand your predicament. Having all your posts linked to your user name isn’t something you are use to. But dont take it personally, the rule changes were not made just because of your trolling alone. There were other people who were constantly attacking posters and derailing threads besides yourself. But it was getting out of hand. If you want to stay focused on me and attack my previous posts until you get yourself acclimated then I can take it. I would just try to be little cognizant of others who post here and if you have disagreements try not to attack them personally, try to address the issues.
I don’t find this productive or fair to others to continue responding to you. So I will give you a little space to act out until you settle in to the new rules a little better.
...
-
Are you guys still giving this pompous ass, greedy fuck your time and energy??????
Stop.
He gets paid to send kids off. His income depends on convincing people that programs are good and necessary.
That said, hope everyone else is well.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
All I'm saying is that readers should consider the source when dealing with Whooter. Whooter is involved in the business end of the TTI. If he says otherwise, he's lying. Again, read his previous posts and you will see his assertions today are conraindicative of his assertions prior. That is, he is a liar. If Whooter wants to call the comparison of his current and previous statements "trolling" then that's on him. If Whooter wants to call the pointing out of his obvious fallacies "trolling" then that's on him, too. I don't care either way what he thinks or says about it.
Now, if Whooter would simply be honest and explain why he chairs TTI meetings in Chicago or why he educates TTI players where "the real money is - the TBS industry" then I would quit asking. So far all he has done is skirt the questions and attack me with ad hominems unrelated to objective reality.
Keep asking him, kids. Maybe you'll get him to explain his position in the TTI and why he made those comments he now denies. Maybe if you respond to his every post with the links to his previous posts he wants so desperately to avoid you'll either educate the reader or get an answer. Either way, it's worthwhile to let everyone know they're being duped by a phony whenever they engage Whooter.
Point of order: Whooter has again strictly avoided accounting for his statements that he is financially involved in the TTI and made again the same factually bereft ad hominems. He admitted it before, but denies it now. Typical, predictable behavior for Whooter.
So, I'll just ask again, is Whooter lying now or was he lying then? Either way, he's a liar and that's what's important for people to understand when they read his drivel which is completely, 100% unsupported by any documented facts.
And you hit it right on the head, Anne Bonney. "He gets paid to send kids off." Simple, succinct, and true. I like your style, lady ; )
@Joel - I'm not sure how Whooter's fallacy salads with fact-free dressing rise to the level of "good points." You'd have to explain that one to me.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
@Joel - I'm not sure how Whooter's fallacy salads with fact-free dressing rise to the level of "good points." You'd have to explain that one to me.
I am not defending Whooter in the debate between you two. Would you accept his points of view if he was not connected with the troubled teen industry? I worked at programs and I don't see you giving me grief, yes?
He created a business after his son died after being in a program, from what I understand. There's a big difference in being duped into going on staff and actually creating an entire business on the back of your dead kid.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
You would not happen to be Amanda H would you?
Nope
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I don't have irrefutable proof that Whooter is John Reuben, although I believe he is and I believe there's enough circumstantial evidence here alone that proves it, this is what comes up when I google STICC
http://www.savingteens.org/ (http://www.savingteens.org/)
(http://http://www.savingteens.org/sites/default/files/auth_user/MikeandJohn1.JPG)
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I don't have irrefutable proof that Whooter is John Reuben, although I believe he is and I believe there's enough circumstantial evidence here alone that proves it, this is what comes up when I google STICC
What circumstantial evidence, other than views and/or opinions on fornits, can you provide us with? That would be helpful for future references.
His own postings on Fornits which can be found in his very own thread, if I'm not mistaken.
Start here... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29342 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29342)
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
What circumstantial evidence, other than views links and/or opinions on fornits, can you provide us with? That would be helpful for future references.
I thought you meant opinions of Fornits POSTERS. I don't base it on that, but Whooter's own postings ON FORNITS. So, none. I've had no interaction with him other than here. As I said, it's simply my belief and a belief on circumstantial evidence at that. Nothing more.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
People, for example Ursus, provide online articles to substantiate his statements. So far, you have not done that.
I made no "statements". I stated an opinion.
Look, it's what I believe. Me. Myself. I'm not saying it's absolutely true. I'm saying that *I* believe it to be absolutely true, based on past discussions here between Whooter, myself and many others. That's all.
-
People, for example Ursus, provide online articles to substantiate his statements. So far, you have not done that.
What happened to the snotty, "When you post verifiable *something*, I'm all ears"? Edit it out before I grabbed the quote??
Believe me darlin'. I'm not sitting around fretting about whether or not you believe me or even have a desire to read or listen to anything I say or write.
-
People, for example Ursus, provide online articles to substantiate his statements. So far, you have not done that.
Last edited by Joel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:32 pm, edited 5 times in total.
You had to edit those two sentences 5 times??
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Do you agree confronting a parent over his son's death due to negligence/program placement, without verifiable proof, is messed up? Nevertheless, I don't think confronting a father, in the manner people do on this website, is not cool. It is mean and cruel.
Whooter? No, I don't. After all the shit he's said here, to survivors, I have absolutely zero qualms about confronting him. At all. :waaaa:
He can take a giant fucking leap of a tall fucking building for all I care.
:twofinger: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
People, for example Ursus, provide online articles to substantiate his statements. So far, you have not done that.
Sorry you got caught up in all of this, Joel. Periodically we go thru this. They will never be able to provide any evidence because it is all in their minds. Over the past years I have been Peter Dunbar (Ed Con), Woodbury from woodbury reports. Then they thought I was an owner of a program, then another EdCon. There have been so many I cant remember. This year they think I am John Reuben. Since I don’t go along with the group think here and I often play devil’s advocate on many of the issues, that we debate, they perceive me as a backer of the TTI industry and therefore must be an enemy of survivors.
There is really no harm and it’s a healthy way for Ann Boleyn, Dysfunction Junction etal to dump their self hatred or unhappiness with their current lives or whatever it is that drives their purge. We are all anonymous here so I don’t take it personally. Its not directed towards me personally because they don’t know who I am. They eventually go back to their lives and we get back to healthy discussions here on fornits until the cycle begins again.
...
-
Whooter
you brought up a point a while back that made the hair stand up .
something along the lines that why do people blame the programs when people fail, afterall AA isn't blamed when people fail.
you are comparing kumquats with sardines with regard to AA and the programs.
AA is a compassionate program if you will where the programs (mine being elan) was a sick brutal place. I am one of the fortunate ones that survivied that place. Many are dead just from having come in contact with that program.
elan did not give the residents the proper tools to deal with the real world. elans world is not how the *real world* goes round.
AA is the real world and deals with their people in a compassionate way. Unlike how the programs deal with their people.
It would behoove you to know that " it is better to understand than be understood" in my mind for you when you espose your rhetoric, from behind your mask.
It would more than likely to kill you to know that I consider myself to be a happy productive member of society, who doesn't need a sadist to tell me yeah these programs are sick. (In reference to Bob Dylan you don't need a weatherman to ...)
Matt Hoffman
-
Whooter
you brought up a point a while back that made the hair stand up .
something along the lines that why do people blame the programs when people fail, afterall AA isn't blamed when people fail.
you are comparing kumquats with sardines with regard to AA and the programs.
AA is a compassionate program if you will where the programs (mine being elan) was a sick brutal place. I am one of the fortunate ones that survivied that place. Many are dead just from having come in contact with that program.
elan did not give the residents the proper tools to deal with the real world. elans world is not how the *real world* goes round.
AA is the real world and deals with their people in a compassionate way. Unlike how the programs deal with their people.
It would behoove you to know that " it is better to understand than be understood" in my mind for you when you espose your rhetoric, from behind your mask.
It would more than likely to kill you to know that I consider myself to be a happy productive member of society, who doesn't need a sadist to tell me yeah these programs are sick. (In reference to Bob Dylan you don't need a weatherman to ...)
Matt Hoffman
Here is my referenced quote on AA:
…..with AA, the individuals need to do the work they cant just rely on the meetings. If they start drinking again or commit suicide no one is going to blame AA for their choices.
[/i]
I think the point I was trying to make is it is up to the individual to do the work. Just the sheer mechanics of going to meetings isn’t going to keep you sober or move you forward with your sobriety. A person needs to listen, participate and embrace a lifestyle which will lead them to the life that they choose. Its hard work either way… its hard to juggle the lies and keep all those pins in the air and at the same time to continue drinking and convince yourself and others that you are okay and maintain a job and create the impression of a normal home life………it is also equally hard to not drink at all and at the same time try to not think about the prospect of never taking another drink your entire life. But where ever you end up it was "you" who did the choosing and did the work, not AA.
Matt, Sorry you were in a shitty program.
...
-
People, for example Ursus, provide online articles to substantiate his statements. So far, you have not done that.
I've actually done much better than that, Joel. Maybe you missed it, but you can click on the links I provided. They point directly to Whooter's own posts where he claims to be part of the TTI. Just ask him if he was lying then or if he is lying now to figure out what the truth is.
In Whooter's own words, he attended TTI meetings in Chicago in 2007 to "assess the safety of TBS's" via a "statistical group" and he also bragged about how he told the other TTI players "where the real money is - the TBS industry." He's no regular parent and has proven what I say is true by his own postings. So, obviously, I'm not lying or making anything up, but Whooter sure has told two very, very different, mutually exclusive stories. You should press him to clarify, not me. I just pointed out his lies.
And he gets very angry when we do that. His over-the-top reaction to being confronted (e.g. concocting a "fornits conspiracy theory" that everyone is just "out to get" him because of his views) is telling about the accuracy of my statements. It hits him between the eyes, he can't avoid or deny it because he himself wrote it, and it gets him squealing, deflecting, and dissembling. Too bad the proof is incontravertible because the proof is his own words.
So, Joel, if you choose to overlook the facts, that's fine with me, but you ought not to be pointing fingers and asking for "evidence" if you're too lazy to click the links. Go back and read for comprehension before you comment next time and maybe you'll have a different view.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
All I'm saying, Joel, is if you're going to be interacting with Whooter, you should demand that he offer scientific evidence of what he posits. He never does. So, with a lack of actual evidence to support his view, the only measure of his assertions is his credibility, which is zero. Therefore, in the absence of scientific proof of what he says, all he says can be dismissed out of hand unless he specifically states it his only his opinion and he has no evidence to support it, which he never does. He prattles on as if what he says has weight to it, but it doesn't.
Also remember that he is here to do damage control for the TTI and to rope in unsuspecting parents as referrals for cash, so NOT challenging the nonsense he posts could lead DIRECTLY TO a child being abused by the programs he supports, several of which were closed last year alone for systematically abusing children and for practicing therapy without licenses or degrees. Keep that in mind while you're going easy on that lying weasel. You do so at the potential peril of someone's children.
-
I am challenging you to do so.
I really hate loaded language.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If I'm not mistaken, DJ worked in the TTI. I could be confusing him with another though.
-
Dysfunction Junction,
Do you have a beef with anyone who worked in the TTI?
Nope. I think anyone who worked for the TTI should have recognized quite quickly however that it is a sham/scam. Accordingly, they should have resigned and reported their former bosses to the proper authorities. If they weren't bright or educated enough to recognize this, they shouldn't be "therapizing" any kids in the first place.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If I'm not mistaken, DJ worked in the TTI. I could be confusing him with another though.
No, you're correct, Anne. And I reported the facility and its employees to the proper authorities and resigned for cause.
Ever since I have been advocating for the kids unfortunate enough to be warehoused in abusive shit-pits like Aspen facilities. One of the abusive animals I worked with was Rudy Bentz who has been fired or forced to resign from a half dozen facilities for abusing kids, including the one where I worked. Incedentally, he was running ASR when Whooter's kid was there, so I can say with assurance Whooter's kid received quackery instead of therapy. Rudy was an uneducated, drunken hack who manslaughtered a man vehicularly whilst driving bombed. Just the kind of upstanding character you'd want screaming "YOU'RE A FUCKING WHORE!" at your daughter in group "therapy" sessions. Or advising your son how to make a "fake pussy" out of a milk carton and a piece of liver to facilitate masturbation. This is the type of criminally abusive scumbags running many of the TTI facilities out there today.
-
Are there personal experiences you can attribute towards your last statement? I am interested in hearing about them.
