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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
61
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Re: Child labor laws
« on: October 13, 2009, 12:31:06 AM »
You seriously couldn't see that Department of Labor was all over my posts?  I practically cut and pasted the entire section on Child Labor Law with my three posts.  If you want to go to the Department of Labor website, feel free.  The information wasn't hidden and difficult to find.  It was right there.  My pasted sections were merely so people could read the applicable sections rather than pouring over twenty five extra sub-sections related to stuff like athletic events which were not pertinent to our discussion.  I will give you the honor or providing the links if it interests you.  But my source is quite clearly the Department of Labor.

62
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Re: Child labor laws
« on: October 12, 2009, 11:49:19 PM »
Listed under FAQ's.  Question: Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?

Under the answers it says yes, but lower wages may be paid in certain circumstances, including High School work-experience programs.  

This program is for high school students at least 16 years old who are enrolled in vocational education (shop courses). The employer that hires the student can obtain a certificate from the Department of Labor which allows the student to be paid not less than 75% of the minimum wage, for as long as the student is enrolled in the vocational education program.

NOT LESS THAN 75% means we needed to be paid at least 75% of the prevailing minimum wage for our state at the time.  

I am next to certain, having read this stuff that yes, we were required to be paid, however they were breaking the law by having us work because they likely did not file their program with the State of Idaho, or for CEDU students, with the State of California.  I am certain they broke more laws by having us perform labor that was considered illegal by virtue of being dangerous, and also illegal because certain labor is simply not allowed.  There is a limited list of what kids are allowed to do for work or work-experience.  So in effect, based on what I have seen and read, we were exploited for slave labor, much of it dangerous and nearly all of it illegal.  

I feel like MythBusters.

63
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Re: Child labor laws
« on: October 12, 2009, 11:40:50 PM »
There is a section of the Department of Labor, Child Labor Laws which relates to schools that offer a "job training curriculum."  I won't paste it all here, but just the sections that are obviously related to points we might make about whether we should have been paid, if not being paid was illegal, if the work performed was illegal or dangerous and similar issues.

This section is about school job-training programs.  They require a program filed with the state, the hours a child can work are identical to my above post as regards school day hours worked, and how many hours can be worked in a week.  Credits for work performed.  And WAGES!!!

29 CFR 570.35a - Work experience and career exploration program.

a) This section varies some provisions of this sub-part for the
employment of minors between 14 and 16 years of age who are enrolled in
and employed pursuant to a school-supervised and school-administered
work-experience and career exploration program which meets the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, in the occupations
permitted under paragraph (c) of this section, and for the periods and
under the conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section. With
these safeguards, such employment is found not to interfere with the
schooling of the minors or with their health and well-being and
therefore is not deemed to be oppressive child labor.

b)(1) A school-supervised and school-administered work-experience
and career exploration program shall meet the educational standards
established and approved by the State Educational Agency in the
respective State.  (I ADDED THIS BECAUSE MANY OF US FEEL OUR EDUCATION WAS SUB-STANDARD.  THOUGH I HIGHLY DOUBT RMA/CEDU FILED ANYTHING WITH THE STATE REGARDING A WORK-EDUCATION PROGRAM.)

(ii) Credits. Students shall receive school credits for both in-
school related instruction and on-the-job experience.

(vi) Written training agreement. No student shall participate in the
program until there has been made a written training agreement signed by
the teacher-coordinator, the employer, and the student.The agreement
shall also be signed or otherwise consented to by the student's parent
or guardian.  (I SKIPPED TWO SECTIONS.  THIS PORTION EXPECTS THAT AS STUDENTS, WE SIGNED AND AGREED TO THIS LABOR.  SO PARENTAL PERMISSION ALONE WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE.  HOWEVER ONE SECTION I SKIPPED SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT ALL OF THIS STUFF IS FILED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR OF WAGES AND HOURS DIVISION.  SO HERE WE HAVE A SUGGESTION OF WAGES NEEDING TO BE PAID.)

