Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones => Topic started by: Deborah on July 25, 2004, 08:40:00 PM
-
Ottawa5,
You have divulged that you went to Catholic school and attended a ?very correct and grammar-driven school?; that you come from a family or attorneys and that you are a graduate student in a psych program. These are very extremely control based environments and ideologies. Catholics and psychologist/psychiatrists certainly have a history of ?helping? but many times not having a clue how to genuinely help. Good intentions, bad theories and methodology.
And you want to open your own school but avoid the problems inherent in them. It would matter not, if you figured out the very best method of helping teens who are not yet at peace- you could never adequately train your staff to implement the program exactly as you intend to be, because your staff will be running everything trough their own filters. Your staff will not have the life experience you have had which brought you to understand that modeling real love- respect for self and others- is the only way to reach in (or out) to someone who has been hurt by disrespect.
It isn?t complicated at all. Doesn?t require a degree. Doesn?t require incarceration or psych drugs. Just empathy and a deep desire to want to help that person overcome the hurt they have endured and/or confusion about themselves and the world that may have resulted from being treated in a disrespectful way. Which, I don?t perceive you as possessing. It?s what people used to do, and still attempt to do, in spite of our isolated lives. It?s what we do with our best friends who have the presence of mind to not give advice, but simply listen attentively. One only has to know that if someone is not at peace, they have been hurt in some way (the majority of us, to varying degrees, including yourself). Then, if you so desire to be of assistance to that person, the only role you should take is one of helping them rediscover their self-worth and respect by continuously reinforcing the truth (contradicting the wrong messages and confusion) about themselves and their true human nature. Confrontation is not at all necessary and too often used by the ?helper? as an opportunity to vent their own frustrations. When this is the case, it is far from helpful, and detrimental to the ?client?.
I have noticed that many ex-participants of the CEDU method have told you what ?didn?t work?. That IS what you claim to be here to find out. Given your reaction to feedback from people who had negative experiences, I am led to imagine that what you?re really here to do is to open the venue for more ?success? stories to be shared. I imagine you will assume I?m paranoid. If that is the case, let me assure you I?m not. I despise psych labels, so don?t use them with me. This industry has hurt many people, despite your positive experience. It has bred, not paranoia, but skepticism in many. Their/our skepticism is justified. Labeling it paranoia is disrespectful and minimizes the blatant disrespect some of us endure in our dealings with certain ego maniacs who sought to help us or a family member.
Also, what I observe is that you always come back with a lukewarm, but somewhat defensive comment. ?Sorry that happened to you (if it really did) but it didn?t happen to my son, abuse/coercion is a matter of opinion, etc. etc..? Your comments, whether intentional or not, minimize others experiences, in my opinion. I don?t observe any empathy, just cold, scientific, clinical responses. If you ever hope to help anyone, you would do well to develop empathy and the ability to illicit less defensiveness in your ?clients?, and try to free yourself of the erroneous assumption of being able to ?fix? anyone. Hint- Explore your catholic and traditional roots. Matter of fact, you?d do well to stop referring to people you?re helping as ?clients? or ?patients?, but instead fellow human beings who are entrusting you to help them sort out a problem. A hierarchical relationship is not necessary. There is always a conflict of interest when someone is paying another for ?help?. It puts unnecessary pressure on the ?helper? to be the all-knowing expert, when in fact, they do not have to have all the answers, just an ability to listen attentively, point out discrepancies, and ask leading questions to help the other person arrive at THEIR OWN conclusions.
If you can?t do that with the people on this forum, how might you be successful with so-called ?defiant? teens, unless of course, you adopt the coercive methods that all programs employ. Due to the nature and set-up, it is the only way they can be ?successful? by any definition of the word. These articles should give you some insight and understanding as to why incarcerating youth in residential programs is not helpful. If the links don?t work, let me know and I?ll post the article from my files.
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.html (http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.html)
http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.html (http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.html)
http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml (http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml)
You said, ?And if I lived in a country where, say, marijuana was legal, and if AN ADULT CHILD OF MINE occasionally used it, without obsessive dependence on it or interference with living a full life, it would not be a great issue with me--although my own perspective is that there are better ways to feel good than dabbling in this kind of thing.?
This sounds controlling to me. If I were your ADULT offspring and was smoking pot LEGALLY on a REGULAR basis, and knowing how you felt, I?m certain I wouldn?t tell you. And we would not have an authentic relationship, because I would have to keep hidden those things you didn?t agree with. I certainly wouldn?t want to be subject to your definitions of ?obsessive dependence? or ?full life? as an adult. And as a minor, the latter could quiet conceivably drive me to the former.
And this condescending remark, which really led me to question you motive and intent: ?Somehow, perhaps it was instinct, I knew implicitly that I had a responsibility to act in my child's best interest--I am well AWARE THERE ARE SOME PARENTS WHO DO NOT SEEM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A CHILD AND PARENT--I only know that I could never be SO UNINVOLVED OR UNINFORMED OR LAZY OR WHATEVER MAKES THEM LIKE THAT. I AM JUST GLAD I KNEW WHAT HAD TO BE DONE. AND DID IT.
?Oh my pie?, as my niece would say. For all intents and purposes, you are suggesting that a responsible parent is one who can recognize that their ?struggling teen? needs to be placed in a program. Are you paid for referrals, btw? Perhaps we can chat sometimes of how successful a parent can be if they give up their outside interests and focus on straightening out their relationships with their teen. There are many other options available that you simply haven?t imagined yet. And I must ask how sending your teen to strangers constitutes involvement? While I agree there is too much genuine ignorance in the world, to call a parent lazy is not very professional of you. Would you please provide your definition of that word, because personally I think it should be stricken from the English language. And a personal note to you- I?m guessing this comes from the catholic/traditional values that were instilled in you.
Regarding confrontational therapy. I attended an 8-day workshop in Ca a few years ago. The leader, I discovered later, was of the est ilk?VERY confrontational. One of the exercises was to get naked and tell your sexual history in front of the 16 participants while being videoed. Despite the fact that I had made an upfront agreement to the leader to cooperate with his directions, I refused to take part because in the days leading up to the exercise it became increasingly clear to me that he had not done his own work around these issues and that he was a raging sexist, and possibly had his own agenda.
Given that, I also understand where he wanted people to go with this, and I do believe there is some value in being able to speak about one?s past sexual experiences, even publicly, without shame or guilt. The method employed was all wrong. What I observed was competition to have the coolest stories, exaggerations, stories designed to please or seduce the leader, etc. Many have described it to feel contrived, because the discussion was forced and unnatural.
My son?s experience with reals and/or raps (can?t remember which) was the same. I?ll have to ask him if he was ever required to divulge his sexual history.
I also see benefit in telling your painful stories in a group setting. Not a confrontational group, but in a group of supportive peers. In such a group, other participants would not be allowed to comment, harangue or otherwise disrespect the speaker. It would not be a chaotic, free-for-all. The listener would receive feed-back from others only if s/he so desired. The healing comes from being HEARD without judgment. People sharing their painful experiences to a group is often cathartic, creating some healing in others, just simply by hearing another?s story. This should never, never, never be forced, under any circumstances. Period.
As for adult role models sharing their sexual experiences with teens; I also do not see anything wrong with this if the intention is appropriate and it?s done in a thoughtful way. From what I have read about it here, it was not. When peers are sharing in a group, it is comforting to hear other?s stories which, as I said, can give others ?permission? (safety) to share their own, IF THEY SO DESIRE. That is the key. Allowing them to share, if and when, they choose to do so. How it appears to me, is that the adult role models at CEDU had a covert agenda to have the teens divulge things that would be used against them over and over, to ?prove? they needed the ?help? the facility offered. That is unethical, in my opinion.
Regarding the adult male ?client? you referred to who desired to know details of your life. I would think that a person who has lost all trust, who is practically debilitated with confusion to the point of delusions, etc; could benefit from some real dialogue. Unfortunately, the ?professional paid helper? must abide by certain ethics which do not allow for such realness. Because speaking about family-of-origin dysfunctions is sooo taboo, I think people have a real need to hear that they are not unique or different in this regard- Given the human condition, we all experienced some form of dysfunction (I prefer disrespect) in our homes. Sometimes reassurance of this fact alone, can be healing.
You made this comment, ?If the claims made by anonymous or even named posters seem really unlikely to you (for example, the whole governmental apparatus of a certain state is covering up a particular school's abuses)?? If you do not know that this not often the case, you have not done your research or are choosing to ignore the facts. Law enforcement and other government agencies love these programs. Licensing department advertise them on their websites. That is a fact, and one can not necessarily trust the local or state authorities to act with integrity in such matters.
You made this snippy remark: ?Key de-programming concept for recovering socialists: money is good, and wonderful things can be done with, especially when it is given freely, in the pursuit of a dream (as opposed to being extracted from its rightful owner by some blood-sucking government for someone else's idea of a "just" purpose).?
I do not believe socialist believe money is bad, and would respond by saying that the key de-programming concept for recovering capitalist is: Share the wealth- don?t let another child go to bed hungry or live without the basic necessities of life. Notice that the wealth you have amassed, you did not earn. Notice that your greed is disrespectful of yourself and others and stems from a deep fear and need to control. Notice that due to your greed, the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world had dropped to #6 in terms of quality of life.
We have no perfect model of government, past or present. And if you do not believe that government is channeling billions of dollars into pharmaceutical companies, you?re wrong. And with Bushs? new initiative to have all US citizens screened for so-called mental illness, he will be channeling even more money their way.
I wonder if it?s ever occurred to you- in your quest to understand why a programs might appear to work for one and not another- that it may be easier to brainwash (condition) someone who is already half-way there? A person who is already conditioned to a large degree, to defer to authority, to pursue the path that the dominant culture and/or family defines as success (education, professional career, etc). That could very well explain at least some of the apparent ?successes?
In one post, regarding brainwashing, your wrote: . Not much risk, fortunately, my PERSONALITY IS SUCH THAT PEOPLE I KNOW LAUGH WHEN I TELL THEM THAT CERTAIN POSTERS AT THIS SITE THINK THAT CEDU COULD HAVE BRAIN-WASHED ME!
