Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - psy

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 368
Web forum hosting / Re: Ursus?
« on: July 21, 2013, 09:44:51 AM »
Quote from: "Bud Greenberg"
Further evidence that the crazies are running the asylum. You've banned the person who started this thread. When logic fails,simply silence the opposition. Just like you learned in the program. This site has become just another click. Psy I see where you sided with drunken children,rather than agree with someone you don't like. You were still administrator here while Joel was moderator. And you did nothing while he and his brother posted disgusting porn,and threatened everybody. Are you sure you three aren't dating?

1. none-ya has started fights with nearly everybody in ever single thread he has posted in.  It's not just one event.
2. most of the porn, believe it or not, was not posted by Gatekeeper or his brother, and none of it during Gatekeeper's tenure as a moderator.
3. during the time the porn was posted, the forum was not moderated.  I did not make the rules back then, except for a short period after which Ginger decided the forum would no longer be moderated at all.

Web forum hosting / Re: Ursus?
« on: July 20, 2013, 05:39:11 PM »
Quote from: "none-ya"
Judge Joe Blow wrote;
When I was global moderator formerly "The gatekeeper"

Yeah we remember. That's when everything started going to complete shit. Why you were never banned is beyond me. It's taken this long to start to recover from your folly. As far as I'm concerned the best thing you ever did for this site was to go away.
That's my opinion.
Have a nice day.
None-ya. You've been repeatedly warned, but calling other members names such as "joe blow", even if there were worse thing, is just the last straw.  It doesn't seem like you can get along with anybody on this site and so I'm banning you for a week.  You can disagree, but the decision is made. Please, when you return, perhaps you can focus more on talking about, say, the program or your experiences -- and spend less time arguing or attacking others.

Web forum hosting / Re: Ursus?
« on: July 20, 2013, 05:34:45 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
since PMing one of his many aliases did constitute a communication I accepted the banning and did post after that date until now that it has changed hands.

It was a long time ago but I think we were able to establish that you knew the alternate account was DJ when you PMed him, and that was the deciding factor.

In any case, most of this is off-topic.  Please keep the topic to Ursus.  To let everybody know, Ursus is not dead.  I've heard indirectly from Ursus that he/she is just lying low for a while.  Everybody is entitled to a break anyway, especially after the phenomenal yet thankless job he/she did.  The bear will be missed, but more than welcome back if/when he/she decides to return.

When your parents took you to school, Whooter, did they use handcuffs and pepper spray?  If a cop comes across a bunch of guys hauling a bound and screaming kid in the back of their vehicle, you really think nothing is going to happen.  Permission or not, I'm not sure everything they do is legal, and because most people, even cops, are not aware these things take place, it's very likely they would at least be detained and inquiries made.  Prosecution?  Who knows.  Probably not, but if it did it might at least test the law on theses issues.  If it didn't, it would at least cause problems for the transporters.  Of course the real problem here is that kids probably think what the transporters are doing is completely legal when in fact this has never really been tested.  They're taking a kid against his/her will across state lines and that would make it a federal issue if i'm not mistaken.  I'm hardly a fan of the federal government getting involved, but if transporters were ever arrested, I do hope whoever's justice department insists on prosecution to try and set a precedent.

It wouldn't stop parents sending kids to programs. They would just use the tried and true tactic of trickery instead ("we're going on vacation to...  Happy Fun Land in Utah!"), but at least the kids wouldn't be traumatized and humiliated by the transportation experience and the parents would have to actually put up the balls to do the deed themselves (which is a lot of why parents hire these goons).

Quote from: "Troubled-Teens"
This is a lawsuit in which modern day slave capturers slash slave shippers are challenged on their presumption to the right of human bondage.
Just a small note on Caica: Isabelle Zehnder of CAICA has been known to refer to Ed-con Sue Scheff who in turn refers to facilities where there have been deaths (eg. Red Rock Canyon) and documented abuse (Whitmore Academy).  You can read more on here.  There used to be a warning on isaccorp but now that it is defunct, there isn't as much information as there was in the past.  Whether Isabelle/CAICA still referrs, I do not know, but she has in the past and as such one should be careful when referring parents to her, even indirectly.

It does seem CAICA now lists whitmore:
Though Sue Scheff still defends it despite the GAO's findings:

So Isabelle now condemn a program she once endorsed (she defended it quite emphatically).  It's good to know she now agrees referrals are a bad idea, but i wouldn't exactly trust her to keep to that as far as I could throw her (which isn't very far).  I wonder if she has apologized to the kids who were abused at Whitmore.