(vii) Other provisions. Any other provisions of the program
providing safeguards ensuring that the employment permitted under this
section will not interfere with the schooling of the minors or with
their health and well-being may also be submitted for use in
consideration of the application.  (HEALTH AND WELL BEING.  THEY DO NOT ALLOW DANGEROUS WORK TO BE PERFORMED.)

c) Employment of minors enrolled in a program approved pursuant to
the requirements of this section shall be permitted in all occupations
except the following:
    (1) Manufacturing and mining.
    (2) Occupations declared to be hazardous for the employment of (I FOUND THE LIST OF HAZARDOUS JOBS BELOW AND LOGGING IS ONE OF THEM)
minors between 16 and 18 years of age in subpart E of this part, and
occupations in agriculture declared to be hazardous for employment of
minors below the age of 16 in subpart E-1 of this part.  (THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND SAFE IS NOW GENERALLY DESCRIBED.  BASICALLY IT IS THINGS LIKE THIS; WE COULD WORK AT A SPORTING EVENT RELATED TO THE SCHOOL, BUT ONLY IN AREAS LIKE SETTING UP THE EVENT, TABLES, CHAIRS, CLEARING A FIELD OF DEBRIS AND GARBAGE.  BRINGING ICE AND BEVERAGES TO ATHLETES OR WHATEVER.  BUT WE COULDN'T RUN THE JOHN DEER LAWN MOWER OR OPERATED A GIANT SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS THESE WOULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS.  SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE REACTION TO WOOD CHOPPING WITH AXES, SAWING DOWN 60 FOOT TREES, OPERATING SLAVE WHEELS TO PULL TWO TON LOGS OFF A PILE, USING A CHAIN SAW...)

Hazardous Occupations

You generally may not work in any of the following hazardous occupations:

    * manufacturing and storing of explosives,
    * driving a motor vehicle and being an outside helper on a motor vehicle; (I ACTUALLY WAS DRIVING A D-5 CATERPILLAR TO GRADE THE DRIVEWAY)
    * coal mining,
    * logging and saw-milling,  (WE WERE N0T ALLOWED TO BE DOING ANY OF THIS.)
    * power-driven woodworking machines, (I BELIEVE THESE WERE IN THE WOOD SHOP UNDER THE DENALI LODGE AND STUDENTS USED THEM.)
    * exposure to radioactive substances,
    * power-driven hoisting apparatus, (I GUESS THE EGYPTIAN SLAVE WHEEL WASN'T POWER DRIVEN.)
    * power-driven metal-forming, punching, and shearing machines,
    * mining, other than coal mining,
    * meat packing or processing (including the use of power-driven meat slicing machines),  (USED IN THE KITCHEN BY STUDENTS)
    * power-driven bakery machines,
    * power-driven paper-product machines,
    * manufacturing brick, tile, and related products,
    * power-driven circular saws, band saws, and guillotine shears, (ALSO IN THE WOOD SHOP UNDER DENALI LODGE)
    * wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations,
    * roofing operations and all work on or about a roof, or (STUDENTS BUILT ALL THE BUILDINGS AND ROOFING WAS INCLUDED.)
    * excavation operations

Now I will try and find out if we needed to be paid???

64
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Re: Child labor laws
« on: October 12, 2009, 11:09:46 PM »
The Department of Labor has laws regarding Child Labor.  Some of the specific issues relate to children between the ages of 14-15 and 14-16.  
Permissible work hours for 14- and 15-year-old are:

    * 3 hours on a school day;
    * 18 hours in a school week;
    * 8 hours on a non-school day;
    * 40 hours in a non-school week; and
    * between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when nighttime work hours are extended to 9 p.m

There's also a section that applies to the RMA wood corral where we used what was known as an Egyptian Slave Wheel which is considered a "hoisting apparatus" and cannot be operated by children.  Occupations requiring the use of machinery, including power-driver equipment could apply to chain saws.  Also in the kitchen, children are not permitted to perform cooking over a flame, which when I was there in 1984 was the way everything was cooked.  Also boilers are prohibited and would likely include stocking the furnaces with logs as boilers and furnaces are considered dangerous.  Also in the kitchen, the use of machines like slicers would be prohibited.  Here is a little section of the rules showing that certain work we performed at RMA could have been illegal.  These rules apply to kids as old as 16, which many of us were.  I added notes of my own in CAPS.