And in another you wrote: There was a time when I would have been absolutely terrified to disagree with someone like you who comes on so strong. I would have been terrified, even of writing, in this pretty private way. MY "PARENT WORKSHOPS" WORK WAS WHEN THAT CHANGED THAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I WAS BULLIED BY SOMEONE??
Pardon me, if I?ve misperceive, but that sounds like a contradiction, and that you give credit to the workshop, not your personality, for your security and being resistant to brainwashing. I really dislike that word, and sometimes wish that advocates and survivors would come up with a more accurate term. It?s so loaded and easily arguable, even though it is quiet accurate technically speaking.
Well that will have to be it. My grandson just arrive to tell me about his camp experience.
:smile:
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-07-25 21:43 ]
-
Well, I will have to look into this very long post at some time later, just checking now when the rest of the family is occupied.
I don't really know you, I don't think, but are you the mother who's child was sent to a school against her will (I don't know if it was a custody thing or what, or maybe I am thinking of something else.). You aren't the one who won't feel she's done her job until she convinces her child that he really did have a bad experience, are you? I've looked at so many posts here, I may be confusing you with someone else.
Very, very long; you seem to have spent almost the day sifting through my posts, I don't know whether to be honored or alarmed--just glancing at your comments, I have a sense that some of your remarks are a bit simplistic, but I haven't read your very elaborate treatise in enough detail to know if you are trying to be helpful or looking for evidence to support some big theory about me that has occurred to you.
But as I say the family is here, and I have practicum tomorrow, so I will have to check in later in the week, if I have any questions/comments.
-
Thank you Deborah for your post.
Ottawa:
I have had a great deal of difficulty with your posts (even though I recognize you have the right to your opinion).... It seems you totally gloss over the very real negatively coercive, inappropriate, unhealthy aspects of CEDU. The thing that was most troubling was your clinical perspective (although no real clinician that I know would ever endorse this nuthouse.) Also, troubling is your seeming disbelief about the more outrageous incidences, which is insulting to us all who have had that experience.
You must think that everyone here is a total BSer because I don't know a single REAL parent who would have all this info and just discard it.
Ottawa,Deborah did spend time on the post but for the right reason; I truly question yours. Although there are a lot of interesting theories out there...
--Shanlea
-
Well, here I was about to check Deborah's enormous work of this afternoon and I run into you!
I observe that you have seen fit to remind me that this Deborah person spent time on her lengthy (almost comically lengthy) message, but as you assure me, it was for "the right reason" (merit points for good intentions, sort of?).
What, pray, is the "right reason"? Could it be that you have fallen into the trap of assuming, without thinking about it fully, that anyone who agrees with you is "right"? Again, I haven't had time to read her stuff carefully, but my impression is that a lot of it is sort of antiquated, non-critical "flower-child" babble, this is just from a scan of the post, it is possible that I will find true gems of wisdom hidden in the clutter.
You also mention that you question my reasons---again? I must say it sounds as if you just don't like my reasons, rather than being in the process of honestly questioning them. I don't know what else to tell you, I have been as forthcoming as I can be.
If, as you say, my "clinical" perspective is troubling to you, I wonder why that would be? After all, I am not here for some kind of encounter group or to offer therapy, that is decidedly not my role here, I am looking for information (although I think that the Deborah post referred to the possibility of some other devious motive of mine to bring like-minded posters to the site, something that isn't even on my radar screen but I'm sure that this declaration won't be enough to keep some around here from fantasizing).
One more heads-up for you: I am being truthful about my motives, my point of view, my history. If you don't believe me, then there is nothing more that I can do about it. It is frustrating to go over the same ground again and again, and I have been willing to do it, but apparently no resolution comes of this willingness.
I have said it before, and I will say it once more here: I believe that some of the people posting here have had horrible experiences at the very schools where other kids have had good experiences.
I am interested in knowing why that is, what is the basis of this very different outcome, and I do not believe it is as simple as assuming that anyone who had a good experience was brain-washed. Blind adherence to such a far-fetched belief (and I say it is "far-fetched" based on how well the "good experience" people often do in all realms of life, after graduation) is at least as cultish as anything you suggest is happening within the schools in question.
You say that I must think that everyone at this post is a "BSer" because no real parent would not accept the information provided, or, as you say, "discard" all this information, presumably something that I am doing.
Here you seem incapable of considering that I may be able to weigh the given information critically, and to consider that the reports I've heard may contain legitimate grievances, as well as complaints that are not likely to be true.
For heaven's sake, try to be a little intellectually flexible--life is not always clear-cut, heros and villans, black and white. And why in the world would any parent base his or her interpretation of the advisability of using one of these schools, on this one site and accept what is expressed here unquestioningly?
Sensible people make their decisions based on multiple sources of information, which may not be comfortable for those who are fearful of ambiguity, but, in my experience at least, this approach leads to the best results.
I am sorry if I sound impatient with your post, but your obtuseness about my intent is making me feel impatient. So I will probably move on for the moment in address Deborah's massive undertaking later.
-
Ottawa,
No rush. And no need to worry with whether to feel honored OR alarmed. We're all just having diaglogue here. I frequently write long posts, especially when I'm playing catch up in a conversation. As I recall a few of yours were quite lengthy too.
In the interest of mutual understanding, I'd like to know what you mean when you use the word 'simplistic' to describe others ideas and opinions.
I don't consider my post to be an elaborate treatise, just providing some feedback that you say you are interested in. And, perhaps some that you might not be so interested in. Some may even feel a bit confrontational, but that's a good thing, isn't it?
I have no BIG theory about you. Rather a more simplistic theory, which I have presented as simply and as honestly as I could- my imaginings and concerns, and thoughts on why programs don't work in general, particularly the methods used.
Take what seems useful, if anything, and leave the rest.
-
-
Ottawa, when I said your approach was clinical, I meant as opposed to humanistic. I meantyour answers treated us like our experiences were fanciful... It is simply so strange to me the way you gloss over some heavy stuff.
In addition, you come off as quite superior in your tone, definitely not the worst insult, considering the abusive posts I've seen by others.
Work with me here. If CEDU is really all that and a bag of chips, then what specifically did you find helpful? Specifically. If you would be willing, give me some perspective here. Concisely shared points. Listing. I will try to be open and honest when I read them, but for me, it would be helpful. Another chick who told me CEDU saved her even though she's been a junkie for years afterward could not tell the positive aspects of CEDU and I really wanted her perspective; hope you'll give it. I can honestly say that it probably won't change my perspective of raps/propheets, and the general insularity, but could at least enlighhten me.
Thank you.
PS THe last line about your motives, just wipe 'em. I wrote it, rethought it, didn't delete it, but should have.
PPS: This is not a joke: If you really found CEDU valuable, then why don't you work at a CEDU facility?
-
Did you know Jim Johnson, Laurie Saunders, Pam and MArk Williams, the Kim Browns?
-
It's so very easy to bring out the true bitch in ottawa.
-
A few points, as you requested:
1)I don't know if your background is in psychology, so whether we mean the same things when using terms like "clinical" or "humanistic" is an open question. I think you have to be both, personally, and able to understand the difference. When I am with clients, I relate to them, humanistically, as human beings, but also observe them as a clinician--that is the best way to help, in my view. Again, it takes a certain flexibility and comfort with ambiguity to accomplish this.
What I guess you are not understanding in the same way that I do is that the people at this site are not clients of mine, they are individuals telling stories that I have been interested in, but not in a therapy-related way.
It is true, it must be said, that some of the stories may be fanciful, this happens all the time, people who either intentionally or unintentionally distort their experiences, often to put themselves in a better light. Other stories may be completely true and I have to make a judgment call on what to believe, based on my own observations about the post---is he or she consistent, rational, believable?
2) As to the superiority issue, you would be better situated than I am to explain why you think of me as having a tone that is superior. I will say that, on reflection, when I have thought that someone else is acting superior, it is often something that is going on in me, rathe than with the other person--so you might look inward for your answers.
Or it may, in this case, be something as simple as my tendency to use precise English, perhaps this is off-putting to you if you are not used to it.
Another reason that you may have such feelings about me is that I will not let other people push me around. And I don't care that much what some poster, or even a whole bunch of posters, think of me, why should I? My involvement with this site is just a small sliver of my life, not something that my self-worth rests upon. An information-seeking exercise.
Perhaps, also, it has to do with my ability to easily show restraint, so that if some attention-seeking clown wants to try to provoke a response from me by posting insults to me or my son or whatever, I can, without much effort, just blow it off and ignore it. And, if the poster appears to be a real jerk, even to laugh at the fact that this must really be irritating to him, or her, to be ignored.
3) "a bag of chips, too", First Deborah and "Oh my pie" and now "chips"? What is this food-based thing about, in Freudian terms-- no, just kidding--I will try to explain very briefly why CEDU was good for me and my child.
CEDU, for me, was about the possibility of change. The experiential approach affected me very much and made it easy to let go of old ways of doing things and to consider new possibilities. To achieve that, in my parent workshops, I feel that some level of confrontation was necessary, confrontation of the old ways of interfacing with life; just sitting around and singing "Kumbayah" is really not going to cut it, if you want real change, in many, if not most, cases. But it must be confrontation in a caring, supportive, positive atmosphere, and that was my experience.
In the school, it starts by being about changing behavior, in the same caring, supportive, positive way. At first, kids just go through the motions, mostly, they dress as they should, act as they should, for short-term rewards. Then over time, they start to see that they feel pretty good not using drugs or whatever they had been doing before, and this, in itself, starts to make them consider that there may be a better way.
At this point, the patterns of behavior, the cues of the old life would easily lure them back, if they went home, even their own families are functioning sometimes as part of the reinforcement system for that previous life.
But over time, through life experiences at the school, and in raps and propheets, kids start to consider the possibility of changing not only how they are acting, but how they actually feel and believe, that is, their real attitude about life and themselves.
And those for whom the schools are helpful finally choose to have something different than they have had in their old lives, and ultimately, they choose to fight for a different way of being when they leave the school and return to their old environments.
Look, I realize that none of this is real to you, and I guess you can't even consider that it might be real to someone else, and as my son would say, "So what?--they're nobody to you, forget them".