Sure. You can read my personal experiences in this forum. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=41)
-
I think one of the problems you are having is that you have been trolling and spewing anger from the shadows for so long that you have forgotten how to communicate or discuss a topic without attacking someone. There is no getting around logging in here anymore, Dysfunction Junction. It is something you are going to have to live with going forward.
Once you get past this whole John Reuben fiasco maybe you can take Joel’s advice and take on one of the forums as a moderator. I am sure Fornits can use people with experience in the industry and working with other posters may help you get back into the groove of contributing here again. Maybe if you call the number that Joel posted you could speak to John Reuben yourself which may help you get past some of your anger and settle things in your mind of who he is and who I am not.
Your present postings are not very productive, I have to admit.
My gut feel is that you are just stopping by here and need to dump some of your hatred on someone and you will be gone in about a week.
...
-
I am challenging you to do so.
I really hate loaded language.
I bet you do it means work.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
-
Blah, blah, blah!!
-
Huey is the worst! He defends himself, not the program. The program is probably fairly good given the low standards of such places. It is all about the $$ for Huey. CALO is not exactly one in the same as Huey.
Look at Huey's vehicles, multiple homes, and lavish lifestyle... then you will know what he is all about. The only one worse is probably Addler out of Three Rivers. They were cut from the same cloth.
-
I was in a program and it saved my life. Here on fornits they want to use brainwashing tactics to force you into their group think cult and make you spout off anti program talking points just like they do. The fornits cult is dangerous and scary.
-
I was in a program and it saved my life. Here on fornits they want to use brainwashing tactics to force you into their group think cult and make you spout off anti program talking points just like they do. The fornits cult is dangerous and scary.
SUCK IT, you seem like a pretty angry dimwit. Are you related to Whooter?
-
I find it sad that we can't engage in one simple topic without derailing on Whooter's credibility... thing is, I really could give a fuck less who this person is. Maybe all this drama is just before my time here on fornits but I just don't understand why you would let an anonymous poster get to you all so much.
Okay so, he/she seems to be of the opposite opinion than most of the people on this site, but seriously if it weren't for the other side of the fence willing to come here and debate we would be just about as boring and deserted as antiwwasp... I'm actually grateful to be able to go blow for blow with a program parent because I thinking its important to be able to establish a dialogue... not to change their minds but to provide interesting reading material for the parents who come here to lurk and learn the points of both sides of the argument.
That's obviously not to say that anything he/she says should be taken seriously, given a vast history of going too far and then back peddling... but I do believe that it only bodes well for us that this kind of logic is synonymous with most program parents because it shows onlookers exactly what kind of lack of common sense and empathy we are up against.
-
I am so happy you found your way to live, can't you be happy for folks that found a way to live practicing the principles that AA wrote about. Which really are basic life principles.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Danny......
Hmm... well Danny, although my intent was not to sabotage your belief system... I must admit I find it hard to relate. Not to the need for common understanding, in fact I encourage a group therapy environment, and certainly not the need for a basic life principals. What I have a hard time understanding is why a doctrine that encourages you to believe you are powerless has any positive effect on your willpower to stay sober. In fact, I'm almost positive that way of thinking greatly contributes to the failure of so many addicts that have attended these meetings.
I guess it doesn't help that I am also not a fan of organized religion and can really only view AA/NA as a modern day attempt at religious conquest. I find the idea that the only thing that can keep a man sober is some imaginary being quite disturbing and frankly illogical when the man is the only one who can choose to drink the booze.
That surely doesn't mean I hate anyone, and I don't think you are all idiots. My crass language is only descriptive of my utter bewilderment of such a concept.
As well, I wasn't inferring that I don't have my own "addictions" but I do not claim to be diseased, from what I understand, those are called "impulses" and they are things I can learn to control with will power and intent. I would find it very difficult to ever expect to look outside myself for control over my own emotions and surely not my decision making.
-
I bet you do it means work.
Danny.....
No, just the opposite. Loaded language is designed to stop critical thought. That's why AA and programs employ so much of it.
-
I bet you do it means work.
Danny.....
No, just the opposite. Loaded language is designed to stop critical thought. That's why AA and programs employ so much of it.
I must agree. In fact I was thinking about this the other day, I used the word "accountability" in some way to refer to something I was responsible for, and my husband kinda looked at me weird. It wasn't that it was just a big word, it was that I was taking responsibility for something that really had nothing to do with me.
So of course it got me thinking, why have did I use this word in this way and why am I conditioned to take "accountability" for something that I should be holding someone else responsible for? Then of course it dawned on me where I learned this term.... the program. I had a hard time understanding the concept they were trying to create for this word, which was that no matter who or what initally caused the incident in question, YOU are accountable for the outcome because in one way or another YOU created it.
The way they explained this was with a drawing of two cars at an intersection, one car runs a red light and the other car, who has the green light, t-bones that car. Common sense would say that the car who ran the light is responsible for the accident but taking "accountability" means that if YOU were the person who went on the green light, that YOU are responsible for the crash simply because you chose to drive down that road that day.
This "accountability" concept was used quite a lot in the program, mostly as feedback to convince those skeptical of admitting to being alcoholics but it was also used to convince otherwise normal teenagers that they somehow created the abuse they were receiving simply because they "got themselves to the program". This was precisely what I was told when I reported the abusive staff and conditions at High Impact and this is the same mentality that program supporters are using against survivors who speak out. They refer to us as bad seeds, whiners, or money grubbers but what they are really saying is that they believe that in every circumstance we deserved the abuse. Taking "accountability" in the sense they describe is very much like battered wife syndrome, blindly accepting abuse and or consequences for reasons that logically do not infer fault, and more importantly obsolving those who ARE responsible.
In my opinion, this was just another way they were using these techniques to control the thought processes of their followers in unabashed intent on skirting their own responsibility to give proper treatment of the patients in their care. One can wonder why they would really go so out of their way... but im assuming it starts with a $ and ends with a $$ :deal:
-
To be honest, i was very resistant to the program. And I could've done without the Malt-O-Meal mush. Realistically though being away from the environment I placed myself in did save my life. And there are a lot of things that MOST of us view as un-necessary, like how the hell are you supposed to memorize all those damn rules, i'll never know. :cheers: to bein' home safe!
-
Realistically though being away from the environment I placed myself in did save my life.
This is the second lie, a backup of sorts for the first: that, well, if 'the program' didn't save your life then being out of the home did. This, too, is abjectly false although that's harder to prove. Suffice it to say that it didn't save Karlye Newman's, and SCL was closed in 2009 due to precipitously declining enrollment; too many people knew too much truth about WWASP.
-
Realistically though being away from the environment I placed myself in did save my life.
This is the second lie, a backup of sorts for the first: that, well, if 'the program' didn't save your life then being out of the home did. This, too, is abjectly false although that's harder to prove. Suffice it to say that it didn't save Karlye Newman's, and SCL was closed in 2009 due to precipitously declining enrollment; too many people knew too much truth about WWASP.
So what you are trying to say is survivors lie? We cant really rely on their stories or first hand accounts as fact? So if we cant trust them then how do we know what is truth or lie or if the program was helpful or not? Should we take the parents perspective of whether they did well or not?
Just wondering.
-
Just provide some clinical trials that prove programs are effective at what they advertise they "treat" or "cure" (e.g. several programs claim to "cure homosexuality") and put all the speculation to rest. These programs have never, ever, in any way, been proven effective at helping anyone with anything.
As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned, I'd trust someone's account who has been in a program over someone who has not every time. I've seen what goes on behind closed doors at a few of these shitpits and it closely resembles much of what users post here about their experience.
Now, what Whooter posts about programs has yet to be verified by any other sources or studies, so I surely can't believe him, especially considering how many lies he's already been caught perpetrating here. He can basically be disregarded because he presents what he presents here in order to make money (click the links in my signature that show Whooter bragging about his 'fiduciary interest' in Aspen Education and his seminar he delivered in Chicago about 'where the real money is, the TBS industry'). He's just in it for the profit. Don't fall for his nonsense.
-
Just provide some clinical trials that prove programs are effective at what they advertise they "treat" or "cure" (e.g. several programs claim to "cure homosexuality") and put all the speculation to rest. These programs have never, ever, in any way, been proven effective at helping anyone with anything.
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
Just drink the victim of abuse Koolaid and look the other way. Stop asking such religious nutbag questions. You've been brainwashed.
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
Just drink the victim of abuse Koolaid and look the other way. Stop asking such religious nutbag questions. You've been brainwashed.
Do try to stay on topic. This thread isn't referring to the religious nutbags.
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
Just drink the victim of abuse Koolaid and look the other way. Stop asking such religious nutbag questions. You've been brainwashed.
Do try to stay on topic. This thread isn't referring to the religious nutbags.
So sorry, us religious nutbags do these things all the time.
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
Just drink the victim of abuse Koolaid and look the other way. Stop asking such religious nutbag questions. You've been brainwashed.
Do try to stay on topic. This thread isn't referring to the religious nutbags.
So sorry, us religious nutbags do these things all the time.
I know!!! It's really weird. I wish you'd stop.
-
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
I think we agree here, Ursus. Most parents check them out and get an idea of how they work. Speaking to other parents who have been through the process helps also. I toured the grounds and spoke to kids at random, had lunch with the kids, spoke to other parents. This gives you the sense of how the place is run.
...
-
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
I think we agree here, Ursus. Most parents check them out and get an idea of how they work. Speaking to other parents who have been through the process helps also. I toured the grounds and spoke to kids at random, had lunch with the kids, spoke to other parents. This gives you the sense of how the place is run.
No. No it really doesn't.
-
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
I think we agree here, Ursus. Most parents check them out and get an idea of how they work. Speaking to other parents who have been through the process helps also. I toured the grounds and spoke to kids at random, had lunch with the kids, spoke to other parents. This gives you the sense of how the place is run.
Your response did not even address the concern of PROOF that these places cause no harm. Parental opinion does not constitute "proof."
-
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
I think we agree here, Ursus. Most parents check them out and get an idea of how they work. Speaking to other parents who have been through the process helps also. I toured the grounds and spoke to kids at random, had lunch with the kids, spoke to other parents. This gives you the sense of how the place is run.
Your response did not even address the concern of PROOF that these places cause no harm. Parental opinion does not constitute "proof."
Not sure anyone could provide "proof". How would someone provide proof that Chemotherapy will not harm a child? What a parent needs to do is understand the process and get an idea of how it works and what results can be expected. Most of this can be obtained with what I outlined in my previous post along with reviewing the study results.
...
-
If I were a parent considering one of these programs, I'd also be concerned about the following:
PROOF that these places cause NO HARM[/list]
After all, isn't that the credo for behavioral health professionals? "First, Do No Harm."
I think we agree here, Ursus. Most parents check them out and get an idea of how they work. Speaking to other parents who have been through the process helps also. I toured the grounds and spoke to kids at random, had lunch with the kids, spoke to other parents. This gives you the sense of how the place is run.
Your response did not even address the concern of PROOF that these places cause no harm. Parental opinion does not constitute "proof."
Not sure anyone could provide "proof". How would someone provide proof that Chemotherapy will not harm a child? What a parent needs to do is understand the process and get an idea of how it works and what results can be expected. Most of this can be obtained with what I outlined in my previous post along with reviewing the study results.
The credo of behavioral health professionals is "First, Do No Harm." If these programs cannot hold themselves to that standard, then they should cease and desist from referring to themselves as behavioral health facilities or as providing behavioral health services. At best, and from an ethical business standpoint, these places really shouldn't hold themselves out to the public as being anything more than "experimental" in nature.
With regard to your chemotherapy analogy, as part and parcel of the process of undergoing chemotherapy, some health professional will sit down with the patient and go through an explanation of expected results, which include undesirable side effects, potential long-term damage, etc.
Does anyone from these TTI programs sit down with the parents beforehand and go through an explanation of potential program side effects? Of the PTSD? Possible long-term PTSD? Of what may happen when a kid's psyche is ripped apart, but never put back together again? Or of the potential for unwanted and unwarranted additional and incidental abuse brought about by everyone in the program having abnormal definitions of boundaries? Namely, that these boundaries are substantially and unnaturally depressed?
-
...
-
Thanks for that. If i can remember correctly the first amendment THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH people. OMG! God forbid someone throw politics into this conversation. Since we already have the ball rolling on religion, Im just going to throw this one out there. And you are correct in stating that the program didn't save Karlyes' life and that is very unfortunate.