b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not be construed to permit
the application of this sub-part to any of the following occupations in
retail, food service, and gasoline service establishments:
    (1) All occupations listed in Sec. 570.33 except occupations
involving processing, operation of machines and work in rooms where
processing and manufacturing take place which are permitted by paragraph
(a) of this section;
    (2) Work performed in or about boiler or engine rooms;  (THIS WOULD LIKELY APPLY TO STOCKING WOOD-FIRED FURNACES)
    (3) Work in connection with maintenance or repair of the
establishment, machines or equipment;  (THIS WOULD LIKELY APPLY TO ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK KIDS PERFORMED)
    (4) Outside window washing that involves working from window sills,
and all work requiring the use of ladders, scaffolds, or their
substitutes;  (THOUGH WE DID NOT USE SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS WERE USED TO WASH THE HUGE MAIN HOUSE WINDOWS)
    (5) Baking and cooking are prohibited except:
    (i) Cooking is permitted with electric or gas grilles which does (EVEN THOUGH WE USED A CONVECTION OVEN LATER FOR BREAD, I THINK WE STILL
                                                                                                 USED THE WOOD-FIRED STOVE AT LEAST TILL 1986 WHEN I GRADUATED RMA)
not involve cooking over an open flame (Note: this provision does not
authorize cooking with equipment such as rotisseries, broilers,
pressurized equipment including fryolators, and cooking devices that
operate at extremely high temperatures such as ``Neico broilers''); and
    (ii) Cooking is permitted with deep fryers that are equipped with
and utilize a device which automatically lowers the baskets into the
hot oil or grease and automatically raises the baskets from the hot oil
or grease;
    (6) Occupations which involve operating, setting up, adjusting,
cleaning, oiling, or repairing power-driven food slicers and grinders,
food choppers, and cutters, and bakery-type mixers; (I KNOW WHEN I WORKED IN THE KITCHEN WE HAD TO USE AND CLEAN SLICERS ALL THE TIME)
    (7) Work in freezers and meat coolers and all work in the (WE DID NOT WORK INSIDE THE FREEZER BUT WE DID STOCK IT AND USE IT)
preparation of meats for sale except as described in paragraph (a)(9) of
this section;
    (8) Loading and unloading goods to and from trucks, railroad cars, (WHEN THE DELIVERY TRUCK ARRIVED, WE UNLOADED IT)
or conveyors;

I will continue to look to see whether "jobs" are different than what we are calling forced labor, agreed to by our parents.  As we were not paid, I think there are two topics here.  Did we need to be paid?  Was any work performed illegal whether paid or not?  This would also cover whether a school can have kids perform labor, as opposed to simply having them keep their dorms cleaned.  And I think requiring them to clean their dorms might not be the same thing as requiring them to clean the entire campus.  

So labor laws cover subjects such as age.  And there were kids who were 16 and under so many of these laws cover them.
Then comes the question of how dangerous the work is.  Whether paid or not, I am pretty sure a school cannot have kids working with chain saws, slave wheels, unloading trucks, working in the kitchen using dangerous machines, stocking furnaces, and possibly even working with axes and mauls.  Additionally any forestry work could potentially be considered extremely dangerous.  So even though we weren't paid, we might not have been legally allowed to perform many of the tasks we were forced to perform.

65
Lou had that quiet, composed cowboy kind of voice.  He did have a bit of a retired drill sergeant demeanor, not seeming to be too comfortable with undisciplined kids, but I could see him going through the program as a staff and not making any waves or even being noticed much while he did.  Kind of Chuck in my I and Me workshop. There, but not really there.

But Chuck I could tell had some anger issues just below the surface.  His facial muscles were always tight, he was a perfectionist and those kind generally have anger issues towards others who settle for "good enough."  It is hard to imagine him becoming a full fledged staff member because he appeared to be a bit like Joe Sweeney in that he seemed to not want to do anything more than build stuff with his hands.  Chuck built the pit in the living room all by himself.  The cowhide seat cushions, the flag stone floor and rock fireplace.  He was good at it, even though the cowhide had to go.  But I can see him becoming power staff.  If he became staff, he would have turned to the dark side quickly.  As I have mentioned, I think CEDU/RMA had a system for weeding out the weak willed, those who would condone, participate in, or turn a blind eye to abuses.  Chuck would fit that description.  And didn't he later become an escort too?  Following Richard Armstrong's footsteps?

But while I was there, I had no problems with him.  He was pretty quiet, didn't say much, didn't participate in hardly anything and when he did, you never noticed he was there.  

Funny and related story; I had a guy in my peer group named Mark.  We were in the Brothers or whatever propheet where they give you characters to play like Dudley Do-Right.  During a rap or something, someone said I should talk to him and I said I didn't know him well enough to comment on anything in his life.  That I never even saw him around, had no idea who he hung out with.  Someone then asked an older student who was in the propheet with us to say something to him because he was his dorm head.  I jumped in and said I was in the dorm too and that Mark wasn't in the dorm with us.  The dorm head agreed.  Then Mark said..."I am in your dorm.  I've been in your dorm for six months..."  After the propheet we talked to the other three members of the dorm who all agreed there was some other guy in there but weren't sure what his name was.  Six months!  Talk about being invisible.  He got reamed hard in the propheet and later in raps for being a ghost.  I actually envied him.  To remain anonymous so long in the program, nobody yelling at you, nobody even noticing you for months.  God that would have been sweet!