You can call it brainwashing if you wish, I call it learning that you can choose your own future. Whatever you call it, I have seen that the approach being used at CEDU can work, and I am interested in why it did not for you and for others--if only to remove impediments from that program or others helping more kids in future.
Well, my post will be as long as Deborah's still neglected entry, if I do not stop.
I have had a great day, I helped save someone's life today, and this, and the fact that the individuals who I work with find me to be caring, empathic, and helpful, means more to me that a lot of negative chatter. So I'm just going to enjoy the feeling of living my dreams, something that my parent workshop experiences facilitated, and forget this pretend/internet stuff for the evening.
See you around, and thanks for your inquiry.
P.S.: Forgot to address your last point, whether I will ever work in a CEDU school, I don't rule it out, depending on the actual, present program, but I have a few ideas that I think might improve the whole approach and reduce the possibility of harm--some of these ideas are based on what I have seen at this site--so I keep the future open. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-26 20:41 ]
-
FCT,
I appreciate the apology for your profession.
Sounds like you may have taken my comments personally. It was a genralization.
I'm an ex-student of psychology. I have many close friends who are social workers, therapists, and PhDs. I consulted them many times when my son was incarcerated. They were appaled at his 'treatment'.
I disagree though. I do think these programs are very much about psychology, whether the 'treatment' is done by shade-tree psychologists or degreed. They all use, or should I say, misuse or abuse, BM. All staff at the facilty (emotional growth/therapeutic) my son attended were 'professionals', and he was treated very much the same, although I don't think he endured quiet as much physical abuse as some.
I've just recently been reading some at John Taylor Gatto's site about Dewey and the history of education and psychology. These programs seem to be the worst of Dewey and Skinner combined.
Take a look at this on the history of education and psychology (Wundt, Leipzig, Dewey):
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/13q.htm (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/13q.htm)
And this one on discipline. It exactly describes what's happening in programs. It's as if society hasn't progressed much at all, some segments anyway.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1e.htm (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1e.htm)
I think psychology is so much a part of the the industry, I'd like to see a forum specific to psychology/psychiatry here at Fornits. I'm sure it would be lively.
Ultimately psych and these programs are about control. Identify what is normal. Label or dxs. Incarcerate or drug. Seeing people as machines. Everyone must be productive, by their definition, etc. Good therapists may be the only saving grace in the profession. I do know a few.
-
"Apology" for my profession? It's bit of a stretch to insinuate from the fact that I do not deify psychologists that I am apologizing for a whole profession. Actually I do not deify much of anything, except my Creator. I just believe that psychology has its place, as do other approaches to any problem as multi-faceted as a teenager who is acting self-destructively.
Here is the thing: in my view, these schools have three components: behavioral, educational, and psychological. So, of course I do not want psychologists in charge of all components. These are not mental institutions, where psychological/psychiatric management is the one overriding approach (although even there, there are often behavioral and other specialists playing an important role). Much of what these kids need is structure, discipline, and consistent reinforcement which they are not getting at home, and they are going to have to get this type of reinforcement in all parts of their program if success can be hoped for.
It is true that behavior modification was formalized within the discipline of psychology, but the principles underlying it have existed, I would guess, since human beings had cognition, and those techniques can be used in any discipline, not just by psychologists. In an emotional growth atmosphere, where the ultimate hope is to put the child in touch with his or her emotional self, and to promote self-love and care, this reinforcement must be done with kindness and concern, as well as firmness--it appears that for some of the people here, this requirement was not met.
You have to remember that there are kids in the adolescent years who really do not belong in a psychiatric institution and yet their behavior makes it impossible for them to be cared for safely at home. I have a sense that a portion of, though not all, of the problems that the unfavorable outcomes represent, is poor program placement. Some kids maybe got placed in these kinds of schools for problems that really could have been managed at home, making them according to their temperment, brooding and resentful about it (I know of a young woman who was in this situation and sent home from RMA after a year, and she is not angry at all about the experience, so it does depend on the person). Others may have had more serious psychological problems than a school of this kind was equipped to handle.
I read a post around here from someone who graduated back when kids on psychotropic medications were not even considered for admission and I remember Mel talking abou that, too, how Dr. Phillips and others had convinced him that psychotropics could actually help put the child in touch with his or her true self and so the policy changed. I am wondering if, with this reasonable change (because certainly some kids on medications can function in this kind of a program and, in point of fact, some shouldn't be on them anyway), I wonder if it developed that kids who were too seriously dysfunctional to function in these kinds of programs have sometimes been mistakenly admitted.
So what I am seeing as major pitfalls in the programs at this point are: 1)the danger of not hiring staff with the personal qualities that allow for kindness and firmness, as well training or some kind of knowledge of adolescents and 2) the danger of not adequately triaging the students who are accepted, or at least having different programs that are tailored to different states of psychological functioning.
Maybe the reason that we had such a great experience, is that my son was theoretically at least, almost the ideal candidate for the RMA program; very defiant though not intentionally harmful to self or others, using drugs in a self-endangering way, no other psychological difficulties to speak of, and conflicts in his upbringing that he had the intelligence and insight to be able to discuss and resolve once he was no longer too angry to talk. And, at least at the time we were involved in the school, the staff, across the board was pretty wonderful; there is a lot of turnover in this line of work, I admit that maybe it was not always wonderful for other times and places.
So maybe the difference in outcome do start to make sense, maybe it's not a matter of someone lying or someone else being brain-washed. Maybe there are subtle differences among experiences that should be explored further.
[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 08:17 ]
-
Folks, we are WAY off course here. Aren't we here to discuss CEDU? Isn't this an OPEN forum? If Ottawa has positive opinion of CEDU, why are we arguing with her? She has the right, as a thinking adult, to have any opinion she likes.
Judging by her long posts arguing with people, I question that she actually IS in the profession of psychotherapy. She does not in any stretch of the imagination write like a therapist. She is getting way to personally involved - she's getting her feelings hurt and working really, really hard to defend herself. If she really is in school to be a therapist, she is early in her program, or only getting a master's degree. (Folks, a master's is only two years after a bachelor's -I know this because I got one before I earned my Ph.D.)
IF she is in a graduate program, and not undergrad as I think she is, she's in a crummy program or she's getting poor supervision - or she has a personality disorder. She uses psychobabble inappropriately and is labling people here. She reads like a person with borderline personality disorder. Borderlines are more crazy-making than psychotic people.
I've stayed out of the Ottawa posts, but I'm just, frankly, growing weary of them. She certainly has the right to her opinion and the only thing we will accomplish by arguing with her is to back her more into her corner. There is just no point. You know the saying - "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only frustrates you and annoys the pig." I'm not calling her a pig - not at all! But, that saying makes a point. You can't make your cat grow wings and you can't develop a third arm. We are what we are. Reading what I did of the Ottawa posts, I get the distinct impression of an untrained person, or someone with alarmingly poor supervision. Certainly, she does not read like a therapist - not by a long shot. So, tell yourself that she has her opinion, probably is borderline (or at least histrionic) and just forget about it.
Am I using psychobabble? No. I have a Ph.D. in this and am certainly qualified to put such lables on these posts. It doesn't feel good. Not at all. But I want you all to understand the utter futility of arguing with her. Let her have her opinion and let's see what we can do about CEDU. We have more important battles than arguing with someone whose opinion we cannot change - and who cannot change ours! Let's work together!
-
Speaking of sounding suspicious, I'd bet the rent that you are not anyone with advanced training in psychology--maybe I'm wrong and you're just atypical---it happens, but a number of things you say make me do something that I seldom do, that is, to say that I think you are not being truthful. It is correct that I have said that our family's experiences were not like some of the others expressed here, but I have never suggested that these people were not being truthful. I am saying that about you.
For one thing, I am shocked that a real psychologist would try to diagnose someone as borderline or anything else from posts on a web site. What a fine clinician you must be if, indeed there is any truth to your claim, why have an office, you can just work from your lap top in a coffee shop.
The other thing is that you either don't read terribly well or are kind of obtuse, because I have said several times that I am not here as a therapist, but as an individual and a parent who may someday open a school of my own. Now I guess that you could get your Ph.D. and not be a careful reader enough to get this, but it is another argument that something may be fishy with your post.
Thirdly, I have been told by many psycholosts and others in the helping professions that my writing style is ideal for the discipline because I have excellent grammar, vocabulary, and expressive skills, indeed, I have actually published work in a referreed, scientific journal and will probably do so again. Now, of course it is a difficult argument to make that one "doesn't write like a therapist" anyway, because therapists write in all sorts of ways. Again a sign, not conclusive to be sure, but a possible sign that you don't know much about scientific/psychological writing or the way therapists write (ie differently) from one another.
What might be a legitimate concern to you is: how can I be a student in practicum training and yet be on line so much: it happens that this time period is a break in our class work and I am working on my thesis on a computer beside the one I am posting on--I am only actually on site for my practicum part-time in the summer. Since I am an extremely prolific and quick writer, I use the posting as a break between thesis ideas. A clarificaiton for you, just in case you are not as full of prunes as I think you are. and you are legitimately puzzled by my availability on line.
My hunch is that, whether or not you have any training in psychology, you are a fan of this site and you are alarmed by my presence which you find challenges the party line here.
Maybe that is why you would throw around psychological terms and do such an extremely unethical thing as to attempt diagnose someone from some web posts.
Come on now, Pseudo-Psychologist, everyone works better for a little competition--and anyway one of these days my hiatus from training will end and I won't be here, near so much at least. Then you can do back to being whoever you really are and post as you would like to, in the absence of anyone to readily challenge you. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:18 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:21 ]
-
Sounds to me like your son was ideal for cedu because he was weak willed, a trait typical of drug addicts, thats why he couldn't say no. no will power, no self esteem either, its no wonder why ottawa's son was so easily brainwashed.
-
Now didn't you ever learn way back there, in kindergarten or so, that "names will never hurt you"? They will, of course, until you become strong and integreted as a person, and until you really believe that when you are doing what is right and good, it is a very small thing to be called "weak", to be attacked as having "no self-esteem". I am sure my son would agree if he even cared enough to read your post.
