Show Posts

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


Messages - RMA Survivor

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
31
Wow.  I would probably be willing to give up Grammaticaster, Saprogenic and I might even throw in Casuist, though I really want to use it in a post with Whooter some time, so I might need to hold on to that one briefly.

32
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 09, 2009, 01:28:15 AM »
A silly little troll wrote Whooooops....LOL... Which is to be expected.

And people care about this....why?

33
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 08, 2009, 11:31:01 PM »
And this is proof of what?  People should care about this....why?

34
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 08, 2009, 11:21:47 PM »
Oh no, now I have to argue with you some more...  Because you said I lied and then didn't post the link to it?  Oh dear... Should I demand evidence?  Is that the direction of your silly little argument?  Nobody here cares about you.  Nobody here really wants to prove anything to you.  But we love having you around because you make our work so much easier.  Mr. Predictable.  If you can't come up with a more creative name than Guest, or more creative posts, than may I suggest Mr. Predictable?  If it is too hard to spell, try using the cut and paste feature.  But you don't really have to go through all the that effort.  We all know you when we see you.  We don't even need evidence to know when a Guest posts and when you post as a Guest.  We just know.  Almost like we're psychic.  Spooky, eh?

35
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:57:37 PM »
See what I mean?  Childish arguments based on one line from a long post.  So predictable.  It's why you don't need evidence.  I predicted the response, and it arrived in like ten minutes.  It's really the best advertisement we have.

36
Hey!  I am the only one who is using the word "ilk" these day in posts.  Find your own word! But I am willing to trade for use of the word Ameliorate.  If you could find who has the rights to that word, I would appreciate it and be willing to trade.

37
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:34:18 PM »
I base my conclusion on the fact I know he is an industry cheer leader.  Arrest records, PM's... I just watch what he writes, see how he doesn't answer direct questions, posts as other people to conceal his identity, uses Guest a lot to support his own posts.  The guy is a fake.  Nothing he says is credible.  He can deny all of the original poster's evidence all he wants.  It doesn't change my perception of him.  He can't prove to me any of the original poster's evidence was false, but he has already proven to me what he is through his endless posts.  All of his posts reveal who he is and what he is about.  A joke.  It's all double-speak and flipping the argument or keeping the thread about him and not on the topic.  Even in this thread, which is about him.  

You ask him a simple and direct question and you get a convoluted bunch of nonsense back.  Never an answer.  Never direct.  And I honestly don't care who he really is.  But I sure don't buy that he is simply a concerned parent.  I read the threads and decided it made enough sense.  And I didn't see how the PM was proven false and don't care.  But none of it matters to me.  I watch what he posts, and I see nothing of value there.  When he tries to spin things in to a pro-program light, it always comes off as so poorly done.  Whooter writes so poorly and has such poorly conceived arguments, I know nobody buys in to his tirades and cheer leading.  He just does it so poorly it is laughable.  And the anger and abuse he spews out doesn't help him any.  People who read his posts can see that he has issues.  That he isn't well.  That there is clearly something wrong with him.  And with him representing the programs, we can't lose.  He is the best advertisement we have that the programs are bad because the people who are associated with them are abusive, uneducated and deceitful.  Just as he is.

The methods he uses on this site are now so predictable.  Cutting and pasting a line here or there of a long post, to nit-pick some minor point, ignoring the core of the argument in favor of the trivial.  Going on and on about the most insignificant things to try and prove what he thinks is some profound point, all the while ignoring the real point being discussed.  Children do that.  Liars do it too.  He is just so evasive, and so obviously evasive that everything he posts comes off as dumb.  And childish dumb.  But just as often, hurtful and abusive.  Just like the programs themselves.  It is so revealing, which is why I don't need someone to show me proof.  I don't care if he is John Reuben or not.  I decided some time back that he was just an industry cheer leader, cheering for an industry I find causes harm to kids, including myself once when I was a teen.  And just as I am convinced of what he is, I am not going to be convinced the programs aren't harming children.  

I actually went to a program, so I know what it is like.  And when I read survivor stories, I know they are true because I saw the same stuff happen when I was there.  I don't need to have evidence to compel me to believe survivor stories.  I read them or listen to them and I can judge for myself what seems credible and what doesn't, based on my own experiences and observations while I was in a program.  If a story included aliens and UFO's landing, I can assume the story isn't real.  But when a survivor talks about being sexually abused by staff, well, I saw and knew those things happened when I was there.  When survivors talk about forced labor, well, I did forced labor as well.  When they talk about loud raps, well, I sat in a couple of hundred myself.  So I possess the first-hand experience to help me discern truth from fiction.  I don't need evidence.  I am not a court of law.  I am not a judge or a jury.  I am capable of making up my own mind about things and I made up my mind about Whooter many moons ago.