So during the rest of the propheet whenever we had to go around the room and everyone says their character part, he had to stand up and say 'Hi, my name is Mark.  You might not know me, but I have been living in your dorm for the past six months."  Poor guy.

66
I definitely remember similar experiences where "staff" who were not part of the program yet but really just hired help for other things suddenly being in a rap or propheet and having that WTF!!!?? reaction on their faces.

Chuck Selent was one of them.  He was part of my Summit or I and Me workshop, yet I don't think he had ever been in any other propheet prior, maybe a couple of raps.  He was just then becoming more of a full-fledged staff member and all I remember was him being very resistant to the opening of the workshop where they tell you that you have to obey all of the rules then go on to suggest there will be violence.  That part where they say there will be No Violence, unless otherwise directed...  He had a real problem with that one.  But he had also just started on some sort of herbal supplement regimen where you had to take these pills or whatever every day, cost him a thousand dollars or something and when they told him he couldn't take them during the workshop he nearly walked out and quit his job.

H eventually backed down, but he looked shell-shocked from that point onward.  I don't remember him doing much while in there.  He contributed little, said little, and just looked like he had woken up in an insane asylum and wasn't quite sure how he had gotten there.  

I do remember Lon Woodbury.  He's still a huge part of the system.  He is the one who interacts with parents and therapists on the outside and gets people to send their teens to places.  He's deep, deep, deep in to it all.  Very corrupt.  But while I was there in '84-'86 he was on campus, had an office in that underground lair beneath the girls dorms and the library.  He dressed like a leprechaun in a green tweed coat, corduroy pants and he smoked a pipe all the time.  A very odd individual.  But he never sat in any raps or propheets.  But he was in the dining room for lunch every day so you saw him often.  But it was a 9-5 job for him so he was gone for dinner and never hung out with students.  He appeared harmless, only because you didn't know he was The Man who got kickbacks for getting parents to send their kids to Hell.

And there were a lot of employees who worked under the girls dorms who you just never saw.  One of the few places that was locked all the time.  Very hidden.  The people in there came and went without a word spoken to anyone really.  Just little minions doing the all the paperwork and billing.  Even Hitler had paper pushers.  

But only certain staff went from being helpers to therapists.  Will Vernard was staff before I arrived and after and he just did maintenance work.  But everyone liked him.  Never showed up in any raps as far as I know.  Lou, the guy who worked at the farm was on and off with raps.  Sometimes he was there, sometimes not.  Yet he had basically the same job description as Will Vernard.  And the night watchman once appeared in a rap, but he was never made "staff."  

So I kind of wonder how some went from helpers to therapists?  Hindsight lets me surmise they had a process for weeding out who would conform and who would not.  In the CEDU Documentary, one of the videos has a former staff member at CEDU describing how they sent him a questionnaire with questions like; "Do you consider corporal punishment in the school an acceptable form of discipline?"  Answers would be very revealing.  In this way they could find people who would not be too opposed to being abusive towards kids or looking the other way while others were.  And I don't think Will Vernard was the type who would have condoned that.  And yet they were there daily and had to see what was going on.  Did they stick around, heads in the sand just for the paycheck?

67
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Re: Caroline the Wolf
« on: October 08, 2009, 08:15:53 PM »
Quote from: "HHb"
I will attest that the staff when i was there would talk in raps about their personal lives including friendships with people outside the school. They would say they had to be on bans with some friends who weren't part of the program. I remember brett and carey doing the same things with people who were making some negative decisions that they couldn't be around and blah blah.

the place was a cult. the staff who worked there always fell into line, because they were there all the time and didn't have time to rampage with logger drunks on the outside. their livlihoods still depended on making themselves look good to the school. Look at the staff who lived on campus for more clues about how far it went to their heads...they believed in mels "vision". or they're interepretation. everyone played their parts. the staff I mean. the kids you could count on to fall into line or they were gone in a heartbeat. the staff...jeez. i just can't. but nice previous posts.

Now THIS is testimony that clearly points to the cult aspects of Mel Wasserman's "vision".  That staff felt comfortable banning themselves, or being banned by the school from interacting with people they knew on the outside.  And to talk about their own lives before and during their stays there, it seemed like so many of them were so much more "fucked up" than the students were.  Hearing staff talk about some of the insane stuff they did, criminal activities, drug use and so on.  And they all felt that since they had gone through issues, this somehow qualified them to be therapists themselves and solve everyone's problems.  