I might say also that it ill behooves somebody who doesn't even have the fortitude to post under a username to talk about things like weakness. Well, my son's life will be the arbiter of the person he is, but I do think that CEDU made him stronger. Things like courage and integrety are qualities that can be learned through experience so there is still time for you--do not despair.
Speaking of kindergarten, someone told me, I have not found it for myself yet, that a couple of ANON's were talking about whether they should start ignoring me in one of the Hot Topics today. Does that kind of thing really go on among people approaching their middle adult years?
Now see, I thought that this "Let's not talk to her because she won't be in our club" stuff finished up by about fourth or fifth grade.
I'm really not so frightening, I don't think, that there needs to be concerted efforts to try to shut me down. I'm just a middle-aged mom with some emotional growth experiences--nothing much to worry about--if the predominant point of view at the site makes more sense than mine, I'm sure it will prevail. Why don't we let the truth of the matter decide the outcome?[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 19:12 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 19:14 ]
-
Ottawa, to me you are a person who continually and deliberately ignores the abuses of the school, in spite of many painful and truthful posts by others. It's not about "sticks and stones." Any moron knows that words do hurt and to continually deny traumatic experiences of others causes great sadness or anger. Now, I guess I could just say "Ottawa is a clueless, heartless woman" so who cares what she has to say. And I have come to question whether I should just ignore all of your posts or respond. It's not about booting you out of the club; it's about coming to terms with a person who acts as thoughtlessly as you do.
You've got the right to free speech, we all do, but noone appreciates a person who continually pushes their pro-CEDU rhetoric while absolutely denying that serious systemic flaws existed at CEDU.
I feel for your future patients.
-
I have a sense that for some people (maybe you are one of them) it is thoughtlessness personified to not simply agree with them, go along to get along is their god, and free thinking outside the box is heresy.
It is like a mental block that I find here--what must I say to make clear that I want to enlarge, to improve upon CEDU-type programs, to make them work for more people than they have worked for in the past--I am not saying that what has been done is perfect, but to me at least, there is something real to the CEDU emotional-growth experience that transcends what I have found elsewhere. I would like others to experience it too.
Do what you have to do--that is the best advice I can offer anyone, and if you don't correspond with me, doubtless someone else will.
There are the very valuable private messages available here too, I have probably learned as much from those who have posted there as I have learned from those who post on the main site.
I do have a sense that you over-extend your own interpretation--I mean, you may see me as "clueless" and "heartless". Do not assume that your point of view is a universal conclusion.
I remain interested in common ground, it isn't me who will not consider that there is some middle position--I am saying outright that there may be ways to improve upon the emotional growth experience, to make it helpful for people who have not profited from it in the past, and still allow all participants to reap the benefits that some have already been able to experience.
It is people like you who dogmatically refuse to admit that some of us have benefited from what is offered at CEDU, as if your own experience should somehow be overriding, and we should just acquiesce to your analysis and ignore what happened to us that was good.
-
it's me again, funny that you would call me weak for not having a user name, when your own son is won't even come on this site and defend himself, preferring instead to let mommy fight his battles for him! your son is obviously a weak-willed coward, who still needs mommy to protect
him, how pathetic, how sad. why won't your son come onto this site ottawa? is he really that afraid of us, or is it that mommy won't let him?
Or maybe he really doesn't feel the same way about cedu that you do, maybe he's afraid to come on this site because he worries that his true feelings on cedu would upset mommy! we've all seen what a raving bitch you can be ottawa, it's no wonder why he is so scared of you. enough already, you continue to defend a program, which in reality you know absolutely nothing about. You never actually experienced cedu, all you have is a few parent workshops, and whatever stories your son told you. You have no right to defend anything cedu does, since it's obvious you have no clue as to what really goes on there. bring your son on this site, he may be weak willed and unable to think for himself, but at least he experienced cedu first hand, and he may actually have something meaningful to contribute. the only thing that ottawa contributes is a bunch of regurgetated psycho-babble, and a lot of hot air.
-
You'll get the last word here, oh Invisible One, because I am off travelling today, but just to give you a clue about my son, in case you want one---
It is true that he has no interest in coming on this site, but not, as you say, and I suppose hope, because he is weak. It is simply because he has no interest in your (ie the site's) arguments.
Now I have the advantage of knowing him day to day, so that will be my source of understanding of his strength or weakness---since he doesn't know you and you don't know him, there will not be a big void in the universe of valuable knowledge if you don't agree with me on this one.
So you, as most Anon posters do, will, I suppose, continue to grasp at any straw, any insult, to try to think that someone, anyone, is more timid than they are. Does the A in Anon stand for "afraid to be known even by a user name"?
What is this, do you think that posting here should be required by law; for everyone in the world, or only for successful CEDU grads?
Look, you point out that I am only a parent, that I have never been a student in a CEDU school,-is that a news flash or what? Did I ever claim that I had? I am here as a parent, only, not as a student, not as a staff memeber, not as a psychologist, just a parent who had good experiences with the school my son went to.
I have a sense that with people like you who are fully indoctrinated in the Hate-CEDU mentality, anyone who stands up to you, disputes you in any way, pushes back verbally when you push her verbally, is a "bitch" or a "mole", anything so you don't have to admit to yourself that other people are not necessarily as resentful and group-thinking as you are.
Talk about "cult-like indoctrination", this unchallengeable-by-reason, faith-based belief that nothing good ever happened to anyone who went to a CEDU school--do yourself a favor and just try deconstructing this idea for an hour or so--does it really make sense that these schools can exist for decades, and never have any good results?
I mean, don't you think that word might get around, in a broader way than on largely unknown web sites? Is everyone who leaves and lives happy lives, and everyone who goes back to the parent or the student reunions, mistaken about what happened to them? What about all the families and alumni who give money to the CEDU Foundation to help keep kids at the schools when parents run out of money? I mean, these are pretty high functioning people in a lot of ways in their lives, to be, in your analysis, just a bunch of brain-washed zombies.
Maybe we're not all brainwashed, maybe we just had a different experience than you did.
Ok, maybe the programs can be improved upon, most things in the world can, that is an important thing and something that I am interested in. But this cloak-and-dagger stuff, "CEDU is going to come and get me if I post a username", "You must be a CEDU employee here to get us", this is not right. These kinds of comments are instructive of what the type of thinking I see at this site can do to a person.
I have made a decision not to be too concerned about what you think of me. I have to, to function in a place like this. Maybe I have not been as forgiving and meek about insults that have been addressed to me here, as a very saintly person would have been.
Well, I'm not a saint, just a person who has found something good in the whole emotional growth concept that has strenghtened me, enriched my life, enriched our family's life. I would like other people to experience that too.
I am the first one to say that if there is any way to work things out with a teenager who is having problems, do it at home, if it is at all possible, exhaust every possibility before you resort to sending a child away.
But sometimes it is necessary. I would like to see programs like the ones at the CEDU schools improved upon, so that there don't have to be the kinds of poor, even terrible, results that many people have reported here. And so everyone who attends these schools can have a chance to experience the positive things that we have been able to experience. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-31 07:39 ]
-
I think the issue is this: you keep promoting a school to former students who were abused by it. Pretty sick, if you ask me.
If, in your opinion, you had a good experience, I can't speak to that. I'm not wasting time trying to change your opinion of your experience. So good for you.
But in all honesty, you are not sensitive to our situation at all. In fact, you've been condescending, demeaning, and ignorant.
I posted before that we should not be abusive to you in our protest, but in a way, your attitude is more insidiously distasteful. It is not that you disagree with the CEDU methodology, which we find abhorrent. But because you rationalize and trivialize what happened to us.
-
Ottowa, first you can't speak for your son. All you know is what he shows you and what you're willing to see. You don't know what's going on in his head any more than any human being can know the mind of another. So there's no point in your trying to argue the point over whether or not the Program was harmful or traumatic or whatever. You weren't there so you don't know.
Second, you want to know what you look like from the pov of a Program vet? Remember back in the crazy summer of `70? Remember the Manson trial? Remember all the pretty, nieve young women attending every hearing and virtually worshiping good old "Charlie"?
Someone earlier made another apt comparison. You might just as well stand outside a Holocaust museum handing out neo-nazi litterature.
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
***Here is the thing: in my view, these schools have three components: behavioral, educational, and psychological.
In truth, there are but two components: educational (if the kids are lucky) and psychological- as the behavioral component is an aspect of psychology and is presented as ?therapy?.
*** These are not mental institutions, where psychological/psychiatric management is the one overriding approach (although even there, there are often behavioral and other specialists playing an important role). Much of what these kids need is structure, discipline, and consistent reinforcement which they are not getting at home? It is true that behavior modification was formalized within the discipline of psychology, but the principles underlying it have existed, I would guess, since human beings had cognition?
Given this, that programs are basically providing parenting (structure and discipline), should insurance companies be paying for ?treatment?? Should parents seek IEP funds for their ?disabled? child? Should parents take tax deductions for visiting their ?disabled? child at the facility? Can?t have it both ways. They?re either boarding schools providing ?firm but kind? parenting, or psych facilities providing ?treatment?. It is fraudulent to classify your operation as a boarding school to avoid regulations and monitoring, yet advertise to the public as a therapeutic facility and accept money for children with ?disabilities?.
***In an emotional growth atmosphere, where the ultimate hope is to put the child in touch with his or her emotional self, and to promote self-love and care, this reinforcement must be done with kindness and concern, as well as firmness--it appears that for some of the people here, this requirement was not met.
I fail to see how isolation from one?s family, harsh punishments for minor infractions (kind?)- misuse of BM, inappropriate ?peer pressure?, denial of basic needs, touch deprivation, being subjected to deception and double standards, could possibly foster self love. I think 'success' depends more on the kid?s ability to ACT. To demonstrate the behaviors that have been deemed appropriate. It?s not just ?some? people, but the majority- as all programs employ these techniques. The whole concept is flawed, in my opinion, because children don?t flourish in ?programs?. They need families- people who genuinely love and care for them; and thoughtful helpers who, with any hope, can assist the PARENTS in fostering better relationships with their children.
In spite of your best intentions, you (or any program you are associated with) are not going to replace the role of family. The only way to help teens or parents is to help the parent gain an understanding of how to treat their teen respectfully.