-
Realistically though being away from the environment I placed myself in did save my life.
This is the second lie, a backup of sorts for the first: that, well, if 'the program' didn't save your life then being out of the home did. This, too, is abjectly false although that's harder to prove. Suffice it to say that it didn't save Karlye Newman's, and SCL was closed in 2009 due to precipitously declining enrollment; too many people knew too much truth about WWASP.
It is all a lie, untruth, fantasy, disillusionment, abjectly false, harder to prove and all the other adjectives Gomer you want to throw at it. But it comes down to this, most of the readers who come here are sick and tired of your one sided biased prejudicial spin on experiences they have. If you had a women in your life you would know that they hate to be told how they feel. Ya don't have one and it shows. Folks enjoy sharing their experiences without the threat of a hawk swooping down and attacking them, why must you disrespect everyone that does not have your take on programs.
I'm just say'in......shit.
Danny
Wow, Danny. Is Liza filling in?
-
....
-
Is that a real pussy or an imaginary one?
Is it a cartoon?
Neglect Sex?
Abuse Sex?
Do you pull her around the driveway first?
Do you paddle her until she BLEEDS Mr.Daniel Bennison Assistant Sell-Out Director?
Do you get off on telling her how you were powerful at 19?
Will you ever have that power again? NO
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30611&p=365349&hilit=Cartoon+Croch#p365333
*Insert-"Shut up Felice you dirty filthy whore evil crazy satan girl with CARTOON CROTCH I dream of."
Danny :shamrock:
Look I REACTEDfor you.
:rofl:
-
the program didn't save Karlyes' life and that is very unfortunate.
Very unfortunate? Very fucking unfortunate? Has the program really stripped away so much of your humanity that you're going to seriously refer to the program driving her to fucking suicide as "very unfortunate"?
-
It is all a lie, untruth, fantasy, disillusionment, abjectly false, harder to prove and all the other adjectives Gomer you want to throw at it. But it comes down to this, most of the readers who come here are sick and tired of your one sided biased prejudicial spin on experiences they have. If you had a women in your life you would know that they hate to be told how they feel. Ya don't have one and it shows. Folks enjoy sharing their experiences without the threat of a hawk swooping down and attacking them, why must you disrespect everyone that does not have your take on programs.
I'm just say'in......shit.
Danny
- Inner child - :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
-
I actually find it funny, talking to my old program friends and aquaintences how many of them still believe that whole dead, insane or in jail bit... I mean you want proof of brainwashing?... How about the fact that they all give you the same line, without any evidence of that actually being the truth in their personal experience. Like our guest above said, most of us returned to bad behavior after we left far surpassing our childish attempts of rebellion before the program... and what do you know... were still here.
I can attest to this. I was in the program for 16 months as an adult and would certainly say that there are a lot of slogans and key phrases that the program certainly forced upon us that come to mind frequently when dealing with any circumstance. Like "Based on Results you have exactly what you Intend." Or "Behavior always follows Beliefs" those are just two of the many.
Thing is, this over generalized estimate of 1000 to 4 is probably not coming from a very reliable source... in my personal experience, talking to hundreds of former students not just from the school I went to but many many others, I find that your estimate is way off. I say more accurately its about 2 to 100, and a majority of that percentage could really care less and just want to move on with their lives. A lot of it has to do with the experience they had, for instance not everyone was physically abused, and every program had a different level of mental and emotional trauma. Just because a former student isn't pissed off enough to join the cause doesn't automatically mean they approve of the program... in fact most people choose to stay ignorant to the truth about the illegal and unethically activities of the program because they just don't feel like dealing with that massive realization.
It's frightening to think of everything that I have been through. Before the program, in the program, and after the program. I am in the beginning stages of that realization of that which has occurred as "brainwashing" and trying to figure out how to wrap my head around all of it. And to be honest, this massive realization sucks because my parents are very much program parents and are part of the cult. I do not blame them for getting me there, nor am I angry with them for it, but more so that programs like this even exist and are allowed to function, which fuels my fire to fight back. Maybe to save the life of another, if nothing else.:
It takes dedication to stand against the program and sadly... only about 4 out of 1000 really have what it takes to make a difference.
:nods:
-
I think one of the problems you are having is that you have been trolling and spewing anger from the shadows for so long that you have forgotten how to communicate or discuss a topic without attacking someone. There is no getting around logging in here anymore, Dysfunction Junction. It is something you are going to have to live with going forward.
My gut feel is that you are just stopping by here and need to dump some of your hatred on someone and you will be gone in about a week.
...
How bout this... My experience of you is that you fully believe that which you preach is better for all kids to experience when they are not experiencing life in the ways you and many other parents see fit.
Whether or not you are on the pay roll makes no difference to me. As US citizens we have been granted certain freedoms, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of speech, two freedoms that are very actively played out by you, and everyone else on this site.
Honestly I see a lot of speculation on this site. Whooter to be straight with you, unless you have experienced the torment on a deeper level you really have no room to talk. They use forms of attack therapy and you want to talk to DJ about forgetting about how to communicate without attacking someone?? Please, that is exactly what these programs teach and strictly enforce. You promote the programs because you believe in the principals that they stand for, however, do you also then support the mental, physical, and emotional abuse they inflict?
:beat:
-
How bout this... My experience of you is that you fully believe that which you preach is better for all kids to experience when they are not experiencing life in the ways you and many other parents see fit.
Well, I don’t think I believe what is good for other people’s children, I personally feel it is a parents duty to intercede if the child is heading in the wrong direction. If a child is running down the street holding scissors most parents would stop them and take them away or tell them to stop running. Although there are those who feel they should let the child run and hope they get through it okay. There are many different philosophies.
Whether or not you are on the pay roll makes no difference to me. As US citizens we have been granted certain freedoms, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of speech, two freedoms that are very actively played out by you, and everyone else on this site.
I agree here with you.
Honestly I see a lot of speculation on this site. Whooter to be straight with you, unless you have experienced the torment on a deeper level you really have no room to talk.
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
They use forms of attack therapy and you want to talk to DJ about forgetting about how to communicate without attacking someone?? Please, that is exactly what these programs teach and strictly enforce. You promote the programs because you believe in the principals that they stand for, however, do you also then support the mental, physical, and emotional abuse they inflict?
DJ was staff at several programs and maybe his use of attack therapy is the reason he didn’t succeed there, I really don’t know, but personally I don’t think it is effective and would not encourage any parent to send their child to a program which utilized this within their model.
mommaB23,I don’t promote “all” programs but I do think the industry adds value in helping kids get through a rough patch in their lives. I think we have established that abuse isn’t unique to programs, rather it flourishes everywhere.
...
-
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
And I have experience with both being inside a program and know all too well what it can do to someone AND in raising an "at risk" child, yet you belittle and dismiss what I say.
-
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
And I have experience with both being inside a program and know all too well what it can do to someone AND in raising an "at risk" child, yet you belittle and dismiss what I say.
Anne you attended a program about 30 years ago? A lot has changed since then. Your child responded to local services so you never had to consider any options beyond that. A very small percentage of children get to the point where the parents need to seek help outside the home and which don’t respond to local services.
...
-
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
And I have experience with both being inside a program and know all too well what it can do to someone AND in raising an "at risk" child, yet you belittle and dismiss what I say.
Anne you attended a program about 30 years ago? A lot has changed since then. Your child responded to local services so you never had to consider any options beyond that. A very small percentage of children get to the point where the parents need to seek help outside the home and which don’t respond to local services.
I think one of the greatest changes has been in the marketing; more specifically, in both the breadth of the target audience as well as greater sophistication in the means and the message of their advertising. Why, some of these folks even have their very own damage control experts!
Moreover, as these programs learn how to really capitalize on cultural trends and drifts, not to mention "cooperation" from the pharmaceutical and correction industries, they might even find a way to pathologize the entirety of adolescence, rather than just the more so-called inconvenient aspects of it. I imagine the possibilities are endless, for those crafty and immoral enough! :D
-
I think one of the greatest changes has been in the marketing; more specifically, in both the breadth of the target audience as well as greater sophistication in the means and the message of their advertising. Why, some of these folks even have their very own damage control experts!
They have improved in leaps and bound in marketing and defining their target audience, I agree, but the biggest changes, as I see it, is that these places are not cults anymore. They have predetermined goals for each child and an expected graduation date, doing away with fences and monitored phone calls. Each child has access to a therapist who is paid directly by the parents and not thru the school. The therapists talk directly with the childs therapist at home etc., etc.….Straight (and programs like them) never had this.
Moreover, as these programs learn how to really capitalize on cultural trends and drifts, not to mention "cooperation" from the pharmaceutical and correction industries, they might even find a way to pathologize the entirety of adolescence, rather than just the more so-called inconvenient aspects of it. I imagine the possibilities are endless, for those crafty and immoral enough!
The possibilities “are” endless. I think the more studies that keep coming out showing the effectiveness of these places the better people will feel about the safety of the industry as a whole and as they better hone their acceptance criteria and predicting which children will better benefit from each program the success rates will just continue to rise.
...
-
...
-
FemanonFatal2.0 wrote:
I actually find it funny, talking to my old program friends and aquaintences how many of them still believe that whole dead, insane or in jail bit... I mean you want proof of brainwashing?... How about the fact that they all give you the same line, without any evidence of that actually being the truth in their personal experience. Like our guest above said, most of us returned to bad behavior after we left far surpassing our childish attempts of rebellion before the program... and what do you know... were still here.
DannyBII wrote:
Femanon/MammaB23,
Well whether you want to believe this or not, it is true.....whole dead, insane or in jail bit.
Ya know I've been down this road before with Femanon and others and it is just not worth it. This is not their experience so I/we cannot expect them to understand. Bottom line, end of story.
I am very happy this was never your reality.
There was a time it was our reality and we did not need a fucking program to make this shit real.
Not to be a bitch here but Danny, you would think if you were going to direct a message at someone, you would have enough consideration to spell their user name correctly. What isn't worth it? To what exactly are you referring to? Does not understand us?? In what manner does what I had to say make us out of anything. Based off the things I have read that you have said, you seem to be all gung ho lets go for the program-- of course this is just an assumption and I may very well be making an ass out of both of us. I speak from my experience. On every level. I am nearly certain that the program had its hand in my PTSD. As for your last statement, please re-phrase, I am not certain that I know what you mean here.
:jawdrop:
-
DJ was staff at several programs and maybe his use of attack therapy is the reason he didn’t succeed there, I really don’t know...
Whooter, I knew you'd be back attention-whoring soon. You can't help yourself.
Anyway, since you already admit you don't know what you're talking about (nothing new to the rest of use here), let me set you straight. I never have and never would use attack therapy on a child or any other person. The reason I didn't "succeed" (i.e. continuously and flagrantly abuse children in my care) at the facilities you promote is that I resigned and reported them for abusing children, defrauding parents and making false claims to insurance companies.
As you already know quite well, I (and others) continued this pressure on HLA until they were forced to shut down and it was the only "parent choice" facility for which I ever worked, so I guess in your terms, "several" means "one." (as in "Whooter held several jobs for several years." lols)
Now maybe you can explain to us why you have never held a job for more than a year in your entire adult life? Maybe explain your criminal record? Or possibly explain why you have bragged about being a financial player in the TTI? :beat: :beat: :beat:
I'll check back later for your self-flagellating response. Looking forward to your answers to those very simple questions. Cheers.
-
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
And I have experience with both being inside a program and know all too well what it can do to someone AND in raising an "at risk" child, yet you belittle and dismiss what I say.
Anne you attended a program about 30 years ago? A lot has changed since then.
Not from what I've been reading, seeing and hearing. The only significant changes I've seen is in the spin/marketing.
Your child responded to local services so you never had to consider any options beyond that.
No, my child did not respond well to local services. We went thru years of struggling with her and she found her own way, with help from family, friends and eventually local services when she was an adult.
A very small percentage of children get to the point where the parents need to seek help outside the home and which don’t respond to local services.
Yep and those that do need 'outside' help need to get it from true professionals, using proven clinical methods...not pseudo-therapy developed by some cult guru to 'treat' hardcore heroin addicts (Synanon's "game"/attack/peer pressure/level system/confrontational 'therapy').