Whooter on the other hand appears to dismiss all survivor stories.  From a logical standpoint, that is not realistic.  There is simply no probability that survivor stories would all be wrong.  Nor would it be realistic to think all stories of abuse are wrong.  It is Whooter who demands proof.  I am not sure why anyone bothered to try and provide some.  It just isn't necessary.  Survivors aren't looking for proof.  And their stories are enough to convince investigators in places like Oregon that their experiences are real and based on facts.  These programs are getting shut down one by one.  And they are being shut down for the reasons we say they are.  Abuse.  Lack of treatment.  Harmful activities advertised as real therapy.  Things we survivors already knew.  We didn't need Oregon to prove anything to us.  Shutting down CEDU and RMA, MBA and any other program is great, but we don't need it to serve as proof for us.  Maybe proof to the rest of the world, but we're already convinced.  We simply appreciate that they finally took action.   But Whooter actually thinks that every time he posts a response to every single post on these boards, that somehow he will convince the world that we are all crazy and not to trust anything we say.  Does anyone really think his methods are meeting with success?  People who might drop by this site looking for information on the industry are likely to all be adults.  Parents, state agencies.  People fully capable of seeing and identifying an industry shill.  Someone who is obviously working an angle.  And then they would read the endless survivor stories and match it up to what they have already seen and heard and like me... come to their own conclusions.  

I just don't know why anyone thought it was really necessary to prove Whooter was an industry cheer leader.  Or that revealing him as John Reuben or anyone else was needed.  I couldn't give two shits about the guy.  I am not on Fornits to try and convince him of anything.  I am here mainly to share my story, hear about other survivor experiences and maybe get the word out to parents and government agencies that these places are bad.  And Whooter helps.

38
22.  Tom Cray (Ran Quest in '84, maybe '85 too.)
23. Ned Murray (I think he had a wife named Laura)
24. Cindy Grey (Low level staff, loved to put people on bans for no reason)
25. Dan Krumptitch (Died recently)
26. Mare Dubavitch ( Married to Dan, died a few years back)
27. Will Vernard (Handyman extraordinaire)
28. Lou (Can't remember last name, the guy who ran the farm)

39
I think it is important that we don't allow an industry troll to control the threads here.  Posting of racist threads should be illegal and does not conform to the purpose of this site or contribute to any meaningful discussions.  I am asking that everyone here recognize those threads for what they are and not add to them in any way, thus making sure they fall farther down the list of topics.   By responding, you only feed in to their plan to control the site.  

The use of Ursas was clearly meant to be an insult to Ursus, a regular and respected poster here.  Only industry trolls like Whooter/John Reuben use variations of other peoples names like this.  Let's not allow racism to become a dominant topic here on Fornits.

40
Do you think that parents who are sending, or more likely have sent their kids already to a program, might use a search engine to find out what LifeSteps are all about?  I am thinking that once they have a kid in a program, and start hearing the lingo, they might possibly try to learn more, see if information is available on the internet.  And surely with the words used so often on Fornits, they'd also find this place as a reference.  

What irks me is that kids still get placed despite the plethora of available information.  I can't see how a wiki would hurt.  I just hope it helps.  Good idea.

41
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Cataloging TheWho/John Reuben's Lies
« on: December 06, 2009, 07:20:38 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
This thread is very informative about how parents can get snookered by program pushers disguising themselves as "regular parents."  This guy Whooter denies all the time that he is involved in the industry, but then he says :the real money's in the TBS industry" while at an industry seminar.   ::)

And his posting as a Guest is exactly that same thing!  Trying to suggest he is someone else, just as the program pushers disguise their true links to the industry.  Whooter/John Reuben tries desperately to conceal his connection to the industry.  Not just informative but revealing.  It's always about lies and deception with them.  If parents had real information, they'd think more than twice about sending their kids away to these places.  The money is in maintaining the illusion of impartiality.  The illusion of actual therapy.  The Wizard of Oz.

42
I didn't mention or blame a suicide 5 to 10 years out on any program.  Where did you get that quote from?  So you are the one bringing up claims with no links to support them, just your word that I have said such things.  Gee, what a surprise.  I didn't have links, because I wasn't linking to anything.  Nothing I said in my post required a link.  

By mentioning whore to her in a thread where she declared she was labeled as one, is the same thing as calling her a whore.  It shows you have no empathy, you can't think about the abuse you cause to others and simply don't care that your words might hurt her.  