***You have to remember that thre are kids in the adolescent years who really do not belong in a psychiatric institution and yet their behavior makes it impossible for them to be cared for safely at home.
I disagree. Three to five thousand dollars a month could buy all the resource a family needs, at home. It?s simply more convenient to place the kid in residential ?treatment?. The primary benefit is to the parent- eases their exaggerated fears that their kid will end up in jail or dead, when the statistics do not warrant such an extreme and austere reaction. Of course, insurance will not pay for a big brother or an elder mentor, or extra-curricular activities, or any of the other possible resources a parent might find locally.
*** I have a sense that a portion of, though not all, of the problems that the unfavorable outcomes represent, is poor program placement. Some kids maybe got placed in these kinds of schools for problems that really could have been managed at home
If you eliminate the kids who could?ve been ?managed at home? and those who have ?serious psychological problems?, your market has dwindled to a very small percentage of kids. Kids like your own, who are going through the natural and necessary developmental phase of separating- rebelling against authority. Kids are wrongly placed everyday- all of them in my opinion, and ?some? in your?s. The reason- programs exist to make a profit and integrity is therefore compromised on every level. You may find yourself compromising for this very reason.
Helping teens get in touch with their ?emotional selves? sounds nice and therapeutic, in theory. In reality, I don?t see this happening. Teens are subjected to adult forms of ?therapy?. They are not taught how to advocate for themselves or the skills necessary to negotiate and compromise. Their feelings and thoughts are evaluated and judged on a daily basis. They are not given accurate information. They are conditioned to think and perceive as the counselor or program does. Too many times they are outright told that their parents don?t care about them. That may be true, but it isn?t something that needs to be used against the child in order to gain compliance.
In fact, they actually appear to be holding tanks for teens until they have passed their most challenging developmental phase. A service for parents. I?ve heard many a parent express relief that their teen is incarcerated because they do not want to be fiscally or socially responsible for their kid?s behavior. And further, that they can?t wait until their kid reaches 18, at which time they will be put on the streets to fend for themselves.
***So what I am seeing as major pitfalls in the programs at this point are: 1)the danger of not hiring staff with the personal qualities that allow for kindness and firmness, as well training or some kind of knowledge of adolescents?
That doesn?t appear to be the goal. Programs train their staff in their particular techniques. Staff are often young and are trained to see everything as black or white. No grey. No compromise, no negotiation, no democracy. They follow the program manual and miss vital clues from the kids, opportunities in which they could help the teen explore and dismantle some of the misperceptions they?ve formulated in their wacked out homes and communities. You can not ?teach? or train someone how to be kind and loving. Those qualities are either present or not, stemming from one?s own life experience- if they?ve been respected or just taught to defer to authority.
Case in point. My son told me that he didn?t feel like he was getting enough time with his counselor- the female peer group leader. Given that we had always had a close and open relationship, something his father envied and resented; I imagined that he might just be needing some motherly nurturing. Some ?unstructured? time with his new pseudo-mom. An adult who would show interest in his extra-curricular activities (baseball). I innocently mentioned this, assuming we held the same beliefs about what kids need, to her and asked if she?d give him some one-on-one time and perhaps allow him to talk about it if it came up. What she gave him was a lengthy lecture on how much time he was given (in group, btw), how many kids they had to deal with, and then placed him on restriction for ?manipulating? me. This was so unethical I could hardly believe it was happening. She first violated my confidence and the trust between my son and I. She made no attempt to assess what his real need was. Even if it was a poorly expressed need for nurturing, was punishment in order? And she never found time to attend a baseball game. Genuine needs are left unmet because their lazer focus is on emotional growth in groups which are poorly done and cause more harm than good. The truth is, she didn't genuniely care about him, or have a vested interest in providing his real needs. She was there to do a job, the way the program had instructed her.
When I addressed this issue with the headmaster he chose not to defend or explain the therapeutic thinking behind this approach. He would not speak to me because I didn?t write the checks. I have spoken to parents who were writing the checks. If they disagreed with or challenged the program?s policies or procedures, they were labeled ?adversarial?. If they bucked the system too much they were asked to remove their child, and then were not refunded pre-paid tuition because they ?removed? their child. I have looked hard for anything ethical about this industry. I can?t find it.
Believe me, I think there are kids who could benefit from being away from their screwed-up parents. Who would benefit from living in a democratic group, learning valuable life skills. Fuck a bunch of emotional growth groups and workshops. Emotional growth is a by-product of being treated with respect. That is the only way it is ?taught?. If I thought for a minute that this industry was providing this, I?d be a strong advocate. And if the industry truly met the kids needs, teens would be lining up outside to get in.
**And, at least at the time we were involved in the school, the staff, across the board was pretty wonderful; there is a lot of turnover in this line of work, I admit that maybe it was not always wonderful for other times and places.
You may benefit from listening to the ex-staff. There is a very high turnover. I imagine the die-hards who stay in the industry are those who gain pleasure from BMing kids to death and who are incapable of having a genuinely authentic relationship with them. They are about ?fixing? these ?emotional terrorists? and too often gain pleasure from abusing them.
And then there are those who work underground in the programs. My son had such a counselor in wilderness. An older, experienced professional, who was also genuinely a good person. While the field staff were ex-military and subjected him to unnecessary abuse and excessively dangerous situations that were not age appropriate, he preferred the wilderness program to the TBS. Because, in his own words, ?the ?therapy? at the TBS was bullshit.?
The wilderness counselor approved letters that would never have gotten out of the TBS. She didn?t place value judgments on his expressions or try to manipulate his interpretations of things. She validated his feelings and never punished him for complaining. She actually validated his perceptions of the lame-ass ?therapy? at the TBS. She consistently gave him appreciation for his intelligence, emotional maturity, clarity of perception and leadership qualities. She understood that he had not acquired these qualities while incarcerated and never attributed them to the program. He genuinely appreciated her for her wisdom and willingness to be honest. She was a guardian angel, the only rational and reasonable person he (we) encountered. She also often appreciated me for the fine job I had done raising him. Because he has always been tall for his age, she told me that she thought he was 17 or 18. He was 15. She was also honest enough to say that my son should not be there. Something I already knew, but it was comforting to have a staff member at the facility finally acknowledge this. Did she advocate for his removal? No. It would?ve been pointless, because as other ex-staff have said, they do not want staff interfering with the way they run their business. The only thing she could do was approve letters telling the truth about what was happening there and provide indirectly support for my efforts to have him removed. She gave me ample ammunition for my cause, had there not been other extenuating circumstances.
Everyone who had contact with my son knew he was ?wrongly? placed, but his presence ensured another $5000 + a month to help keep the boat floating.
Since his father had bought it hook, line, and sinker; they perjured themselves in order to convince the court that I was ?adversarial? and that my son needed ?treatment?. Unethical, self-serving. That is what this industry is about. And if you consider my experience to be an isolated incident, you are sorely mistaken.
There are many, many parents who paid for their teens incarceration and arrived at the very same conclusions I did. They choose to chalk it up to a mistake rather than taking an active role in educating other parents about the reality of the industry.
-
***Ok, maybe the programs can be improved upon, most things in the world can, that is an important thing and something that I am interested in. But this cloak-and-dagger stuff, "CEDU is going to come and get me if I post a username", "You must be a CEDU employee here to get us", this is not right. These kinds of comments are instructive of what the type of thinking I see at this site can do to a person.
"Cloak-and-dagger". Another glowing example of the way you minimize other's experiences and attempt to write them off as some emotional disorder, and why you are attacked. Many, including myself have been threatened with lawsuits, unwarranted slap suits. The threats are real, not perceived. Fornits is one of the very few places for suvivors to tell their experiences. Some choose to avoid being identified to avoid the headache.
-
My dear woman, thank you for telling me I cannot speak for my son, apparently you mean in the sense of living inside his head or scanning his brain or something. I was sort of aware of that already but thanks for the input.
Just as in any close relationship, however, people tell each other things, there is interactive communication on issues of interest, there is closeness and intimacy of thought. That is the kind of relationship we have, so I think that I know a little something about his view of things, clearly more than, say, you do.
And I certainly know more about CEDU than you do, since you weren't even involved with that group of schools in any way, were you? Not even for a parent workshop. Oh, I know that you've got some rather specious theory that the CEDU program is exactly the same as some other school of thought that you really think you know something about. Well, I'm sure that you believe this. I'll trust my actual experience with CEDU over your transparently zealous extrapolations, thanks anyway.
Now, as to your most entertaining Charles Mansion analogy, in your recent post: are you saying that I remind you of one of the young women or of good old "Charlie"? I suppose neither is very flattering but it just wasn't clear to me as you presented it.
Well, we all have analogies that we see in people from time to time. I was actually talking to a retired trial lawyer over coffee yesterday and decribing this site. He thought for all the world that it sounded like a front for some kind of lawyerly drumming up of outrage at a deep-pockets school or schools, in order to get some class action going, or at least to extract a little taste by threat of such?
You aren't on any kind of retainer from attorneys to run this site, are you? No promise of a future share of the profits from any suit or settlement? I think that it's always good to get your financial interests out in the open where they do exist, so please clarify.
I am sure that you will react with a big "How dare you..." but since I've been here, I've been accused of being paid for referrals, of being a CEDU employee, of being a CEDU or some other school espionage agent. So if the question of other interests can be fairly put to me, well, why not even to you?
I have to leave today, but will look for your response when I return.
-
Make no mistake, I know that I can be pretty wordy myself and I love language in general, the sounds, the grammatical constructions, the strange and kaleidoscopic ways in which we can express ourselves.
But I can't keep up with you, I am still wrestling with your mega-post of last Sunday and here come some more.
I feel like that little girl in Jurassic Park II or III, on the beach, almost devoured by all the little carnivorous dinosaurs after she was foolish enough to offer part of her sandwich to a couple of them.
Listen we are going on a little get-away and perhaps we can talk later, I am going in general to stay off line, but I will be checking "Private Messages" when we are somewhere where computer terminals are available and if time permits, I will check Topics posts too.
A thought that we can pursue if we do speak again:
Since you are willing to give me advice and offer insight about my life, let me make a suggestion about yours.