-
I could go along with that if the same consideration were given to parents who see the need to send their child to a program. Unless you have raised a child who becomes at-risk then I don’t think anyone should criticize their decision to get help for them outside the home. Many here make fun of the expression “dead, Insane or in jail”. But in reality many kids end up in jail and dead in this country (not sure about the insanity part lol) who didn’t have the advantage of sending their children outside the home for help.
And I have experience with both being inside a program and know all too well what it can do to someone AND in raising an "at risk" child, yet you belittle and dismiss what I say.
Anne you attended a program about 30 years ago? A lot has changed since then. Your child responded to local services so you never had to consider any options beyond that. A very small percentage of children get to the point where the parents need to seek help outside the home and which don’t respond to local services.
I think one of the greatest changes has been in the marketing; more specifically, in both the breadth of the target audience as well as greater sophistication in the means and the message of their advertising. Why, some of these folks even have their very own damage control experts!
:tup: :tup: :rocker: :cheers: :nods: :nods: :nods: :nods: :nods: :nods:
Moreover, as these programs learn how to really capitalize on cultural trends and drifts, not to mention "cooperation" from the pharmaceutical and correction industries, they might even find a way to pathologize the entirety of adolescence, rather than just the more so-called inconvenient aspects of it. I imagine the possibilities are endless, for those crafty and immoral enough! :D
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:
Those online "assessments" are cringe-worthy.
-
FemanonFatal2.0 wrote:
I actually find it funny, talking to my old program friends and aquaintences how many of them still believe that whole dead, insane or in jail bit... I mean you want proof of brainwashing?... How about the fact that they all give you the same line, without any evidence of that actually being the truth in their personal experience. Like our guest above said, most of us returned to bad behavior after we left far surpassing our childish attempts of rebellion before the program... and what do you know... were still here.
DannyBII wrote:
Femanon/MammaB23,
Well whether you want to believe this or not, it is true.....whole dead, insane or in jail bit.
For an extremely small percentage of people...and they need real help, not quack/newage 'therapy'.
-
DJ was staff at several programs and maybe his use of attack therapy is the reason he didn’t succeed there, I really don’t know...
Whooter, I knew you'd be back attention-whoring soon. You can't help yourself.
Anyway, since you already admit you don't know what you're talking about (nothing new to the rest of use here), let me set you straight. I never have and never would use attack therapy on a child or any other person. The reason I didn't "succeed" (i.e. continuously and flagrantly abuse children in my care) at the facilities you promote is that I resigned and reported them for abusing children, defrauding parents and making false claims to insurance companies.
As you already know quite well, I (and others) continued this pressure on HLA until they were forced to shut down and it was the only "parent choice" facility for which I ever worked, so I guess in your terms, "several" means "one." (as in "Whooter held several jobs for several years." lols)
Now maybe you can explain to us why you have never held a job for more than a year in your entire adult life? Maybe explain your criminal record? Or possibly explain why you have bragged about being a financial player in the TTI? :beat: :beat: :beat:
I'll check back later for your self-flagellating response. Looking forward to your answers to those very simple questions. Cheers.
DJ, sorry that my reference of you, on a previous post, upset you but no one forced you to work for programs and it is not like you started working there and left after a few days or spent your entire time in the break room. You participated or they wouldn’t have paid you. You lined your pockets for years with the industries money and when you asked for a raise they rejected you and you had to move on and worked for another program and the same thing happened (I don’t believe your hot temper helped the situation any). Why not be honest, DJ, no matter how much you try you cannot erase your past. It is also well documented here on fornits that you like to threaten people with punching them out (or cleaning their clock lol) when you lose an argument, we can easily imagine how you reacted to the kids when they got up into your face. Attacking people is part of your general make-up and there is no getting around that.
After you realized you had no future working in programs you decided to turn on them (you didn’t do this while you were working there, remember). Its very common for ex-employees to turn on their industry after being tossed out, you don’t get any points for that. If you had called the police or child services while being employed then you could claim you were trying to distance yourself from the program and help the children, but you didn’t, the industries money was more important to you until it ran out.
Sorry, DJ, just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings, I am sure you are a good guy.
...
-
No, my child did not respond well to local services. We went thru years of struggling with her and she found her own way, with help from family, friends and eventually local services when she was an adult.
Thats great, Anne, you are very fortunate that your child didnt require help outside the home and she was able to respond to help with family and friends to get her back on track.
...
-
I think one of the greatest changes has been in the marketing; more specifically, in both the breadth of the target audience as well as greater sophistication in the means and the message of their advertising. Why, some of these folks even have their very own damage control experts!
They have improved in leaps and bound in marketing and defining their target audience, I agree, but the biggest changes, as I see it, is that these places are not cults anymore. They have predetermined goals for each child and an expected graduation date, doing away with fences and monitored phone calls. Each child has access to a therapist who is paid directly by the parents and not thru the school. The therapists talk directly with the childs therapist at home etc., etc.….Straight (and programs like them) never had this.
Those "expected graduation dates" can be remarkably flexible now, eh? And, why bother with putting up a fence when you can just confiscate a kid's shoes to prevent them from running away?
And, as to those "unmonitored" phone calls? Let's just try hanging that flexible graduation date over a kid's head for one stark disincentive for frank speech, lol. Folks have experienced many more such stifling factors, too numerous to mention here, but mentioned in many another thread...
And those therapists? They're not exactly "imported" by the parents. They work for the program or under some arrangement with the program. Depending on the facility, therapeutic services may or may not be a part of the package, but the therapists are almost never completely separate from the program's philosophy.
I guess I really don't get just how you claim these places are "not cults anymore?"
Moreover, as these programs learn how to really capitalize on cultural trends and drifts, not to mention "cooperation" from the pharmaceutical and correction industries, they might even find a way to pathologize the entirety of adolescence, rather than just the more so-called inconvenient aspects of it. I imagine the possibilities are endless, for those crafty and immoral enough! :D
The possibilities "are" endless. I think the more studies that keep coming out showing the effectiveness of these places the better people will feel about the safety of the industry as a whole and as they better hone their acceptance criteria and predicting which children will better benefit from each program the success rates will just continue to rise.
Yep! Let's not forget those unassailable "industry-sponsored" studies. Why muddy up parents' consciences with real and unbiased data on trauma when you can manufacture yer own! Why, with greater fine-tuning of the marketing paradigm, and experience in the art of the press release, I bet these programs can even find a way to assess success rates prior to enrollment! :rofl:
-
I think one of the greatest changes has been in the marketing; more specifically, in both the breadth of the target audience as well as greater sophistication in the means and the message of their advertising. Why, some of these folks even have their very own damage control experts!
They have improved in leaps and bound in marketing and defining their target audience, I agree, but the biggest changes, as I see it, is that these places are not cults anymore. They have predetermined goals for each child and an expected graduation date, doing away with fences and monitored phone calls. Each child has access to a therapist who is paid directly by the parents and not thru the school. The therapists talk directly with the childs therapist at home etc., etc.….Straight (and programs like them) never had this.
Those "expected graduation dates" can be remarkably flexible now, eh? And, why bother with putting up a fence when you can just confiscate a kid's shoes to prevent them from running away?
Yeah, "exit plans" (basically a shunning of the child from the family) are remarkably effective at keeping the kids from running.
And, as to those "unmonitored" phone calls? Let's just try hanging that flexible graduation date over a kid's head for one stark disincentive for frank speech, lol. Folks have experienced many more such stifling factors, too numerous to mention here, but mentioned in many another thread...
And those therapists? They're not exactly "imported" by the parents. They work for the program or under some arrangement with the program. Depending on the facility, therapeutic services may or may not be a part of the package, but the therapists are almost never completely separate from the program's philosophy.
I guess I really don't get just how you claim these places are "not cults anymore?"
Moreover, as these programs learn how to really capitalize on cultural trends and drifts, not to mention "cooperation" from the pharmaceutical and correction industries, they might even find a way to pathologize the entirety of adolescence, rather than just the more so-called inconvenient aspects of it. I imagine the possibilities are endless, for those crafty and immoral enough! :D
The possibilities "are" endless. I think the more studies that keep coming out showing the effectiveness of these places the better people will feel about the safety of the industry as a whole and as they better hone their acceptance criteria and predicting which children will better benefit from each program the success rates will just continue to rise.
Yep! Let's not forget those unassailable "industry-sponsored" studies. Why muddy up parents' consciences with real and unbiased data on trauma when you can manufacture yer own! Why, with greater fine-tuning of the marketing paradigm, and experience in the art of the press release, I bet these programs can even find a way to assess success rates prior to enrollment! :rofl:
Yep....he doesn't even bother posting those "studies" anymore cuz he knows they're anything but unbiased.
-
Those "expected graduation dates" can be remarkably flexible now, eh? And, why bother with putting up a fence when you can just confiscate a kid's shoes to prevent them from running away?
And, as to those "unmonitored" phone calls? Let's just try hanging that flexible graduation date over a kid's head for one stark disincentive for frank speech, lol. Folks have experienced many more such stifling factors, too numerous to mention here, but mentioned in many another thread...
The graduation dates can be flexible because each child is different. I also agree with you that they can utilize this date to keep the kid in line, its probably a very effective tool. The parents are told ahead of time to expect 12 to 14 months (which is rarely exceeded), so there are no surprises. I don’t think “Straight” was that open nor would cults allow this.
Imagine if public schools did this how many kids would straighten up in their seats... "You can graduate in March instead of June if you get A's on your mid terms"!
And those therapists? They're not exactly "imported" by the parents. They work for the program or under some arrangement with the program. Depending on the facility, therapeutic services may or may not be a part of the package, but the therapists are almost never completely separate from the program's philosophy.
They may or may not agree with the programs philosophy but the main thing is that they are not employed by the program. So the child sees and independent therapist who can communicate with the child's therapist at home. I don’t think “straight” or any cults would operate this way.
I guess I really don't get just how you claim these places are "not cults anymore?"
Its really not too difficult, Ursus, but maybe you could find an employee who worked for EST or had an uncle who was in straight. Then you could make the connection and call it a cult?
Yep! Let's not forget those unassailable "industry-sponsored" studies. Why muddy up parents' consciences with real and unbiased data on trauma when you can manufacture yer own! Why, with greater fine-tuning of the marketing paradigm, and experience in the art of the press release, I bet these programs can even find a way to assess success rates prior to enrollment!
Whoops, you forgot to mention Independent studies with 3rd party oversight and approval... ouch. Those studies really bother you that much? You pine for the days when you could just say: "Show me a study which shows these programs to be effective!!"
...
-
The graduation dates can be flexible because each child is different. I also agree with you that they can utilize this date to keep the kid in line, its probably a very effective tool. The parents are told ahead of time to expect 12 to 14 months (which is rarely exceeded), so there are no surprises. I don’t think “Straight” was that open nor would cults allow this.[/i]
You're wrong.
They may or may not agree with the programs philosophy but the main thing is that they are not employed by the program. So the child sees and independent therapist who can communicate with the child's therapist at home. I don’t think “straight” or any cults would operate this way.
You're wrong again. They just find therapists who believe in the same 'tough love' bullshit as the programs do.
Its really not too difficult, Ursus, but maybe you could find an employee who worked for EST or had an uncle who was in straight. Then you could make the connection and call it a cult?
Pretty much, yes. Using EST-like or LGAT-like tactics on children is dangerous and very cult-like.
Whoops, you forgot to mention Independent studies with 3rd party oversight and approval... ouch. Those studies really bother you that much? You pine for the days when you could just say: "Show me a study which shows these programs to be effective!!"
And those would be.......? Citation please. Which "studies" are you referring to?
-
DJ was staff at several programs and maybe his use of attack therapy is the reason he didn’t succeed there, I really don’t know...
Whooter, I knew you'd be back attention-whoring soon. You can't help yourself.
Anyway, since you already admit you don't know what you're talking about (nothing new to the rest of use here), let me set you straight. I never have and never would use attack therapy on a child or any other person. The reason I didn't "succeed" (i.e. continuously and flagrantly abuse children in my care) at the facilities you promote is that I resigned and reported them for abusing children, defrauding parents and making false claims to insurance companies.
As you already know quite well, I (and others) continued this pressure on HLA until they were forced to shut down and it was the only "parent choice" facility for which I ever worked, so I guess in your terms, "several" means "one." (as in "Whooter held several jobs for several years." lols)
Now maybe you can explain to us why you have never held a job for more than a year in your entire adult life? Maybe explain your criminal record? Or possibly explain why you have bragged about being a financial player in the TTI? :beat: :beat: :beat:
I'll check back later for your self-flagellating response. Looking forward to your answers to those very simple questions. Cheers.