Quote from: "kakasaka101"
My first question is Why is it legal. This is parental rights abuse at it's worst. If a parent can not hire someone to rape and kill their children, than what makes hired kidnapping different? I asked people about this and they said that it's not kidnapping because of the parents consent to have these thugs remove their children. That is kidnapping in my book because the kid is taken by surprise by strangers and has no idea where they're being taken. Is there a SCOTUS ruling regarding this?

Sorry but I blame weak child protection laws in this country and state governments labeling kids as their parents property.

To answer your question, It's probably not legally kidnapping, but this has never been tried in court to my knowledge. I would love to hear a kid break a car windows and scream "i'm being kidnapped" and have the cops arrest and try the escorts, but most kids are in shock while something like this is going on and I'd wager they escorts would probably never be prosecuted anyway. It's one of those grey areas.

Aspen Education Group / Re: 5 Aspen programs closes
« on: July 16, 2013, 12:21:02 PM »
Danny. I don't think it's fair for you to speak for others and berate their experiences just because you believe your program to be "worse".  There are certainly enough bad stories about, say, ASR, to go around.  Also, just to correct a factual error: Apple did quite well despite the economy.  Like I said, I think the closure was a result of both people speaking out and the economy.

The guy makes valid points, but people are too emotional to think rationally about this. Here is a lawyer's analysis.  IMO, the verdict was the right one.

First, let us agree that our personal opinions do not matter. Only the LETTER OF THE LAW matters, and the EVIDENCE matters.

1) The law states that on public property he had the legal right to follow Trayvon as he was on public property (plus the 9/11 operator asked which way he went).

2) According to the self defense laws in their state, the circumstances leading up to the attack are irrelevant- all that matters is 1) whether or not Zimmerman felt he was in danger of great bodily harm or death, and 2) whether Zimmerman had done anything illegal to provoke the assault. He had done nothing illegal.

3) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove without a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's life was NOT in danger when he shot Trayvon. Zimmerman is to be presumed innocent, unless it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that he killed Trayvon WITHOUT fear.

4) The forensic expert, the only eyewitness, Zimmerman's injuries, and the way Trayvon was shot all prove that Trayvon WAS in fact, beating Zimmerman, on top of him, MMA style ground and pound, and there was a witness saying Zimmerman was screaming for help, along with the fact that people who examined both bodies stated matter of factly that Trayvon (6'3, buff) was in much better shape than Zimmerman.

5) There is recordings that show that trayvon did not stop beating Zimmerman, even when Zimmerman screamed for his life (like a little girl, sadly enough) and Trayvon had clearly won the fight. This wasnt a case of "throw a couple punches". Zimmerman was nearing unconsciousness, his head was getting beat into the pavement, and he was worried for his life- or at least I would be. I know I would. I know any person would.

6) Trayvon threw the first punch, knocked Zimmerman down, and beat on him, and the only evidence has proven this. Zimmerman should NOT be in jail because legally, every single piece of evidence points to his acquittal as not guilty. It is impossible to prove that Zimmerman did not feel his life or great bodily harm was in danger, considering he was getting his faced bashed into the concrete by a racist kid who called him "creepy *** cracker".

It does not matter if Zimmerman was "prejudiced" or not (even though Trayvon was the one who made racial slurs and had the violent racial anger); it does NOT MATTER who stalked who, because it was on public property and was LEGAL according to the law; it does not matter how old Trayvon was, but also Trayvon was 17 and he was a buff 6'3 football player anyway, way taller bigger stronger and more muscular, with better cardio and fight skills, than zimmerman; it does not matter whether you personally think little Trayvon was cute in his picture; it does not matter if you seethe with self loathing anger at the sight of Zimmerman, an upstanding citizen, trying to protect his community.

The only thing that matters are the facts, and the facts prove him Not Guilty because there is clearly a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman may have been fearing for his life or great bodily harm. In fact, its almost PROVEN that zimmerman feared for his life/great bodily harm. Forget a reasonable doubt! This case is LITERALLY OPEN AND SHUT for anybody with a brain who looks at it honestly and objectively.

Zimmerman should never have been prosecuted for political purposes and it sickens me that people are attempting to play politics with Trayvon's death.  So far as I can tell, Zimmerman was not a racist, so that is not at issue.  Nor is the "stand your ground" statute, as it wasn't even used in this case.  It's not about gun control either.  Those trying to pretend it's about any of these things are either using others, or are being used.

Aspen Education Group / Re: 5 Aspen programs closes
« on: July 14, 2013, 09:21:28 AM »
Sadly, I think Whooter and none-ya actually do have valid points.  I think the economy probably has been the primary factor for a lot of these programs closing.  That doesn't mean that exposing them hasn't helped.  It just means that it hasn't been the only reason programs have been shutting down.