When I read your stories, it sounds like you are very, very angry that someone else (your husband, the courts) got control of your son's future. I know that you have some ideas about me coming from a background in which control plays a big part, and you are right, this is so, though I have acknowledged and looked into these things some time ago adn continue to consider them. I do not get the sense that you have faced the power/control issues in your own life--- these things are often easier to see in someone else's life than in one's own.
I would hope that your whole large involvement in the "Hate CEDU" thing is not about proving that you are getting control back by hurting these anad any related schools, posting about them, etc.
And if your son has made peace with his experiences or even has found good things in them, is it worth an exercise in power and control to try to convince him otherwise? I read somewhere or other that you would bring him to this site when he was "ready". His experiences are his own, are they not, why would you want to drag him into your fight if that is what it amounts to?
Well, as I say, you and others have been very willing to tell me all about my own life and family. So I return a little advice to you, which you may reject as ridiculous or consider as maybe having some truth to it.
And I will check your response, if any, sometime in the future.
-
Nope, I'm not on a retainer, no promise or implication of any future payoff of any kind. Statute of limitations ran out for me decades ago. So far, the only involvement I've had w/ any lawsuits has been to be on the receiving end.
You see, some of the peopl involved in the troubled parent industry are made very, very uncomfortable by free expression of the subject. And we have had program operators, edcons and other individuals post to these forums pretending to be happy customers. And we've had a number of plain out recruiters drop in here too. So don't think it's paranoid for someone to speculate that you might be up to something like that. It actually happens all the time.
Looking back to your first post, on Bryan's advice, I find your story quite plausible. You're looking for input in hopes of starting your own franchise. You might well even believe that it's possible to create a forced BM program that does less harm that some of these places. But it's not. The only way to change someone against their will is to break their will. There's just no kinder, gentler way to do that.
As far as the Manson allegory, well, you asked. You want to understand people's experience so that you can impliment a program that's not so harmful, understand this. Some of these kids have been horribly abused in this program that you think is so wonderful. These are not isolated incidents, as you keep suggesting. Psyche abuse and emotional abuse are a core part of the Program. A big part of that is the smug way that staff goes about making the kids out to be liars and manipulators if they try to tell anyone or even if they complain at the time the abuse is going on. So you shouldn't be so surprised that people respond w/ anger when you try to do essentially the same thing here.
But I don't think you ever answered my question, though. What would happen if your son quit working his Program? Would he still get college funding? Or would you follow Program advice and invest it all in more forced behavior mod or just withold funding and assistance so as to avoid being an enabler?
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
--Julius Caesar
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
Oh, for Pete's sake! I did not diagnose you. I am observing that you are putting MANY, MANY hours into posting VERY LENGTHY letters. I rarely even look at this site. I don't have time for it.
I didn't criticize your writing. Your writing is excellent. However, I do see that you are WAY too involved in these posts. You did not read my post accurately. I'm not going to bother with a member name because I don't plan on posting here much.
If you are in a practicum, you need to print out all of your posts and show them to your teacher. If he's worth his salt, he will be concerned. The time and energy you put into this certainly concerns me - if you plan to be a therapist. You need to know when to walk away. You need some good, good, good supervision. When I was in supervision, it was the things that hurt me the most that I learned the most from. I'm telling you the truth here; your intense invovlement in this web site concerns me - on behalf of your future clients.
I did not diagnose you. You did not read carefully. I said you read like a person with... This is not doagnosis. However, looking at your response to me strengthens that view. Yes, you do read like a borderline. Not your excellent use of language - your personal involvement, your intenst posts, your almost desperate efforts to get us to see things your way, your utter lack of being able to be objective. You are very defensive in these posts. And, your misinterpretation and misreading of mine just tells me more.
There is absolutely no ethical violation in what I said. Go back to your laws and ethics class. Go to your supervisor - I hope you will. Print out all your posts - don't leave any off - and ask him what he thinks.
I wrote:
"IF she is in a graduate program, and not undergrad as I think she is, she's in a crummy program or she's getting poor supervision - or she has a personality disorder. She uses psychobabble inappropriately and is labling people here. She reads like a person with borderline personality disorder. Borderlines are more crazy-making than psychotic people."
On 2004-07-30 09:15:00, ottawa5 wrote:
"Speaking of sounding suspicious, I'd bet the rent that you are not anyone with advanced training in psychology--maybe I'm wrong and you're just atypical---it happens, but a number of things you say make me do something that I seldom do, that is, to say that I think you are not being truthful. It is correct that I have said that our family's experiences were not like some of the others expressed here, but I have never suggested that these people were not being truthful. I am saying that about you.
For one thing, I am shocked that a real psychologist would try to diagnose someone as borderline or anything else from posts on a web site. What a fine clinician you must be if, indeed there is any truth to your claim, why have an office, you can just work from your lap top in a coffee shop.
The other thing is that you either don't read terribly well or are kind of obtuse, because I have said several times that I am not here as a therapist, but as an individual and a parent who may someday open a school of my own. Now I guess that you could get your Ph.D. and not be a careful reader enough to get this, but it is another argument that something may be fishy with your post.
Thirdly, I have been told by many psycholosts and others in the helping professions that my writing style is ideal for the discipline because I have excellent grammar, vocabulary, and expressive skills, indeed, I have actually published work in a referreed, scientific journal and will probably do so again. Now, of course it is a difficult argument to make that one "doesn't write like a therapist" anyway, because therapists write in all sorts of ways. Again a sign, not conclusive to be sure, but a possible sign that you don't know much about scientific/psychological writing or the way therapists write (ie differently) from one another.
What might be a legitimate concern to you is: how can I be a student in practicum training and yet be on line so much: it happens that this time period is a break in our class work and I am working on my thesis on a computer beside the one I am posting on--I am only actually on site for my practicum part-time in the summer. Since I am an extremely prolific and quick writer, I use the posting as a break between thesis ideas. A clarificaiton for you, just in case you are not as full of prunes as I think you are. and you are legitimately puzzled by my availability on line.
My hunch is that, whether or not you have any training in psychology, you are a fan of this site and you are alarmed by my presence which you find challenges the party line here.
Maybe that is why you would throw around psychological terms and do such an extremely unethical thing as to attempt diagnose someone from some web posts.
Come on now, Pseudo-Psychologist, everyone works better for a little competition--and anyway one of these days my hiatus from training will end and I won't be here, near so much at least. Then you can do back to being whoever you really are and post as you would like to, in the absence of anyone to readily challenge you. [ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:18 ][ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-30 09:21 ]"
-
If you want my "diagnosis", our new friend Ottowa5 may be trying to assist CEDU in their legal troubles. I think I'll give Mr. Wyatt a call Monday and see what he can make of the data I'm looking at.
Remember, Ottowa, hassling wittnesses or potential wittnesses is a strict no-no in the real world!
you Momma is a big fat's ________
--Leroy Brown
-
You're a goddess, Ginger!
-
I would like to see programs like the ones at the CEDU schools improved upon,
Saying that Cedu can be improved is like saying that concentration camps can be improved. The only real improvement is elimination.
-
Ottawa,
Here's a relatively short one for you.
You have me confused with someone else.
I have never said that my son was at peace with his experience or that I'd bring him to this site 'when he was ready'. He is aware of this and other sites and will participate if/when he chooses. For now, he is busy making up for lost time- the two years they robbed from him. I respect his decision.
Given what happened to me and my son, largely due to the perjured testimony provided by the program, anger was absolutely the appropriate response. You don't know even half of what transpired, and probably wouldn't relate if you did, given your opinion on programs.
If you have a need to believe that my anger is misdirected, so be it.
My activism has had an impact, and I'll continue to speak. And if the truth hurts the industry, so be it. Has nothing to do with regaining my power/control, and everything to do with exposing fraud.
-
Ginger, what in the world are you playing at here?
My planned absence, and hiatus from this site, among other things, is delayed until tommorrow, and I'm glad that it is, since I read your recent post, and I am just incensed!!! "...hassling witnesses or potential witnesses"???
You have not yet, at least, crossed that line and actually accused me of a criminal offense such as witness-tampering.
I would really advise you to think very carefully before you do---I do not know the parameters of libel on an internet site, but I do know that there are limits, some even currently being decided in the courts. I have four practicing attorneys, among my closest relatives, and I have worked as a scientific analyst for a major litigation law firm, and, believe me, if need be, I will be able to find out what my rights in civil or criminal court are, and do something about enforcing them.
We are going to get a few things straight, right now.
1) I am not and have never worked for CEDU in any way, shape, or form. Not as a spy, not as staff, not as anything. I am not in ongoing communication with anyone connected with CEDU. I thought we had that worked out yesterday, you said that you found it quite plausible that I was a parent interested in opening my own school. Now you've got me working on CEDU's "legal troubles", whatever that may mean?
I have over the years since my son graduated been in contact with various parts of the school very sporadically, to get info on a reunion, to get some promotional materials for a friend, that sort of thing. I am sure that I will do so again, since I am very interested in the whole program.
How about this, if I do start to work for them, do an internship with them, anything of that nature, and I am still actively involved with this site, you have my word that I will let you know that I am starting some kind of involvement, though I may not want to tell you the details, since I may not consider that to be any of your business.
2) I am aware that there have been a couple of lawsuits against CEDU, but this is true of most big companies in the litigious society that is America today. I have had no personal involvement in thses legal matters, would not even know where they are, or how they were disposed of, I have a dim memory of hearing that one or more of them was settled. What are you talking about: "witness" for what??
All I can surmise from this message of yours, following on the heels of the post by the maybe-PhD-psychologist, is that there is some tie-in there.
I won't get into the details because it is not my style to divulge publically what is committed to me privately, but let me just say that it sounds as if some of my ideas about this guy are right on target.
I recognize the name in your post, Wyatt, as someone with a police force from California who some of the posters seem to think is going to prove that everything that they've been saying about CEDU is true.
I don't know anything about that situation. Sometimes police investigators stay in touch with people volunteering really strange stories (I was thinking, for example, of something like "CEDU is a huge, powerful cult"), not because they believe them, but because the consideration is that such story-tellers may be dangerous, and the investigators want to keep an eye on them, so they simulate a friendly relationship with such "informants". Or there may be a real, ongoing investigation into a CEDU school out there, as I have heard some posters allude to. It's not impossible.