DJ, sorry that my reference of you, on a previous post, upset you but no one forced you to work for programs and it is not like you started working there and left after a few days or spent your entire time in the break room. You participated or they wouldn’t have paid you. You lined your pockets for years with the industries money and when you asked for a raise they rejected you and you had to move on and worked for another program and the same thing happened (I don’t believe your hot temper helped the situation any). Why not be honest, DJ, no matter how much you try you cannot erase your past. It is also well documented here on fornits that you like to threaten people with punching them out (or cleaning their clock lol) when you lose an argument, we can easily imagine how you reacted to the kids when they got up into your face. Attacking people is part of your general make-up and there is no getting around that.
After you realized you had no future working in programs you decided to turn on them (you didn’t do this while you were working there, remember). Its very common for ex-employees to turn on their industry after being tossed out, you don’t get any points for that. If you had called the police or child services while being employed then you could claim you were trying to distance yourself from the program and help the children, but you didn’t, the industries money was more important to you until it ran out.
Sorry, DJ, just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings, I am sure you are a good guy.
...
Another fact-free post from Whooter with zero "well-documented" facts.
...no matter how much you try you cannot erase your past...
So true, Whooter, just click those links in my signature to view your inescapable past supported by well-documented, self-stated claims. :rofl:
-
You're wrong.
Well then all those stories from kids who said they were kept in straight for years must have been lying then. Its good to know that the kids knew when they would be graduating, it clears up a lot of mis information.
You're wrong again.
Well, again, all the others who went to straight and said they didn’t see any therapists were lying? You guys had independent therapists who reported back to the childs therapist at home and the parents paid these professionals independently? Why did you lie all those years and say you didn’t? Interesting.
Pretty much, yes. Using EST-like or LGAT-like tactics on children is dangerous and very cult-like.
If they hired a person of the jewish faith it would mean the place would be considered Jewish? What if they hired a jew and a catholic? Lol
And those would be.......? Citation please. Which "studies" are you referring to?
This ground breaking study was conducted by an independent research company and the results of this study were presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association - August 2006.
Between August 2003 and January 2006, Aspen Education Group participated in the nation's first large-scale study of its kind, measuring the effectiveness of Aspen's private residential programs for teens and their families. The study collected survey responses, both at program admission and then again at discharge, from 993 young people ages 13-18, enrolled in Aspen's residential programs. The study also collected responses from their parents or guardians. The following are highlights that might prove valuable in evaluating your decision to enroll your child in a private residential program.
(http://http://www.aspenranch.com/images/behavioral_graphic.gif)
One year after Graduation (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/pdf_files/Outcome_Study_One_Year_Later.pdf)
3rd party oversight (http://http://www.wirb.com/)
...
-
You're wrong.
Well then all those stories from kids who said they were kept in straight for years must have been lying then. Its good to know that the kids knew when they would be graduating, it clears up a lot of mis information.
No, the parents were told the program could be up to XXX amount of time (whatever the marks [parents] could bear at the time), while the kids were told that we were just signing in for a "2 week evaluation" and that we could leave any time after that if we desired. Totally lying to us, but it got us to "sign ourselves in" so that they could claim we went in voluntarily. Kinda like how you claim that kids can leave anytime even though they're out in the middle of nowhere, with no food/water and are cast out from their families if they leave. Some choice.
Well, again, all the others who went to straight and said they didn’t see any therapists were lying? You guys had independent therapists who reported back to the childs therapist at home and the parents paid these professionals independently? Why did you lie all those years and say you didn’t? Interesting.
Some had an "independent" M.D. (it was a former Straight parent with his connections to Straight covered up) tell our parents that we were drug addicts. These "diagnosis" were done after about a 2 minute conversation with the child at Straight. No, we didn't see any "therapist" on an on-going basis at all. If I misread your initial post, I apologize.
If they hired a person of the jewish faith it would mean the place would be considered Jewish? What if they hired a jew and a catholic? Lol
you are the king of bad analogies.
This ground breaking study was conducted by an independent research company and the results of this study were presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association - August 2006.
Between August 2003 and January 2006, Aspen Education Group participated in the nation's first large-scale study of its kind, measuring the effectiveness of Aspen's private residential programs for teens and their families. The study collected survey responses, both at program admission and then again at discharge, from 993 young people ages 13-18, enrolled in Aspen's residential programs. The study also collected responses from their parents or guardians. The following are highlights that might prove valuable in evaluating your decision to enroll your child in a private residential program.
(http://http://www.aspenranch.com/images/behavioral_graphic.gif)
One year after Graduation (http://http://www.aspenranch.com/pdf_files/Outcome_Study_One_Year_Later.pdf)
3rd party oversight (http://http://www.wirb.com/)
So, Aspen sponsored "studies" that are NOT longitudinal (which is essential in figuring this shit out). Ok.
Now, do you have an independent, longitudinal studies or not?
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
-
No, the parents were told the program could be up to XXX amount of time (whatever the marks [parents] could bear at the time), while the kids were told that we were just signing in for a "2 week evaluation" and that we could leave any time after that if we desired. Totally lying to us, but it got us to "sign ourselves in" so that they could claim we went in voluntarily. Kinda like how you claim that kids can leave anytime even though they're out in the middle of nowhere, with no food/water and are cast out from their families if they leave. Some choice.
What we experienced is a 12 to 14 month stay and the child knew this up front as well as the parents.
Some had an "independent" M.D. (it was a former Straight parent with his connections to Straight covered up) tell our parents that we were drug addicts. These "diagnosis" were done after about a 2 minute conversation with the child at Straight. No, we didn't see any "therapist" on an on-going basis at all. If I misread your initial post, I apologize.
That’s okay, the therapists that my daughter saw were quite good and communicated well with us as well as her therapist at home. We received update letters monthly that were preapproved by my daughter prior to submittal, to protect her privacy.
you are the king of bad analogies.
Ha,Ha,Ha I have been told that before. But they do communicate well.
So, Aspen sponsored "studies" that are NOT longitudinal (which is essential in figuring this shit out). Ok.
Now, do you have an independent, longitudinal studies or not?
Finally we get you to admit that the studies exist!! Yes they are independent !! Hooray!! They were funded by Aspen and overseen by an independent agency to insure that there was no conflict of interest. They have studies that run out one year.
So now we are looking for a study which covers out to say 5 years. I haven’t seen one yet. If you do let me know and I will post the link as soon as I see one. If you find anyone who would like to fund the study I am sure Aspen would like to get one done for free!
If you want to hold out until they develop a 5 year study then that is fine and is your privilege. We all have varying expectations and requirements.
...
-
you are the king of bad analogies.
Ha,Ha,Ha I have been told that before. But they do communicate well.
No. No, they really don't.
Now, answer Phil's question please........
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
-
....
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
-
Finally we get you to admit that the studies exist!! Yes they are independent !! Hooray!!
Sure, I admit that Aspen Ed conducts what they refer to as studies, which are more like surveys, with the kids being only a year out. Doesn't really amount to anything clinical, longitudinal or unbiased though.
They were funded by Aspen and overseen by an independent agency to insure that there was no conflict of interest. They have studies that run out one year.
So now we are looking for a study which covers out to say 5 years. I haven’t seen one yet. If you do let me know and I will post the link as soon as I see one. If you find anyone who would like to fund the study I am sure Aspen would like to get one done for free!
If you want to hold out until they develop a 5 year study then that is fine and is your privilege. We all have varying expectations and requirements.
Because, as we've been saying all along.....very often it takes years for the brainwashing to wear off and for the victim to realize the mindfuck they've been subjected to.
Now, how 'bout answering Phil's question...
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
-
Finally we get you to admit that the studies exist!! Yes they are independent !! Hooray!!
Sure, I admit that Aspen Ed conducts what they refer to as studies, which are more like surveys, with the kids being only a year out. Doesn't really amount to anything clinical, longitudinal or unbiased though.
They were funded by Aspen and overseen by an independent agency to insure that there was no conflict of interest. They have studies that run out one year.
So now we are looking for a study which covers out to say 5 years. I haven’t seen one yet. If you do let me know and I will post the link as soon as I see one. If you find anyone who would like to fund the study I am sure Aspen would like to get one done for free!
If you want to hold out until they develop a 5 year study then that is fine and is your privilege. We all have varying expectations and requirements.
Because, as we've been saying all along.....very often it takes years for the brainwashing to wear off and for the victim to realize the mindfuck they've been subjected to.
Now, how 'bout answering Phil's question...
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Well, you may not like them and they may not be how you would design them. But they are independent studies and they have been approved by an independent board to insure there were no conflict of interests. There is no getting around that fact no matter how you try.
Hopefully there will be a study which reaches out 5 years at some point and then we can take a look at those results. I think we can all agree that it would be helpful. The more information the better.
...
-
...
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
...
The one you cited before done by Canyon Research??? Owned by Ellen Behrens? and heavily associated with NATSAP? Not really unbiased.
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients)
Check out their client list....
Aspen Education
Aspen Ranch
Academy at Swift River
Copper Canyon Academy
Family Light
Life Line
Mount Bachelor Academy
New Life
Northstar
Stone Mountain School
Sunhawk Academy
Turnabout Ranch
Youth Care
http://clients.morningstarinteractive.c ... mmitee.asp (http://clients.morningstarinteractive.com/dev/NATSAP/research_commitee.asp)
The NATSAP Research committee members:
John Santa, Ph.D. - Committee Chair, Montana Academy
Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research and Consulting
Rob Cooley, Ph.D., Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Expeditions
Mike Gass, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire
Kyle Gillette, Ph.D., Solstice RTC
Michael Merchant, ANASAZI Foundation
Beverly Richard, MSW, Three Springs
Brent Hall, MS, Discovery Academy
John Hall, LMFT, Telos
Frank Bartolomeo, Ph.D., The Academy at Swift River
Joanna Bettmann, Ph.D., Open Sky Wilderness Therapy
-
I wish Anne but it just is not true, actually you are the small percentage and your high middle class to upper class folks you hang with here.
Most of the folks we listen to here, came from middle to upper class parents who paid for the treatment, though the treatment was probably bogus.
So Anne your right, in your world those 3 choices were probably not valid but outside your world where the masses live those choices are.
What?? I truly have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
-
Well, you may not like them and they may not be how you would design them. But they are independent studies
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
This study surveyed self-assessment at admission, and at discharge. No time whatsoever spent in the real world attempting to put into practice said gains. No professional assessment whatsoever, of the verity of said self-assessments.
The "one-year later" study you refer to... is this the one based on 17 cherry-picked successful graduates, most of whom were still living at home at time of survey?
-
poke, poke poke, jab, jab .... Sorry, everyone. I havent seen anyone come out against it in any professional capacity. I think its fair to say that fornits wouldn't accept "any" study which shows the industry to be successful.
But that aside, we do have a study that is independent and overseen by a third party. I am sure everyone here would have designed it differently but you were not involved. But it doesnt void the study. If you feel the study is tainted in anyway you should submit your concerns to the "Western Institute Review Board" and they will determine if your concerns are valid or not. I think this would settle alot of people concerns.
Until that time we need to go with the facts that are on the table.
...
-
Dear
I am not interested in getting into a debate here about any of this. I am simply asking you to refer me to the follow up study you referenced so that I can read it.
Thanks
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Many people came out against many of the heart studies (initially) and most were professionals in the field. But the studies stood the test of time and lead us to determine that cholesterol is bad for us and this lead to the development of coronary stents.
This (Aspen Study) consisted of about 1,000 families so the results are considerable. When the population size was only 17 people had a problem with that too. So I don’t see a study ever getting accepted here on fornits. But this study stands within the professional community and that is what really counts.
I dont have the original study which was done 1 year out, at hand. When I find I will toss a link up.
...
-
Dear
I am not going to respond to your post because I will not get into a back and forth with an individual who declines to identify himself. I find that creepy and I do not have enough time for it.
Please post a link to the follow up to the study you referenced because i would like to read and comment on it. You seemed to have those other links at your fingertips.
Thanks
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Many people came out against many of the heart studies (initially) and most were professionals in the field. But the studies stood the test of time and lead us to determine that cholesterol is bad for us and this lead to the development of coronary stents.