Hah!  I never liked Croke.  I expect referrals to Benchmark will be slowing down as a result of this.  I know he referred quite a few people there.  It's a pity he only got probation, though.

Tacitus' Realm / Re: E-book: Janice's journey
« on: June 21, 2013, 01:20:20 PM »
Quote from: "none-ya"
"Drink responsibly?" That's an oxymoronic slogan brought to you the alcohol companies. If people drank only until their blood alcohol level was .08 or less, Those companies would go out of business.  And if someone drinks every day, the body grows dependent on it. That's the definition of addiction. Culture has nothing to do with it. Simply biology.  Tell me Psy, have you ever tried to learn something while drunk?

I very rarely get drunk, so I can't say I've ever tried.  I don't think you're getting the point, though. The point in Europe is not to get drunk, but to get a bit "buzzed" for lack of a better term, in order to facilitate socialization and discussion in such, not to play drinking games until you pass out.  Different countries have differing norms as to what this level of lubrication is. In France a half bottle of wine (often ordered in a pitcher), with a meal between two people, is considered normal (if not an entire bottle).    In business meetings in France, you drink.  It's just a thing that happens in the culture.  There is even a wine drinking holiday where just about everybody gets trashed on cheap red wine known as "Beaujolais nouveau" (though the French generally do not readily admit to outsiders they participate in this holiday, or that they would drink such swill).

In Germany, Demmark, Ireland, and elsewhere, the level of acceptable "lubrication" is likely a bit higher.  Are people dependent?  No. Not everybody drinks every day and even those who do don't necessarily develop alcohol dependence.  Having a glass of wine with dinner, even every day, is not a sign of being a drunk in Europe, nor is having a beer with lunch.  It's not enough to cause alcohol withdrawal so no, it's not "simple biology".  It is culture, and because fewer people are dependent on cars to get around, it's much safer than in the states.

Beer served in high school? Only the devil's advocate can defend that position. Just because a culture is older,doesn't make it better.

If their culture involved stoning women to death, I might agree with you, but I don't see this as better or worse than US culture.  So they choose to drink. Big deal.  So their culture even considers getting drunk and socializing with friends to be OK. My god, the horror.  I agree alcohol has it's dangers, but a lot of those dangers are compounded by societal condemnation.  Where there is no societal condemnation, there is no problem.

Tacitus' Realm / Re: E-book: Janice's journey
« on: June 21, 2013, 07:47:58 AM »
None-ya. It's precisely the European attitude towards drinking that prevents overreactions that land kids in programs.  Also by teaching kids to drink responsibly as they grow up, they don't binge and behave irresponsibly as they often do on reaching college in the states.  If you make something taboo, or imply it's associated only with "grown-ups" you make it desirable, and without instruction on responsibility, that's dangerous.  Alcohol dependence, when it happens, is generally treated as a medical problem by medical professionals, and not by a bunch of religious fruitcakes taking instruction from a guy who thought he saw god nearly a century ago while he was tripping balls on Belladonna.  I think Europe has exactly the right idea.

As to the whole deal with reporting people who act "un-danish".  I might not agree with that completely, but I can see where they're coming from.  Europe is not like the States.  In the States the general policy towards immigrants is "you're all welcome, come bring your culture to the melting pot".  In Europe, you're expected to assimilate into the native culture and failure to do so is...  Well it's frowned upon.  We're talking about small countries like Denmark where a flood of immigration from another culture could easily replace the native one.  They don't want that, so they do their best to pass laws or whatever to make sure the people behave in a manner that's consistent with the local culture.  In France, the state funds and supports French musicians and culture and so forth in an effort to stave off Hollywood.  It doesn't really work, but they try.  I'm not sure the Denmark thing will work either.  If they're trying to weed out terrorists by those who don't drink...  it sounds like a good idea on paper, but fundamentalist Muslims intent of martyrdom are not above having a drink to throw the authorities off their scent.

CAN ~ Collective Action Network / Re: Human Rights Organizations
« on: June 20, 2013, 12:25:11 PM »
I don't think any are.

Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Re: We need a new thread
« on: June 20, 2013, 12:24:27 PM »
A lot of people left over the past few years but i'm hoping a few may return.  What makes you say you might hurt feelings?

It was very good, but if anybody was expecting something sensational, it wasn't that.  It told things like they happened and let the reader decide whether they were over the line or not. I think that's a much better approach than trying to convince a person to view something in a certain way.  Just present the facts, and let them stand for themselves.  The author did a very good job of that.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 368