I am just guessing, but I am wondering if your post tells me that the maybe-PhD psychologist is who I think he is, and that you people are all in a tizzy over that fact.
Well, here's a heads-up for you if you confer with Mr. Wyatt:
Again, without being too specific, any "data" that you have which involves communications with me, was initiated by a certain person, who asked me to contact him. It's not my fault if this certain person can't keep his stories straight and subsequently gave away his identity, I didn't exactly have to be "Perry Mason" to figure it out. And he didn't have to invite me to contact him, and he didn't have to respond to me when I did--so if he gave himself away, oh well, it's not my concern.
For God's sake, this is not the Mafia and the Witness Protection Program you're talking about here, have some sense of proportion.
So, tread carefully, Ginger, and do not get this poor Wyatt man, who may be a legitimate investigator, onto a track where he believes something false that you tell him about me and gets himself in trouble with his superiors over it.
By the way, I have saved and have hard copies of all communications, private and public, in relation to this matter, that is, what I think is the "data" you are talking about. So no point in trying to misrepresent it, now is there?
So, I will be checking in when I can as well as having a little legal conference with some friends and relatives in the business, not exactly what leisure time activities are meant to be, but it is always well to be prepared.
-
It is fucking hilarious!!! Ottawa you are a fucking mole and it's a fucking joke!!!
Now you're trying to claim all your big hotshot legal connections!!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You dumb bitch! What the hell do you think most of our parents were in order to afford CEDU?
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Bring it on!!
Go have your "little legal conference" !!!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
It's fucking hilarious what you'll try and resort to!!!
You know something- you're a fucking joke.
First tactic is caring psychologist interested in our experiences.
This became cold unemotional mother.
This became bitchy menopausal cunt belittler downplaying the abuse.
Then you became superior being who laughs at our little "complaints."
Now you're trying "person with big time legal connections- so watch what you guys say!"
coupled with playing on our personal fears of coming out about our abuse and throwing into question the validity of past lawsuits and the legitimacy of Chuck Wyatt.
I wonder what you'll try next.
I'm just waiting for sobbing apologetic freak!
You know something Ottawa. I think I speak for many in saying this:
Go to hell. You will never silence us.
-
Ottawa, I vehemently disagreed with your posts about CEDU but I believed that you were a mother of a child there who was happy with her experience. As you became more and more involved with this site, it raised some questions, and I am very disappointed to see what you have resorted to. Your last post, in my view, serves to scare people off the investigation. It's intimidation of people who were harmed by a program. The fact that you never addressed wrong doings by CEDU, in fact, dismissed them, is highly suspect. Any parent I know would never be so callous... Even if they felt they had a positive experience, they would show interest in cases of wrongdoing. It's not about disagreeing with your purported experience , it's about compassion shown to others, which you seem to lack. I was really hoping you were a good person with a VERY divergent view from mine. I am sorry to see that you have chosen to act as a bully.
-
Since my absence from the site is delayed for a day, I must not let this latest bit of what I perceive to be "damage control" go unchallenged.
Maybe you are a PhD psychologist after all, I can see why that may be true, based on the sum of the evidence available to me, although your presentation originally caused me to doubt it on the grounds that I listed. Maybe you are just not the type of psychologist that I would ever want to be.
You know, when I first found and came to this site, I told my advisor that I was doing so, in order to see the other side of how the emotional-growth industry is perceived. She certainly had no objections, in fact thought that getting all sides of the picture was a very wise thing to do, if indeed I might start one of these programs someday.
I have been told by other professionals, as well as by her, that a psychologist should never present his or her credentials in such as way as to either be self-serving, or to smear another person for a non-therapeutic purpose.
That is why I have gone to great lengths to say that I am here as a parent, a concerned individual, not in any therapeutic role. The only reason I even mentioned that I am studying psychology is that it seemed genuine in terms of self-disclosure. And in any situation where someone seemed to be confused about my role here, I have been scrupulous, really scrupulous, about re-directing them to this point: I am here as a parent, a fact-finder, someone who may start one of these schools one day, but not as a therapeutic professional.
Fast-forward to you, sir. You come to this site, you flaunt your credentials in some kind of weird one-upman-ship over whether I am this or that, you start throwing around terms like "histrionic" and "borderline" (although now you're trying to deny what you clearly did say: I printed it out, for heaven's sake), you take it upon yourself to advise me, when I am not a client of yours, about what is and is not psychologically healthy for me in terms of the length and frequency of my posts, as well as other matters that have nothing to to do with your practice of psychology and which are clearly none of your business.
It is factual that you did not use a full DSM-IV diagnosis, but what do you suppose a licensing board would think of you, a psychologist (if your claim is correct) using psychological terms, about me, someone you had never met, in a way that had nothing to do with therapy, since I am not your client?
I mean, the fact speaks for itself, that if you are using such terms about me you are in the process, if not at the end-point, of considering a diagnosis. And given the public way in which you did this, so much for confidentiality, though that is moot, since I am not even your client.
And other comments in your post ("Folks, we are getting WAY off course here" and "We have more important battles.."), seem to pretty clearly illustrate that you see this site as "your" place. Face it, your comments at "your" place involve using psychological, diagnostic terms to try to discredit me, someone you had never met, and who you had no right or ability to diagnose as anything at all.
And by the way, I have always functioned quite well within the various aspects of my life and have never been diagnosed with any condition, making your comments still more outrageous. No one in my program or in my life has any concerns about my personal functioning, but somehow you just happen to know better?
In your latest post, there is some amount of back-peddling, it seems, perhaps you realize that you are out on an ethical limb though you don't wish to say it.
You say that you post anonymously because you don't think you'll be here much and don't want to bother to register. Ummm, I have my own opinions about that. Then you just dig yourself in deeper by saying that my writing is "borderline", as if one can tell anything conclusively about personality issues in the kind of extravagent forum that a chat room like this represents. You seem to lack any clinical or ethical judgment at all, to make such a statement.
I find that your behavior here has been self-serving and unprofessional to the point of being outrageous. Please do not act this way again. Psychology is an important, serious, personal business. These posts to me illustrate a serious lack of understanding about your own personal boundaries and confidentiality in psychological evaluation, among other issues.
I am still only a student, it is true, but you have given me a really good example of how not to behave as a clincial psychologist once I have finished my program.
-
Does anyone notice how Ottawa is scared to answer any questions? I wonder if she allows her advisor to read her disgusting posts?
There is no advisor, there is no son, and there is no ottawa.
She's a fucking spy/mole and I 100% believe it.
I am not joking. She is a fucking spy.
Don't you hesitate to believe she doesn't give out information to CEDU. She holds regular conversations with CEDU and plans to hold more in the future. That is her statement!
She hates us with a passion, and would go to any length to quiet us.
I'm sure if it doesn't come out in the wash, it will come out in the rinse.
-
Yeah, I am always prepared to give benefit of doubt, but it doesn't add up.
-
Ottawa, you said this, days ago:
It seems kind of strange: I am perfectly willing to consider that the emotional growth school experience was, FOR REASONS THAT ARE YET TO BE DEFINED, negative for some people.
I have seen survivors explain in great detail the abuse and horrific 'therapy' they were subjected to. I have continually noticed that you ignore or minimize their experiences. THAT makes survivors suspicious of your true intent and question your integrity. It would be a trip to read your thesis when it's completed.
You have also said numerous times that you want to hear the good and the bad. Yet you ocassionally make comments such as this:
Yet, at this site, I have NOT SEEN MUCH INTEREST IN LOOKING AT WHY SOME ADOLESCENTS DO WELL after the CEDU experience, and go on to live happy, good lives, with positive memories surrounding the years spent in these schools.
Which also raises suspicion. You obviously haven't grocked that this is a SURVIVOR SITE, or else, you really do have a covert agenda. Why would survivors, of abusive 'treatment' be interested in hearing success stories or chatting it up with people who perceive the abuse to be a postive experience? For some, this may be the only venue they have for telling their stories, stories that the average american would not believe or relate to.
There are multiple boards where you can access all the pro-program rhetoric and opinions you could possibly want to hear. Why do you continually hold the expectation that you will get that kind of feedback at a survivor site?
Pay close attention when visiting those pro-progam sites. You won't find any survivors speaking there about the abuse they endured under the guise of 'therapy'. Might you put forth the same challenge at those sites-- " I'M LOOKING FOR GOOD AND BAD STORIES. I HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH INTEREST HERE IN LOOKING AT WHY SOME ADOLESCENTS DO NOT DO WELL IN CEDU/ XYZ PROGRAM. WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE IT DIDN'T WORK FOR? WHY DON'T I HEAR ANYTHING NEGATIVE HERE?"
Those boards are censored. Given that, you should feel fortunate to even have access to the stories here, and should treat the posters here with due respest-- If indeed you are looking to understand what doesn't work. The least you could do is read the posts and draw your own conclusions without humiliating and harrassing those who are trying to recover from their 'treatment'.
You know, or should, that if you want to gather truly objective material for your little project, that you should not be engaging the posters here. You should not be engaging in arguements or making comments that frighten or enrage survivors. You are influencing the outcome of your research by doing so. Check with your advisor on this.
I'll say again. I think you've already drawn a conclusion about survivors- wrongly placed/ severe psychological problems; and that you're really here to gather proof to support that conclusion. It is terribly unethical of you to act the way you have. If I were your advisor, I'd require you to leave this site completely, or monitor it without participating.
-
On 2004-08-01 14:16:00, Bryan Felsher wrote:
"Does anyone notice how Ottawa is scared to answer any questions? I wonder if she allows her advisor to read her disgusting posts?
There is no advisor, there is no son, and there is no ottawa.
She's a fucking spy/mole and I 100% believe it.
I am not joking. She is a fucking spy.
Don't you hesitate to believe she doesn't give out information to CEDU. She holds regular conversations with CEDU and plans to hold more in the future. That is her statement!
She hates us with a passion, and would go to any length to quiet us.
I'm sure if it doesn't come out in the wash, it will come out in the rinse."
I think it's already come out in several places, one I already mentioned is that she sure knows alot more about CEDU than any parent I ever met. But by arguing with her and not just ignoring her we're giving her exactly what she wants.