This (Aspen Study) consisted of about 1,000 families so the results are considerable. When the population size was only 17 people had a problem with that too. So I don’t see a study ever getting accepted here on fornits. But this study stands within the professional MARKETING community and that is what really counts.
I dont have the original study which was done 1 year out, at hand. When I find I will toss a link up.
Fixed that for ya! :seg:
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
The one you cited before done by Canyon Research??? Owned by Ellen Behrens? and heavily associated with NATSAP? Not really unbiased.
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients)
Check out their client list....
Aspen Education
Aspen Ranch
Academy at Swift River
Copper Canyon Academy
Family Light
Life Line
Mount Bachelor Academy
New Life
Northstar
Stone Mountain School
Sunhawk Academy
Turnabout Ranch
Youth Care
http://clients.morningstarinteractive.c ... mmitee.asp (http://clients.morningstarinteractive.com/dev/NATSAP/research_commitee.asp)
The NATSAP Research committee members:
John Santa, Ph.D. - Committee Chair, Montana Academy
Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research and Consulting
Rob Cooley, Ph.D., Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Expeditions
Mike Gass, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire
Kyle Gillette, Ph.D., Solstice RTC
Michael Merchant, ANASAZI Foundation
Beverly Richard, MSW, Three Springs
Brent Hall, MS, Discovery Academy
John Hall, LMFT, Telos
Frank Bartolomeo, Ph.D., The Academy at Swift River
Joanna Bettmann, Ph.D., Open Sky Wilderness Therapy
This study was also well discussed in the following threads:
Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG · viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834)
Troubled Teen Industry Studies · viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684)[/list]
-
...
-
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Study (http://http://www.scribd.com/doc/503084/Residential-Treatment-Outcomes-Study)
The one you cited before done by Canyon Research??? Owned by Ellen Behrens? and heavily associated with NATSAP? Not really unbiased.
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html#clients)
Check out their client list....
Aspen Education
Aspen Ranch
Academy at Swift River
Copper Canyon Academy
Family Light
Life Line
Mount Bachelor Academy
New Life
Northstar
Stone Mountain School
Sunhawk Academy
Turnabout Ranch
Youth Care
http://clients.morningstarinteractive.c ... mmitee.asp (http://clients.morningstarinteractive.com/dev/NATSAP/research_commitee.asp)
The NATSAP Research committee members:
John Santa, Ph.D. - Committee Chair, Montana Academy
Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research and Consulting
Rob Cooley, Ph.D., Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Expeditions
Mike Gass, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire
Kyle Gillette, Ph.D., Solstice RTC
Michael Merchant, ANASAZI Foundation
Beverly Richard, MSW, Three Springs
Brent Hall, MS, Discovery Academy
John Hall, LMFT, Telos
Frank Bartolomeo, Ph.D., The Academy at Swift River
Joanna Bettmann, Ph.D., Open Sky Wilderness Therapy
This study was also well discussed in the following threads:
Ellen Behren's Industry Study Funded by AEG · viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834)
Troubled Teen Industry Studies · viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684)[/list]
Talk about bullet proof!!! I think everyone on fornits took a shot at trying to discredit the study to no avail. There was no conflict of interest found (not even a slight trace to an IBM software program somewhere) lol.
But in all fairness if there are ever concerns then they should be forwarded to the "oversight committee" for review and they will determine if it tainted the study or not. That is how it is done.
...
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Many people came out against many of the heart studies (initially) and most were professionals in the field. But the studies stood the test of time and lead us to determine that cholesterol is bad for us and this lead to the development of coronary stents.
This (Aspen Study) consisted of about 1,000 families so the results are considerable. When the population size was only 17 people had a problem with that too. So I don’t see a study ever getting accepted here on fornits. But this study stands within the professional community and that is what really counts.
I dont have the original study which was done 1 year out, at hand. When I find I will toss a link up.
Yes, yes, we've gone through this song and dance before. Several times, I think. I guess this "study" musta got soooo bunked, Whooter, that you're too embarrassed to furnish the link anymore. Here it is, for those who don't have it yet: http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_p ... hapiro.pdf (http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf)
As has been pointed out previously, this is a student paper, apparently done as part of Shapiro's graduation requirements. While I wouldn't be willing to toss it on that basis alone, it becomes readily apparent, even on the first read ... that this is a whole lot o' spun sugar. Note that results are presented in terms of percentages, the better to obscure the statistical irrelevance of the actual numbers, lol.
-
Yep, he linked to another one not too long ago, bit that was thrashed as well for its industry connections so he won't throw that one up either.
Goddamn, but these people/places are incestuous.
-
Yes, yes, we've gone through this song and dance before. Several times, I think. I guess this "study" musta got soooo bunked, Whooter, that you're too embarrassed to furnish the link anymore. Here it is, for those who don't have it yet: http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_p (http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_p) ... hapiro.pdf
As has been pointed out previously, this is a student paper, apparently done as part of Shapiro's graduation requirements. While I wouldn't be willing to toss it on that basis alone, it becomes readily apparent, even on the first read ... that this is a whole lot o' spun sugar. Note that results are presented in terms of percentages, the better to obscure the statistical irrelevance of the actual numbers, lol.
I know, Ursus, these studies are a thorn in your side, but they just wont go away. No one has debunked any of them that I am aware of. But you can keep hoping.. in the mean time lets take a look.
You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!
Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
I thought the Shapiro study was very interesting. The program opened their doors to a graduate student who had very little to no knowledge of the industry and allowed her to conduct a study. (This is the same program which allowed a Pulitzer prized author to follow students through their entire stay and then wrote a book on his findings). So some could argue that she was not experienced enough to know what questions to ask and maybe someone who had previous experience with the industry would be in a better position to conduct studies… Hmmm. But either way information is information and we need to consider all of it. I think it would be short sighted of us to toss out and ignore survivors stories because there were only 4 or 5 recorded here on fornits vs the tens of thousands who have graduated and calling them insignificant.
Overall the Shapiro study showed the program of ASR to be very effective and encouraged more studies to be conducted. This also discarded the believes here that these programs are secretive and operate behind closed doors. Also, like Anne mentioned, "there are other studies out there" which further supports the fact that these programs are effective.
...
-
to danny b- I am a new jersey lawyer. My name is phil elberg. I have been interested in these issues since i litigated the Kids/Miller Newton cases a few years back. I have been involved in litigation against Thayer Learning Center and defended/represented ISAC and FORNITS in lawsuits against them started by Sue Scheff, WWASP and Thayer Learning Center. I was President of the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) for several years and I am on the CAFETY advisory board.
to anonymous- I am not interested in a back and forth with you for the reasons I have previously expressed. I find your anonymous presence on this site creepy. I am interested in reading anything that you or anyone else believes is a study that supports what these programs do. I have read the Behrens work. I have read a 1999 dissertation by Keith Russell which is oft cited. I have read David Marcus' well written book, What it takes to Pull me Through. What else is there that has been published anywhere by anyone you believe is independent as you understand that word that supports what the facilities you believe in do. If there is a follow up on the Behrens work please tell me where to find it. You refer to studies-plural (not study) and I would like to know what you are referring to. Again, i am not interested in your views or a debate but a list would be great. I am hopeful to write on these issues in the next few months and I do not want to miss anything. Thanks
-
I wish Anne but it just is not true, actually you are the small percentage and your high middle class to upper class folks you hang with here.
Most of the folks we listen to here, came from middle to upper class parents who paid for the treatment, though the treatment was probably bogus.
So Anne your right, in your world those 3 choices were probably not valid but outside your world where the masses live those choices are.
What?? I truly have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
Anne what I am saying, is I don't believe you even know folks with limited choices in life even exist, you cannot identify.
You come from a different world.
There are many people out there Anne, more then I think you know, with 3 choices.......death, jails or mental hospitals. Period.
-
...
-
..
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Jeesh Whooter, it looks like they had to run out and get some real competition to combat your steady diet of common sense rebuttals.
Mr Elberg there is a old saying, "A blind person who sees is better than a seeing person who is blind". - Iranian (on wisdom)
I have not gotten a common sense rebuttal despite numerous invitations. Who's blind here? or at least pretending to be.
Double Bind: Mind Control in the TTI
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=0)
.
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Jeesh Whooter, it looks like they had to run out and get some real competition to combat your steady diet of common sense rebuttals.
Mr Elberg there is a old saying, "A blind person who sees is better than a seeing person who is blind". - Iranian (on wisdom)
Danny, its another fornits sham, I have been around enough lawyers to know this guy isnt one. First of all lawyers like to discuss anything and everything, ad nauseum. Secondly every lawyer I have ever known likes to sit down at the table eyeball to eyeball and have a discussion. They don’t freak out because someone at the table isn't wearing a name tag and then start talking out of the sides of their mouth. If he really is who he says he is then he is probably retired and has lost his edge. He could have sent an assistant to get the names of the outstanding studies.
...
-
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
Jeesh Whooter, it looks like they had to run out and get some real competition to combat your steady diet of common sense rebuttals.
Mr Elberg there is a old saying, "A blind person who sees is better than a seeing person who is blind". - Iranian (on wisdom)
Danny, its another fornits sham, I have been around enough lawyers to know this guy isnt one. First of all lawyers like to discuss anything and everything, ad nauseum. Secondly every lawyer I have ever known likes to sit down at the table eyeball to eyeball and have a discussion. They don’t freak out because someone at the table isn't wearing a name tag and then start talking out of the sides of their mouth. If he really is who he says he is then he is probably retired and has lost his edge. He could have sent an assistant to get the names of the outstanding studies.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
— Plato[/list][/list]
-
Phil, if that really is you and you're expecting straight answers out of the local programmies (or any other programmies, really), you're burning your expensive time.
-
"He who doesn't have legs cannot teach one how to walk."
- unknown
...
-
You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!
Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages! :D
Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.
In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.
If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.
-
You can gain quite a bit of information by pulling a small sample. If you have 500 people and you interview a small sample of say 13, then there are statistical tables which will tell you how confident you can be in your results… i.e 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.9% etc. and the degree of error you can expect to be built into your results (i.e. +/- 5%). Thats the strength of statistics, you don't need to sample everyone to gain a perspective!
Ursus I held off in responding to give yourself a chance to edit your post. You must be very unfamiliar with statistics if you think using percentages is a flaw of some type. They go hand in hand.
No, I am not unfamiliar with statistics. When you have such a small sample size that 2 individuals giving different answers can skew the results by as much as 12% either way, I'd say that your conclusions carry a pretty large margin of error. Perhaps I have a bias for seeing my tables presented in terms of raw data so that I can determine that for myself. I can always use a calculator to get those pretty percentages! :D
Those are arguments you need to take up with Shapiro. Maybe she can provide the tables or explain to you why they are not needed in her report.
Of course, the biggest flaw of that study is the highly skewed nature of the sample itself, which, by virtue of the method of selection, is not representative of the population it purports to speak for. Sure, a small sample number can give you an indication of what's going on in a larger population but... only IFF they are representative of that larger set.
In the Shapiro study, the 17 students surveyed were all preselected on the basis of (a) having actually graduated the program, as well as (b) deigning to return the survey in the first place. The ones who did return that survey may well have been highly motivated to do so, e.g., for reasons of satisfaction with their time in program. No surprise then, that Shapiro reported that they were.
If I recall correctly, there were well over a hundred students who did not return their surveys of the 151 kids who graduated during the two-year period selected for screening. Moreover, there were an additional 40 students who were also scheduled to graduate, but who did not. These latter students were not contacted.
Well you need to define the boundary conditions of the study. If you are conducting a heart study you would want to follow only those people who completed the program (highly skewed). If you were doing a study of the effects of a new drug you wouldnt want to include those who went off the drug early if you were measuring the effectiveness of a 30 day regimen. The same applies to the Shapiro study. They were very clear on how the population was gathered. I believe we discussed the survey results earlier and found that it is typical to get a 25% - 35% response from surveys. So the response is not off the radar. People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad). I don’t see how this skews the data at all.
Look, people spoke out and Shapiro collected their responses. Even if it were just one person we should listen to them. What if a lone survivor came onto Fornits and said they were abused. Should we just disregard the person because there are thousands of others who say otherwise or who have not responded at all? I think we should step back and look at all sides and allow everyone’s opinion be heard.
You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask. But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest. This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.
...