And we label you because we can.  We can make our own judgments of you.  That is called an opinion.  Anyone can come to a conclusion based on what you write whether it is nonsense or of some value.  And I have.  As have many who post here.  The general consensus seems to be that you are a heartless jerk, who has no concept of sensitivity for others feelings, who cheer leads for programs on a site obviously populated by survivors who don't hold the programs in a positive light.  Nobody here thinks you are going to change your stripes.  Nobody here really cares.  You love attention, and we give it to you.  As I said, every time you post, it is great advertising for us about how abusive the industry is because you are their cheer leader.  I wouldn't want you to ever stop posting here.  Others might want you to leave, but I have decided your presence here just makes our jobs easier.  

It really bothered you that I would come to her defense.  That I can see that your words would be hurtful when you cannot.  That others can show empathy for the feelings and emotions of people who express difficult feelings when you are unable to do so.  That you cannot understand that even the use of the word whore in reference to her is insulting and cruel.  Sociopath didn't bother me.  That was just another label you wanted to see her wear.  Along with whore.  Where you got it from?  It's part of your sick and twisted mind.  You chose sociopath for her, because one insult is not enough for you.  A woman comes to this site, tells a sad story, and your response is to make fun of her crying, make fun of her being labeled, make fun of her pain.  Every survivor story is a joke to you.  All survivors stories you try and portray as happening decades after leaving the schools even when the story is told as happening during the program.  It's always about blame with you.  Just like the programs.  How ironic.  You truly would enjoy watching young girls crying in a chair after being called a whore, wouldn't you?  You would want to be the one calling her that, wouldn't you?  You would revel in her pain and anguish, her fear as she looked around wondering if anyone else thought the same thing, wouldn't you?  We have a label for that as well.  It is called sadism.  You enjoy causing pain to others.  And then laughing about it.

43
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "enola"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"

I wouldn't put too much weight on anything Whooter says.  He lies a lot and has a financial stake in programs.  
[...]
He has no education or background in psychology and has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.  he just tries to spin things to look "less bad" by providing false analogies, false testimony (posting as dozens of personas) and false "facts and figures" that were generated by marketing teams instead of clinicians. He's a phony and should not be listened to for any advice or opinion.

Actually, I have been reading some--ok, actually way too many--of his posts, and I appreciate his comments.  It only proves my opinion (along with many others) that these people, are sociopaths http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathic_personality_disorder , incapable of feeling remorse or guilt, from most of the staff who run these programs to the money-hungry corporations that control them.  In fact, ASPEN is a branch from Mitt Romney's CRC Health (see http://http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091115/NEWS0107/911150428/-1/rss )
"CRC Health
In 2006, Aspen Education Group was purchased by the even larger CRC Health Group, an arm of the Mitt Romney-founded private investment firm Bain Capital Inc. Since the merger, though, CRC’s performance has been lackluster."


For anyone who claims to be a parent, or care about kids, to even consider posting some of the posts that this guy has, i.e. typing "lol" in a thread about a child's death-- http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29128&p=350434#p350434 and taking the focus away from the fact that a child died, one of many, in one of these programs, is disgusting.  Like I said, it proves my point.  Sociopath.

So let him post.  Perhaps the moderators can come up with some kind of warning label attached to his posts, like  WARNING: Posted By Industry Idiot!
Thank you Enola.  There was a discussion awhile back where people here were adamant that Educational consultants couldn’t possible tell if a child had ODD or ADHD, or any disorder  without first meeting the child and many here felt it was criminal that they place kids in programs based on such little information and knowledge of the child.  But you have shown that this type of diagnostics is typical and accepted here on fornits.  

...and on top of that you are suggesting that I be labelled somehow to warn people about what “you” have decide I am.  I bet you would be the first one to cry a river if you had to wear a sign around your neck in a program reading “Sociopath” or “Whore” etc.  .  But this is your first order of business if you gained the power seat.

You seem to be no better than those you criticize in the program......Interesting isn’t it?



...

I believe she has cried enough about having to wear such signs or be labeled as such in these abusive programs.  That's why she is a survivor. Normally I would say you missed the point of the thread yet again.  However, by calling her a whore again, I would say you really did stick with the thread for once.  Somehow it just doesn't improve your image.  I guess because you like the idea of making girls cry and calling them whores.  No, not a guess... I am certain that is the reason why your image is so poor.  