-
Well, I imagine that you are out there, whether you say you only come here rarely or not, you seem to respond pretty readily when I post about you.
The good news is that you had the insight and realization that your post of earlier in the day was very, very unprofessional.
The bad news is that others saw it before you had the presence of mind to delete it, and I had the presence of mind to print it out.
Have a very nice evening!
-
It is my understanding that anons can not edit or delete their posts. Which message are you refering to? Scan and post it.
-
Now Deb--I think that you know I am not very computer-literate, and the idea of scanning a piece of paper to you is more than I am capable of doing. And no member of my family that knows about these things is home, due to a little weekend carnival in the area.
Perhaps not everyone would agree that it is unprofessional to call someone "hysterical", hystrionic" and "probably borderline" on the basis of a couple of internet posts on a topic in which the "unprofessional" has a vested interest. I guess that I just hold the profession to a higher standard.
P. S. Oh, I get it, you're a communicant of FCT, Former Cedu Therapist--I saw FCT on one of your posts this week, I didn't make the connection until just now!
[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-08-01 18:59 ]
-
I try to be careful to state as fact only that which I can prove as fact and to state my opinions as such. If I've mistated anything, please let me know. I'll be happy to appologize, retract the inaccurate statement and then expound (perhaps at length) on what I meant to say.
On 2004-08-01 13:03:00, ottawa5 wrote:
you said that you found it quite plausible that I was a parent interested in opening my own school. Now you've got me working on CEDU's "legal troubles", whatever that may mean?
I consider both of the above possabilities to be equally plausible. Here's another, even more plausible, IMO. You may be a Program parent who's working (i.e. providing service of value) for CEDU on a volunteer basis (like the Wendy's® unofficial spokesman)
This, of course, is just my opinion. Pure conjecture. And, fwiw, if you really are doing just what you say, I consider you just as dangerous as any of a number of other former Parent Group members who have gone on to seek wealth and glory through the private incarceration of young people. So don't waste your time trying to sell me on the idea. From my pov, it doesn't help your position a bit.
A multitude of laws in a country is like a great number of physicians, a sign of weakness and malady.
--Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
Deborah, just ignore Ottawa. We all recognize histrionics when we see them - and some of us recognize borderline traits. Ignore her. Just drop it. Not worth your time. She's been making threats, so the "discussion" part of this forum is lost. Let her rant and rave and you keep posting your intelligent observations!
-
What's going on here folks? Let's not put any more energy into Ottawa. Let her voice her opinion and ignore her when she baits us. We have other things to do.
-
Ottawa, your research continues to be faulty.
Communicant? In your short time here, you've communicated with FCT more than I. Read the post again- does we really sound like communicants?
-
Hello everyone!
My mom is Ottawa5 and she is just giving up on you hopeless people so to fill my spare time between my job and social life I have decided to take her place!
I must tell you that I am a dyslexic and my spell is not very good so please forgive me for any mistakes that I make.
My mother did try to talk me out of this but hey every kid has to rebel some how right?
BTW my brother (yes he does exist) was helped in more ways then you can imagin by CEDU!
Hope to talk to you all soon! :wave:
-
Hi, there. I'm sorry but I'm having trouble believing you. Ottawa5 has become so hysterical and aggressive in her posts, that I believe you are she. Check out the history. She really went off the deep end. So sorry, buddy. I think you are the same person.
On 2004-08-01 21:02:00, Ottawa2 wrote:
"Hello everyone!
My mom is Ottawa5 and she is just giving up on you hopeless people so to fill my spare time between my job and social life I have decided to take her place!
I must tell you that I am a dyslexic and my spell is not very good so please forgive me for any mistakes that I make.
My mother did try to talk me out of this but hey every kid has to rebel some how right?
BTW my brother (yes he does exist) was helped in more ways then you can imagin by CEDU!
Hope to talk to you all soon! :wave: "
-
Ok lets reason this out:
fact 1:my mother has her own life
fact 2: I am a very bored teenager
fact 3:why would she take the time to pretend she is some one else? or be up at this hour?
You know sometime you just have to stop and think for a minute about things.
But for now Im going to bed. See you all in the morning!! :wave: [ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-08-01 22:09 ]
-
Yes, we are definitely suspicious. If you are who you say you are, you will be embarassed and ashamed when you see your mother's posts. SHe is REALLY involved in being defensive. Now she is making threats.
According to your "mother" you are NOT a bored teenager. She reports a very busy life. And I'm not sure she said you are still a teenager, but I'm not going to take the time to search through her posts. She definitely has a problem. I mean, look at the stuff she's posting!
On 2004-08-01 22:05:00, Ottawa2 wrote:
"Ok lets reason this out:
fact 1:my mother has her own life
fact 2: I am a very bored teenager
fact 3:why would she take the time to pretend she is some one else? or be up at this hour?
You know sometime you just have to stop and think for a minute about things.
But for now Im going to bed. See you all in the morning!! :wave: [ This Message was edited by: Ottawa2 on 2004-08-01 22:09 ]"
-
Hey "Ottawa2", Your mom says that you graduated RMA several years ago and that you've already been in college several years now, and that you even spent a year overseas, how is it that you're still only a "teenager"? :rofl:
YOU'VE GOTTA BE THE BIGGEST PUSSY WHIPPED LITTLE BITCH THAT I EVER HEARD OFF!!!
Why if you are as smart, and independent as we've all heard, have you not found a way to move out of the house and away from that crazy,totalitarian, control freak, bitch mom of yours? Does your mom let you talk to girls on the phone? When is your bed time? Have you ever gotten to 2nd base?
DO YOU THINK THAT WE'RE ALL TOTALLY FUCKING STUPID OTTAWA5??? Look you crazy bitch, you've been exposed, your scared, and YOU KNOW THIS! And now we are supposed to believe that your coward son, who up until now had absolutely no interest in lowering himself to even hear the rants of a group of "HATE CEDU FANATICS" like ourselves, all of the sudden wants to take your place as "SUPREME DEFENDER OF THE CEDU FAITH" on this website? Let me guess is your son now also going to spend his every waking moment on this website monitoring and ranting and raving responses to every poster who doesn't agree with you? (basically everyone who views this site).
Oh and by the way, the dyslexic thing is a nice touch Ottawa, BUT YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ANYONE!!! OTTAWA5 why don't you do everyone a favor including yourself, save yourself all of this emarassment,and salvage the tiny fractured morsal of dignity you have left---LEAVE ALREADY AND DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR ASS ON THE WAY OUT!!!
[ This Message was edited by: SON OF SERBIA on 2004-08-02 05:56 ][ This Message was edited by: SON OF SERBIA on 2004-08-02 05:57 ]
-
SOS: It's her other son, not the one who went to CEDU. Look at his first post.
But let's not get sucked into this at all.
-
Well if this really is OTTAWA5's real son, and not the one that went to cedu, what the hell is he doing on this website anyways??? I mean Ottawa2 has to be totally clueless as to what's going on here. Hey kid, go to bed already, the adults want to talk. And tell that weakling, coward, brother of yours to come on this site already, if cedu was so good to him like you people keep saying, let's hear it from him!
and by the way, kid, you're mom is a totally obsessed, fucking nut job,you should really consider finding her some help.
-
SOS: Ignore them. Totally.
-
Folks, why would you want to run anybody off? They can't hurt you, you know. And you might learn something valuable from them.
Ferinstance, what if they are just who they say they are? Have you ever wondered just what kind of lunatics set out to make a family business of coercive behavior mod? Here's your chance to find out a little bit about that. That could be validating.
Or what if they really are one person pretending to be who they say they are, but actually just trying to disrupt some useful discussion that CEDU finds threatening. It'll all come out in the wash eventually. Have fun tripping them up. Really.
I mean that. Have fun, for goodness sake! You're not in the Program anymore and, once again, they can't hurt you. Really, they can't! :wink:
Whoever kindles the flames of intolerance in America is lighting a fire underneath his own home.
--Harold E. Stassen, 1947
-
Thanks, Ginger. We have called the detective, by the way. He is absolutely for real.
-
In case anyone missed reading this thread.
If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides.
--Old Yiddish proverb
-
Thank you Lezli! BTW: Holy wow what?
-
WOW!!!!!! i just read over this post, and i gotta hand it to ya ottawa, you are definitely a hand full of BS!! you need to do a reality check, and when you do come to reality, grab it and hold on REALLY tight!! ya know... you should really invest in doing something else with your time, because you're not really helping this web sight, and until you can figure out what you're purpose is here on this sight, just STOP posting. because you're getting a lot of people all kinds of frazzled. we have more important things to talk about. if you are desperate for attention, do it some where else, we don't have time for the childish games you are playing!!
The right to do something does not mean that doing it is right.
--William Safire
-
All this concern for how much time I have to spend of the site--you must be a much slower typer, reader, or writer than I am, I don't spend much time at this at all. It never occurred to me before, maybe some posters are spending hours over things that really take others a couple of minutes now and then.
But since you've offered me a reality check, let me send one back to you: this is a public site.
I've read a couple of your other posts, you seem to think that you are some kind of a site policeman, and that it's your job to tell people when to leave the site and what they make "dare" to say.
Time to realize that you are not.
I haven't the time to explain why I post here in detail or why I check in here, I've explained it in past posts if you are interested. And overall, I've gotten some great information and made some great contacts. So no, I'm not going to stop posting here from time to time.
Look, you're the one who contacted me, if you don't like my ideas, why don't you just ignore me, and my posts. Then you won't be bothered by what I have to say.
-
Ottawa, our QUEEN!! Where are those print-outs? I'm ready to go after ANYONE who would besmirch the name of CEDU!!! I serve HE WHO LIVES IN ETERNITY!! I serve KING MEL!!!
On 2004-08-01 17:59:00, ottawa5 wrote:
"Well, I imagine that you are out there, whether you say you only come here rarely or not, you seem to respond pretty readily when I post about you.
The good news is that you had the insight and realization that your post of earlier in the day was very, very unprofessional.
The bad news is that others saw it before you had the presence of mind to delete it, and I had the presence of mind to print it out.
Have a very nice evening!"