-
People who return the surveys are those who have something to say and want to be included (whether good or bad).
Folks who may very well have had something to say, and who, in all probability, may have had a higher likelihood of holding less sunny memories of their stay at Academy at Swift River, were conspicuously absent from the sample pool. These folk did not have the choice of returning or not returning the survey. They were not on the mailing list.
You criticize her because she was a graduate student and isn’t savy enough to know the programs and what questions to ask. But when we have a study done by someone who knows the programs and understands what questions to ask you try to discard this as a conflict of interest. This shows that you may be disingenuous, Ursus, and are not really interested in the facts, rather you only willing to consider one side of the story.
No. It is you who is disingenuous, and is not interested in the facts. You are so intoxicated with pushing your marketing spiels and pro-industry platitudes, come hell or high water, that you can't even keep track of who you're criticizing. It would appear you do not even care.
I have repeatedly stated that Shapiro being a student does not, in and of itself, to my mind at least, discount her data. She could have been a sophomore undergrad for all I cared. After all, there's some prof who oversaw her work. And while I'm sure that there are others who may agree with me on this particular point, I have yet to come across their posts, if indeed there are any. And yet, here ya are, calling me "disingenuous" for something I did not do.
Were you actually reading others' posts here for substance, rather than for opportune moments to slip in yet another blatant marketing pitch for Aspen Ed or similar pro-industry schmaltz, it is unlikely that you would have made this mistake. It is also not the first time you've made it with me, let alone with other posters, but I can't really speak for them.
-
......
-
Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey.... :D
"Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
"Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]
Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.
-
Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey.... :D
"Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
"Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]
Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.
I am happy to see that you have accepted the study and are quoting from it, Ursus, it’s a big step. There is a little information for everyone if you bother to read it and as you can see these kids have returned to a completely normal range after graduating, well except the 5% who haven't had a beer yet, but they will catch up.
So much for the brainwashing theory, the study sort of tosses that out the window. I would have guessed that “every” kid would have gone back and at least tested the waters a bit. The 5% who didn’t try a drink were probably living in a dry town or had no access to alcohol at all. My daughter went back to her old friends after a few weeks of being home but found she had matured past their life style and found friends closer to her own goals of going to college. So she partied initially too, but quickly found her own way and kept it in moderation. If these kids were brainwashed they would have all stayed sober for 3 to 5 years until it wore off.
Other discussion of interest:
“Parents also found the following areas to have shown additional improvements (p ? .001): trouble making behavior at school, sexual promiscuity, desire to hurt oneself, the impact of alcohol use on daily life, the frequency of drug use, and the impact of drug use on daily life. Students had similar impressions of their own improvement. The frequency of smoking and alcohol use decreased (p ? .05) and the impact of alcohol on daily life also improved (p ? .01). Students found the following additional areas to have shown improvement (p ? .001): getting into trouble at school, skipping school, sexual promiscuity, frequency of drug use, and the impact of drug use on daily life. Twelve percent of ASR students had attempted suicide prior to treatment, and none reported attempting suicide after treatment.”
...
-
I am happy to see that you have accepted the study and are quoting from it, Ursus, it's a big step.
You are jumping to conclusions again. I guess the power points yet to be addressed today were beckoning with greater immediacy than logic ever can.
-
Yes'm. Let's have some FACTS (as opposed to perceptions) collected by that survey.... :D
"Of the 49% of students who reported that they planned to be sober following graduation, 5% have been completely sober since they graduated..."[/list]
"Despite the consensus that drug use in graduates has declined, since graduation, 64% have used marijuana, 12% mushrooms, 12% cocaine, 12% ecstasy, 6% acid, and 6% abused prescription drugs."[/list]
Self-reporting is a dream, ain't it?? Life is all in the way ya "interpret it," facts be damned.
So here we go again, Ursus you drank after you left Hyde, I also bet you smoked a joint. Everyone here on this Site practically, smokes pot and drinks. What is your point, you are drifting off again.
Ursus if you just stop and realize that you lost this debate and submit, then you can move on. ;D
-
Danny, its another fornits sham,I have been around enough lawyers to know this guy isnt one.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
You've GOT to be kidding, right?? You've been around here long enough to know about the suit against Virgil Miller Newton/Straight/KIDS and to know that Phil won and won big.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAzfla_LUE0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAzfla_LUE0)
Phil Elberg and KIDS
Phil Elberg is the veteran Newark, New Jersey, lawyer who took on Miller Newton and his controversial KIDS “tough love” teen rehab program. He has been a lawyer for 35 years with a specialty in medical malpractice. Elberg went to court against Miller Newton starting in the late 1990s, representing several former KIDS clients who had experienced horrific abuses. His suits have won $15 million (U.S.) in judgments and settlements. The U.S. Congress’s Government Accountability Office has cited his work in an investigation of American tough love programs.
http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/ (http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/)
Ex-employees sue boot camp accused of abuse
By STEVE ROCK
The Kansas City Star
June 3, 2008
Five former employees of a northwest Missouri boot camp where a child died in 2004 have sued for alleged malicious prosecution.
The workers had been sued by Thayer Learning Center in a case that eventually was dropped. In that lawsuit, Thayer alleged that the ex-employees made false statements and false allegations to law-enforcement officials and others about activities at the camp.
In the lawsuit filed Monday, the former employees allege that Thayer sued them to keep them and others quiet, describing the lawsuit against them as an attempt “to keep the truth about their facility secret.”
The workers’ lawsuit also accuses Thayer of suing them “to hide from the appropriate authorities and parents the fact that … the usual methods used by (Thayer) did indeed and actually constitute child abuse.”
The case filed in Caldwell County Circuit Court names Thayer Learning Center and the facility’s owner, Willa Bundy, as defendants.
Bundy and an attorney for the center did not return phone calls Monday and Tuesday.
Allegations of child abuse at Thayer — about 50 miles northeast of Kansas City in Kidder — came to light after Roberto Reyes, 15, died in November 2004, less than two weeks after enrolling.
No charges were filed in connection with Roberto’s death, but the FBI recently conducted a preliminary investigation and sent its findings to the U.S. Department of Justice. Officials there are reviewing the case.
Thayer officials have said that allegations of abuse were “ludicrous and false.”
In its 2003 lawsuit, Thayer alleged that the workers made false statements to third parties about the center “physically abusing and harming its students” and accused them of violating written contracts by contacting parents, government agencies and law-enforcement officials to discuss specific students and school operations.
Those contacts, Thayer alleged, forced the school to “have to continually … deny these false allegations” and caused the loss of potential students. Thayer dropped its lawsuit last month.
In their lawsuit, the ex-employees said contractual agreements could not be used to prevent individuals from reporting abuse. They accuse Thayer of “covering up the fact that they had an unqualified and unsupervised staff engaging in child abuse.”
Phil Elberg, a New Jersey attorney representing the plaintiffs, alleged by phone that Thayer’s 2003 lawsuit “was clearly intended to scare people into shutting up.”
The plaintiffs did not specify a dollar amount but alleged that the center’s “outrageous” behavior “showed an evil motive” and therefore entitles them to exemplary damages in addition to actual damages, attorneys’ fees and “such other relief as the court deems just and proper.”
Elberg said the plaintiffs — Nanette Burge and Candessa Williams of Gallatin, Mo.; Linda Glenn and Janet Traylor of Hamilton, Mo., and Regina Burge of Jamesport, Mo. — would not comment.
A 2005 investigation by The Kansas City Star showed that, between April 2003 and October 2005, at least seven people reported more than a dozen allegations of child abuse at Thayer to the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office. A state investigative report obtained by The Star said “it appears that those responsible for the safety … of Roberto Reyes failed to recognize his medical distress and to provide access to appropriate medical evaluation and/or treatment.”
In a wrongful-death lawsuit filed in 2005, Roberto’s parents alleged that the teenager would have lived had he received competent medical care in a timely manner and that he was dragged, hit, placed in solitary confinement and “forced to lay in his own excrement for extended periods” of time.
In court filings, Thayer denied those and other allegations. The two sides settled in March 2006 for slightly more than $1 million.
To reach Steve Rock, call 816-234-4338 or send e-mail to [email protected].
First of all lawyers like to discuss anything and everything, ad nauseum. Secondly every lawyer I have ever known likes to sit down at the table eyeball to eyeball and have a discussion. They don’t freak out because someone at the table isn't wearing a name tag and then start talking out of the sides of their mouth. If he really is who he says he is then he is probably retired and has lost his edge. He could have sent an assistant to get the names of the outstanding studies.
Wow......you're even more of a prick than I originally thought. Phil is indeed an attorney and a damned good one at that. Take your foot out of your mouth long enough to realize that you are waaaaaayyyyyyy out of your league here. He asked for the "studies" that YOU were referring to and refused to supply. Why is that so difficult for you to do? Are you afraid it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny from a real attorney??
-
Wow......you're even more of a prick than I originally thought. Phil is indeed an attorney and a damned good one at that. Take your foot out of your mouth long enough to realize that you are waaaaaayyyyyyy out of your league here. He asked for the "studies" that YOU were referring to and refused to supply. Why is that so difficult for you to do? Are you afraid it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny from a real attorney??
Of course I know who he is. I have seen Mitt Romney posting on here also, Miller Newton and few dead guys. But my gut tells me that Mitt is a tad busy to be posting here .......... I know lawyers are typically direct with people. If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them. He wouldnt have pretended there was someone else in the room or maybe he would have sent his assistant.
...
-
If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them.
He did. And you still refused.
How 'bout this.....what if I ask you really, really nicely?
Dear Mr. Reuben:
You've previously written about and refer often to "studies" that have been done that prove the success and effectiveness of programs involved in the TTI (especially Aspen Ed). Please, oh pretty please with cherries on top will you most kindly post said so-called "study" that you keep referring to? Surely it can stand up to the scrutiny, right? And in case I truly did miss it, please direct me to the thread where it is so that I may read it for myself.
Point of clarification. I'm asking for the actual study, not someone's "opinion" or "approval" of it. The study itself please.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this most important matter. I remain
Sincerely,
Anne Bonney
P.S. Does your income depend on or benefit directly or indirectly on the TTI? And, please....none of the 'we all benefit from it in some ways if we have insurance' or some such shit. You know what I'm asking. You've demanded honesty from others here, I think it's time you "got honest" yourself. G'head....it'll take a load off.
-
By posting Whooter's allegedly real name, I'm sure he feels threatened by your outing of his true identity on a forum of extremists. I suggest Whooter print out this thread, and show it to at least, but not more than 2 lawyers for their review.
-
:feedtrolls:
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If he had wanted studies from "me" he would have asked "me" for them.
He did. And you still refused.
How 'bout this.....what if I ask you really, really nicely?
Dear Mr. Reuben:
You've previously written about and refer often to "studies" that have been done that prove the success and effectiveness of programs involved in the TTI (especially Aspen Ed). Please, oh pretty please with cherries on top will you most kindly post said so-called "study" that you keep referring to? Surely it can stand up to the scrutiny, right? And in case I truly did miss it, please direct me to the thread where it is so that I may read it for myself.
Point of clarification. I'm asking for the actual study, not someone's "opinion" or "approval" of it. The study itself please.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this most important matter. I remain
Sincerely,
Anne Bonney
P.S. Does your income depend on or benefit directly or indirectly on the TTI? And, please....none of the 'we all benefit from it in some ways if we have insurance' or some such shit. You know what I'm asking. You've demanded honesty from others here, I think it's time you "got honest" yourself. G'head....it'll take a load off.
First of all, Anne, The man never asked me for any studies, whoever he was.
secondly, if it upsets you that people are going to post your identity or find out where you live why do you take enjoyment out of trying to expose other peoples real names? If someone here found out where you lived wouldnt it bother you if your information were posted here like you seem to be trying to do?
...
-
I have seen Mitt Romney posting on here also...
Correction: You have posted as Mitt Romney here also. Shoot her straight at least. :beat:
And, yes, he did ask you repeatedly to post links to the studies instead of the reviews of the studies you kept posting. You couldn't deliver then, so you deny now.
-
It's interesting how obsessed Anne Bonney and Dysfunction Junction are with Whooter. I notice they troll Whooter endlessly and never appear satisfied with his answers, and then come back day after day in their vain attempt to prove Whooter wrong. You'd think that if you prove Whooter wrong, only once, you get a million dollar prize or something. The problem is they'll never be able to discredit someone who has such a simplistic position that their kid was helped in treatment, because this is common place. Welcome to the upside down world of fornits extremism.