I think people want to label you because you are clearly of the sort of ilk that would find such activity acceptable.  As therapeutic.  But the followup comments showed that everyone sees you for what you are.  An industry hack, with no sense of empathy for the pain of others.  To you it is a joke.  To us, you are a joke.  You do validate our points.  Every time you post, people new to this site see what the industry represents.  What you represent.  The abuse you and they sell as therapy.  All of your posts are about supporting continued abuse, or covering up abuse, or as someone just said, basically portraying abuse as minimal, just a few bad apples, or whatever mindless drivel of an excuse you can give to deflect criticism on the industry you make a living from.  And of course there is the worn out "Blame the teens!"  You love that one, don't you?  

Oh, and don't forget to suggest that Enola faked those Alex letters.  That's another favorite of yours.  Or maybe suggest she prove they are authentic?  I'm really surprised you didn't demand proof.  But as usual, you did draw a dumb parallel by using another thread, with no link, to bolster a petty argument suggesting that programs trying to diagnose behavioral disorders over the phone or internet is in the same league with people identifying you as a blithering idiot and industry hack.  It don't take a rocket surgeon to size you up.  But a child being placed in to therapy should receive the best diagnosis by a well trained professional in person, and in every instance.  No exceptions!

44
I'm not even sure what I meant by incapable because it is so hard to read other people's minds and know their true intentions.

I guess if I had to describe what I meant, it would have to incorporate several factors.  

These were quacks.  They had no training to be doing any of this stuff.  The ones who were part of the system way back when, who founded these schools all came out of existing programs like CEDU and Rocky Mountain Academy.  They considered people like Mel Wasserman and all the later School Directors to be gods, and they took what they said as gospel.  So you could argue, they were not too bright to begin with, many if not most of them had criminal backgrounds, drug and alcohol issues and were probably easily manipulated.  And as they started working the program from their end, as staff, they had to go in to it figuring it was good stuff.  Sure, many might have done it initially for the paycheck, but you have to consider many of them probably weren't too knowledgeable about any of it enough to question what they were doing.  We are talking about people with little to no education, college or even High School.  These were not members of Mensa or Harvard graduates possessed of great intellects.  They were hired through what I believe was a very simple process that looked for people who would go along with things without much questioning.  It has been shown that they sent out special questionnaires asking specifically about their position on corporal punishments and so on.  Their answers were then used to gauge them.  I think to gauge them on whether they would be able to look the other way when they saw what their instincts might tell them was abuse.  Think of police officers.  Many officers today are fully complicit in brutalizing citizens, using tasers in an inappropriate manner and then covering it up afterward, each officer providing cover for the others.  And I have known quite a few police officers and they made it quite clear that there is a weeding-out process whereby the police don't want holier-than-thou types who are going to mess with the system they enjoy. It's not that people don't try and become good cops, but that once in, their ability to do good is hampered by those who prefer a different system, one without accountability, one that reinforces their feeling of power.    Are there good cops?  Sure.  Were there good staff members?  Yes.  Everyone agrees that each program had staff that were "better" than others.  But did those staff who were better, speak out?  No.  And you have to ask why?  I think it is because their moral compass was already not functioning too well before they got hired and after being hired the program itself screwed with it even more.  Much as we were screwed with.  There was so much psychobable going on, and I think it was designed to keep us in line as much as to keep them in line.  It was about control and getting people to buy in.  And I think staff bought in.  

So my argument here, is that yes, some certainly had to know it was abuse and recognized it as such, though they stayed quiet and didn't rock the boat or lose the paycheck.  But I also think there are those who are more prone to being bullies, enjoy power, like to exercise it over others and in such a situation, that kind of setting, seeing that there is no accountability, can go way overboard.  Which I think is what happened.  Did they know what they were doing was abuse?  Maybe.  But I think some of them, likely the ones who were "Power Staff" really believed like Alex and Sharon seem to, that everything they did was right.  And from my experience at Rocky Mountain Academy back in the mid 80's, this was the culture they created for themselves.  One where they had their own Gods or Guru's, people they looked up to and then wanted to emulate and become.  They fed off each others latest psychobable notions of how to fix kids.  They came up with one catch phrase after another to hurl at teens.  Basically it was made up as they went along, gradually becoming more and more abusive I think as they refined it, almost working in competition to outdo each other and come up with the killer themes for Raps or Propheets/Life Steps.  They wanted to be Top Dog.  Not all of them wanted it, but many of them sought the power.  The environment they created, based on the strange ideas of Mel Wasserman, the Synanon, LifeSpring and EST cultures and their own limited imaginations was one that reinforced action over accountability.  And eventually I think they just saw everything they did as right and proper and good, that they could not commit any wrongdoing because all they did was righteous.  So maybe in the beginning, they might have been able to see abuse and be capable of questioning it, but eventually I feel they no longer could.  