-
I have seen Mitt Romney posting on here also...
Correction: You have posted as Mitt Romney here also. Shoot her straight at least. :beat:
And, yes, he did ask you repeatedly to post links to the studies instead of the reviews of the studies you kept posting. You couldn't deliver then, so you deny now.
You also said I was SUCK IT, Jamal, Queef...shall I continue?
If someone asks me for studies or any info I typically respond. Everyone knows I respond to almost any post.
Link? I didnt read anyone asking me for studies, DJ, where I didnt respond.
...
-
Link? I didnt read anyone asking me for studies, DJ, where I didnt respond.
Of course you responded with the same old links to summaries, which is exactly what you were asked not to do.
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Nope, I can see clearly you were never asked for a link to a study and not a link to a summary. ::)
Everyone knows I respond to almost any post.
Especially about the topics you know jack-shit about. Like I have said before, you respond to every post because you have a compulsion to get the last word. You'll stay up day and night, logging in and out with various usernames just to respond with drivel.
10...9....8...compulsive response coming in...7....6.... :beat:
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Link? I didnt read anyone asking me for studies, DJ, where I didnt respond.[/i]
Of course you responded with the same old links to summaries, which is exactly what you were asked not to do.
Dear the prior poster
Can you provide a link to the actual study you are referring to rather than hyperlinks to summaries of the studies prepared by a business trying to use the study to increase their business. Thanks
Nope, I can see clearly you were never asked for a link to a study and not a link to a summary. ::)
Everyone knows I respond to almost any post.
Especially about the topics you know jack-shit about. Like I have said before, you respond to every post because you have a compulsion to get the last word. You'll stay up day and night, logging in and out with various usernames just to respond with drivel.
10...9....8...compulsive response coming in...7....6.... :beat:
So I expose the fact that you cannot provide a link to the previous post and you resort to your usual personal attacks and get mad. Boo Hoo, DJ.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Everyone knows I respond to almost any post.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684&p=368965#p368965 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684&p=368965#p368965)
Whooter, you are posting everywhere but here. I’m wondering if it is because you are finding yourself in a bind interacting with me under my demand that you grow your self esteem?, Although this certainly is not a double bind, as it is in programs for troubled teens.
Link? I didnt read anyone asking me for studies, DJ, where I didnt respond.
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&hilit=pelberglaw&start=165 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&hilit=pelberglaw&start=165)
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
-
Whooter, Awake has also been asking for your participation in this thread....
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423)
-
Everyone knows I respond to almost any post.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684&p=368965#p368965 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30684&p=368965#p368965)
Whooter, you are posting everywhere but here. I’m wondering if it is because you are finding yourself in a bind interacting with me under my demand that you grow your self esteem?, Although this certainly is not a double bind, as it is in programs for troubled teens.
Link? I didnt read anyone asking me for studies, DJ, where I didnt respond.
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&hilit=pelberglaw&start=165 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&hilit=pelberglaw&start=165)
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
As far as awake goes, I am aware that I missed our fornits therapy session. I am having a stressful week.
...
-
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
He referred to you as anonymous because he's pretty sure your real name isn't Whooter.
As far as awake goes, I am aware that I missed our fornits therapy session. I am having a stressful week.
I bet you are! :rofl: You've been getting slammed left and right lately! :beat: :beat:
It's awfully convenient that you don't have the time for discussions that you know you can't win. Why don't you try and make some time for her. She's been pretty patient and respectful towards you and has been genuinely seeking your thoughts on the subject.
-
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
He referred to you as anonymous because he's pretty sure your real name isn't Whooter.
Well it could have been you then he was asking for, your name isnt really Anne Bonney. No one has ever called me anonymous before, how would I know?
...
-
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
He referred to you as anonymous because he's pretty sure your real name isn't Whooter.
Well it could have been you then he was asking for, your name isnt really Anne Bonney. No one has ever called me anonymous before, how would I know?
How would you know? :D
Nobody else linked to a study, not in that thread, nor any other, for at least a few weeks prior to and after that post was made. But you brought one up.
Nobody else brought up the alleged one year followup to that study, but you did. When he asked about the one-year followup that you brought up, gee, why would you think he was addressing "someone else?"
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
[/list]
-
You're looking for sympathy in the wrong place, DJ.
Oh, cry me a river, DJ.
I am having a stressful week.
:roflmao: Tough shit.
-
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
He referred to you as anonymous because he's pretty sure your real name isn't Whooter.
Well it could have been you then he was asking for, your name isnt really Anne Bonney. No one has ever called me anonymous before, how would I know?
How would you know? :D
Nobody else linked to a study, not in that thread, nor any other, for at least a few weeks prior to and after that post was made. But you brought one up.
Nobody else brought up the alleged one year followup to that study, but you did. When he asked about the one-year followup that you brought up, gee, why would you think he was addressing "someone else?"
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
[/list]
It's called "evasion," Ursus. Whooter strictly avoids things as long as he can and when he can no longer avoid them he withdraws or rat packs the other poster with a dozen sockpuppets.
He knows full well there is no one year follow-up so he ran away. It's what he always does.
-
It's called "evasion," Ursus. Whooter strictly avoids things as long as he can and when he can no longer avoid them he withdraws or rat packs the other poster with a dozen sockpuppets.
He knows full well there is no one year follow-up so he ran away. It's what he always does.
:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
I didnt think I was loosing my mind. pelberlaw was asking anonymous, not me. Most people here know if I am asked a question I typically respond.
He referred to you as anonymous because he's pretty sure your real name isn't Whooter.
Well it could have been you then he was asking for, your name isnt really Anne Bonney. No one has ever called me anonymous before, how would I know?
How would you know? :D
Nobody else linked to a study, not in that thread, nor any other, for at least a few weeks prior to and after that post was made. But you brought one up.
Nobody else brought up the alleged one year followup to that study, but you did. When he asked about the one-year followup that you brought up, gee, why would you think he was addressing "someone else?"
dear anonymous
I have seen and read the study you linked to. Stripped of its wrapping it compares how parents see their kids and kids see themselves on the day they are sent into a program and the day they leave. That kind of survey, even if dressed up with scientific language and statistics to make it look serious, is not worthy of discussion. I thought from your earlier post that there was a one year follow up. Has that been published? Is that true? Where can I find it? Thanks
[/list]
It's called "evasion," Ursus. Whooter strictly avoids things as long as he can and when he can no longer avoid them he withdraws or rat packs the other poster with a dozen sockpuppets.
He knows full well there is no one year follow-up so he ran away. It's what he always does.
Ha,Ha,Ha Sorry DJ, but you got fooled again. You should slow down and read. That post was directed at "anonymous"... not "Whooter"!! lol
...
-
Dear anonymous, The last statement you made wasn't very clear to me. Was this based on personal knowledge or do you have a link that we can all read to. Thanks I appreciate the feedback.
...
-
.....
-
Before you start your explanation, I hope you consider refraining from using the term "brainwashing", since this is not accurate.
If 1,000 kids say a program is just fine, and 4 kids complain that it was abusive, what would you believe? That is the choice parents have today and why the 'anti program movement' is nothing more than a few websites and the crazy people who run them.
These programs are all about making money; profit is the only reason the troubled teen industry exists. Where else but the troubled teen industry can a LCSW or marriage and family counselor make $1 million a year or more? For the most part, the people in the troubled teen industry are not 'evil' people. The abuses in the troubled teen industry occur because the operators want to maximize their profits, not because they intend on abusing the children. Unfortunately, abuse is a natural result of maximizing profits.
Brainwashing is an accurate term for what the trouble teen industry does. Brainwashing is a technique developed during the Korean war to reduce the cost of warehousing prisoners. That is the same reason why the troubled teen industry uses Brainwashing techniques so much. Maximizing profits means keeping costs of storing the kids low. Fewer guards means lower cost. If you take the time to study brainwashing techniques, then go observe a troubled teen program, you can check off the methods in use one by one.
The dirty secret behind the troubled teen industry is that most of the problems they claim to treat will resolve on their own as children mature. Families often encounter relationship problems when children are 13 to 18 years old. For most families, those relationship issues resolve by themselves. Time is what helps the kids, not the troubled teen industry. The troubled teen industry knows this and depends on it. They do their dog and pony show for the parents, and then wait for time to work its magic.
The troubled teen industry understands that kids get better from maturity not therapy, and as a result, the primary goal of the troubled teen industry is not therapy, but to warehouse children at the lowest cost/greatest profit while waiting for the kids to mature and their problems to resolve. Brainwashing kids is a very effective way to reduce the cost of confining kids. Try to find a troubled teen facility that does not use Brainwashing. Betcha can't.
Admittedly, brainwashing is rarely permanent. For most kids, they recover from its affects within a few years after they are removed from them. Unfortunately, that is not true for all kids. Some have lasting injury. The troubled teen industry knows this and does not care. Profit is more important than the damage done to the small number of kids.
Of course, resolution of behavioral problems by maturation presents a fatal flaw with any study claiming that the troubled teen industry actually helps kids. No study conducted to date accounts for normal maturation or differentiates it from any so-called therapeutic intervention. The studies identify that kids are better after they have matured and claims that is a result of 'therapy.' It is all snake oil.
-
The question is when abuse is administered and sugar-coated as therapy,it's a crime.In October,1977,60 or 70 1st and 2nd phasers in Straight were forced to endure 15 hours without using the bathroom.What therapeutic purpose could that serve?It was a torment(torture)administered by some unqualified 18 year old staff members for probably their own kicks.If a child is at risk,one needs to see the credentials of all clinical staff before trusting their child's well-being to them.Who in the hell are the Lichfield brothers and how could anybody allow those people to sequester their teens,even their misbehaving ones,to people like these,especially on foreign soil where a lot more can happen?For me,that's grounds for looking into Baker Acting a parent.
-
I agree that programs are not effective with all children.
The sad part is that you imply that the troubled teen programs are effective with any children. There is no proof that they are. Logic says that they cannot be.
Legitimate psychologists, i.e. those that are not sock puppets for the troubled teen industry, acknowledge that the types of behavioral problems for which teens are sent to troubled teen programs are the kind that naturally resolve as children mature. The troubled teen program therapists know this. They realize that the therapy they provide is snake oil. The real medicine is time. The troubled teen industry merely warehouses kids and waits for them to mature. The so called 'therapy' is merely marketing and advertising to the parents.
The troubled teen industry is merely a cash for kids. Corporate greed in its worst form.
-
I agree that programs are not effective with all children.
The sad part is that you imply that the troubled teen programs are effective with any children.
Not so. I have never implied any such thing.
Nor have I ever posted ... any such thing.
Nor would I ever post ... any such thing.
Fwiw, the quote you attribute to me, was actually posted by Whooter ... right HERE (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&p=357344#p357344) (begin of his last paragraph).
Just wanted to make sure I cleared up any misconceptions, in case there were any. I certainly wouldn't want to deny anyone credit, especially where credit is so clearly due! :D
-
Reading The Tico Times(The local English weekly)coverage of the the Dundee Ranch and Teen Mentor closings,a former 14 year old Dundee Ranch internee stated in 2003,insanely enough,that she didn't mind the PTSD because of all the benefits reaped from her stay there.Needless to say ,her saying she didn't "mind" having PTSD spoke volumes for her state of mind at the time and nailed the Dundee Ranch's coffin better than anything I could say.I would love to interview that 23 year old woman who was 14 at that time and see if she would like to revise that statement.We all know that answer.It's sort of like saying I don't mind having HIV(I don't have HIV for the record)because the encounter was so fantastic.Insanity breeding insanity,the cycle needs to end.Some teens do need an intervention because they are becoming real(not imagined)dangers to themselves.Real therapy is not wholesale and does not come cheap.The parents need to be sure the clinicians have the qualifications to trust their children with.Those people aren't easy to find and they don't have the last name Lichfield.
-
I think this fact is similar to kids growing being appreciative of their strict parents. Parents who do not discipline their children when they are doing something wrong are not resembling the real world. Parents who reward their kids when they are behaving badly do not resemble the world. The kids are in for a rude awakening when they hit the real world with this type of upbringing. I think very strict boarding schools give kids this discipline and they realize its value later in life. What has anyone heard about the chrysalis school montana (http://http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chrysalis/120062294679207)?