And then think of the context.  These were people telling themselves they were saving kids.  They fashioned themselves as heroes.  And in doing so, put themselves on a pedestal and patted each other on the backs for the good they believed they were dishing out.  And beliefs are a hard thing to discard once you've held them long enough.  So Alex may eventually come around to seeing that he was abusing people for years now that he has been told by the State of Oregon that this was the case.  I don't think he could ever accept it coming from a former student, because he probably can't accept right now that his power is gone.  He held so much power and authority over you and others that he is in denial about the actions he took.  And Sharon suggesting that a few bad kids just wanted to lie to get it all shut down so they could go home and do more drugs and party is the same thing.  These people were so deep in to a self-reinforcing atmosphere that rewarded them for basically creating greater levels of abuse, coming up with radical, yet totally unfounded methods for dealing with troubled teens.  This was what they were used to.  They became the guru's with all the answers.  Creating it all themselves, just as God created the universe, the Alex's and Sharon's felt they were Gods creating something amazing and powerful and helpful and that's how they saw themselves.  I don't think they were capable of seeing themselves in any other way.  They truly thought they could do no wrong and that is why they can't accept that they did do wrong.  The State of Oregon clearly hasn't convinced them.  Or... It is possible they don't want to admit anything because the allegations of abuse could be followed by lawsuits?

And can you imagine what it would feel like to suddenly realize you did abuse hundreds or even thousands of teens?  To realize you were a monster?  That kids who later committed suicide may have done so because of things you did to them?  What would a normal person, capable of self-reflection do upon realizing this?  

By the way, before and after Rocky Mountain Academy I worked in a Direct Care Home for Autistic Children.  After a few months I saw a fellow staff member physically abuse a child.  Actual injury.  I called the police and filed a report and lost my job the next day.  Of course the child was incapable of speech, so the officers investigating could not understand how to conduct an interview to determine if injury or assault had taken place.  But whereas such homes and staff are required by Federal Law to report any suspected abuse, and I did so, reporting it doesn't always work and getting fired is often quite likely.  And I don't think it would have been any different at any of these programs, most of which are not covered by Federal Laws and certainly little state oversight.  

Also, I would be happy to share my reunion story with you.  It was pretty damn cool.  And the first time in my life I ever experienced unconditional love.

45
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: One advantage of group therapy
« on: December 06, 2009, 01:20:20 AM »
Since this site is mainly about programs, I will put this in to the context of the program I was in and the group therapy method they used.

We mainly had "Raps" for our group therapy.  And the poster for this thread suggests that there is some benefit to having other opinions or personalities involved to give a more broad critique to a participant.  In our raps, generally the other participants were coaxed and coached on what feedback to give.  Those who had been there longer had learned all the program lingo and packaged lines so they might not need as much coaching.  But the Raps were not voluntary, the critique really came from the staff and not the students, even if the students were the ones saying things.  It was the staff who directed, controlled and determined what was to be said, how it was to be said, what the student should feel, what the student should say in response, when the indictment began and when it ended.  Add in the fact the staff running the group therapy had no education, background or experience in counseling, psychology or therapy, I would argue the group therapy held little value.  And as these sessions were generally just loud, verbally abusive scream-fests, it was difficult for students to feel anything other than assaulted, against their will, unable to walk away as staff either screamed abuses or directed others to do the same.  

Additionally, whereas a druggie or alcoholic might be able to spot another of their kind, these people can hardly be objective in critiquing anyone.  I would not even trust the judgment of a PhD holding drug addict to be objective and provide reliable feedback, even if that PhD was in Psychology.  So relying on people with similar experiences is a bad choice.  

Also, in our program, attractive females had the hardest time of it.  Any suggestion of being attracted to others was not only frowned upon, the female in question was likely to have endless abuse heaped upon her, had probably been called a whore, slut or worse many times by staff or by students directed by staff.  Thus, relying on this attractive female to give truthful statements about her opinion of some guy her age with low self esteem issues would be problematic at best.  And I would not imagine her offering to provide her insights willingly or enjoying the unprovoked and un-asked for attention of being put on the spot to have to say something possibly derogatory to her fellow student, knowing from first-hand experience what it is like.  

This is not to say that some level of psychological-based role playing can't be of some therapeutic value, but by itself it is almost worthless and should not play a large role in a therapy setting.  Many licensed therapists will act out the persona of someone in the life of their patient in order to allow the patient to pratice speaking to that person, or to vent feelings and frustrations towards that person.  But this role playing is never the core of the therapy.  But in the programs, it is central and unending and mostly just confrontational.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14