To get so sucked in to the cult, as a staff member, that you felt you had to divulge your own lives to total strangers seems so bizarre.  I mean, I can understand an actual therapist giving related feedback to a patient as a way of making a patient feel a little more comfortable and at ease so they will get more in touch with what they are feeling, but this is a different sort of calculated process.  The therapist would not feel obligated to share or compelled to share but would only do so in order to help the patient.  But most times the therapist does not insert themselves in to the patients therapy, but rather sits back and focuses on having the patient share with them, in a private setting, what troubles them.  I could not imagine going to a therapist who was crying and yelling at a Kleenex box sharing their feelings with me in the room with them.  I would run for the door.  

But yes, their livelihoods certainly depending on them acting in a certain way to please and fit in.  I guess a lot of jobs require some level of fitting in, but obviously not on this level.  And as students, some of our punishments (well all of them) involved being banned from various people and activities including being banned from speaking to our own family members.  I know on my full time I was banned from the entire school save two or three staff, banned from everyone outside of campus including my mother, father and siblings.  Could you imagine taking a job where they would ban you from interacting with your spouse, children, former friends and associates?  What a power trip!  And to accept that?  I can't even imagine allowing an employer to assume such authority over my personal life.  

Great post HHb.

68
I remember hearing it in more than one propheet.  

To think 25 years later we still are trying to figure out why they played it and what the purpose was.  Sad.  I think in the end, we knew just as much as they did about what they were doing, or close enough it didn't matter.  That's what you get when you let hacks play doctor.

69
That is definitely Brian Bates!  He arrived in late 84 I would say.  He was there in July 86 when I graduated so odds are high he was there in 87 when you were around. Lanky, glasses....he's the guy.  I would imagine he would have left via firing.  He was one of those types who would hang on to anything, so he certainly wouldn't have been the type to quit.  But how long he stuck around after you were there, I wouldn't mind knowing.  He was the most unremarkable person who would also be memorable.  Strange combo, but he was one weird dude.

70
I am going to ruin the end of the story for you.  Your dumb posts are what parents see when they come here and are the greatest source of advertising Fornits generates for how godawful these programs are.  Because you represent the programs, no sane person could come away, after reading your posts that these programs are anything but evil or that those who represent them are anything but degenerates and hacks out to make a buck.  Or that you personally are anything but evil.  So keep posting.  You are contributing more to our cause to paint these programs as abusive than you would ever possibly grasp.  The more you post the easier our own efforts.  

Every time someone reads your silly arguments, your dumb rants, tracks the endless posts under the endless series of user names you come up with that nobody is missing-- in case you thought people couldn't figure out it is all the same person-- all of which cheer lead the programs, they connect the dots.  That you are insane, possess no compassion, have no education, no therapeutic background, no serious answers to any questions.  Through all of your posts people, parents, can clearly see that if you represent the program, the programs cannot possibly be of any value.  Which means they don't send their kids to them.  Which is what we want here.  So please don't stop posting, you are our poster child (And I emphasize "child") and the thing we can point to and say "Would you want your child to be cured by some oddball like this?  A person with no eduction, no training, not a shred of decency who is quick to abuse others?  Would you really want someone who has no redeeming qualities anywhere near your child?  If the cheer leaders for these programs are any indication of the types of people involved in offering a cure, would it really be a remedy or just snake oil they provide?"  

Keep on Trolling!

71
Quote from: "RMA Survivor"
Quote from: "Troubled teens"
I think programs help troubled teens.  There are many Fornits members who are not open to that school of thought.

Why are people responding to this thread at all?  It was clearly posted by a troll.  Rather than choosing a name and sticking with it, they post as Troubled Teens?  Come on!  This is obviously just a troll trying to post topics for their own amusement.  I'd rather see us discussing deaths, abuse and the latest news and keeping those topics on the top of the topic lists rather than feed in to these bozos and their blatantly fabricated topics.  

The opening post simply said the troll finds the programs useful and helpful and that members of Fornits don't.  Who cares?  Why would this be worth discussion?

Troubled Teens never posted again.  Instead he came back as Point Of View for his name to write a reply which included Point of View in his pro-program response.  Then he came back again with the name BCA to cheer lead for Boulder Creek Academy?  Come on people, why feed in to this?  This is obviously just one person posting pro-program topics.

This and other recent topics are clearly meant to distract from the real topics we should be discussing.  I say ignore them, don't reply to them and keep the topics on matters we think are actually worth discussing.

72
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: Send Postcards to Brendan
« on: October 02, 2009, 03:49:19 PM »
A person who is a pro-program, cheer leading troll is both a drug user and a racist?  No big surprise.  And hateful and cruel even to total strangers?  Again, no surprise.

73
Come on people, a topic called Benefits of Group Therapy being posted by a troll naming himself Benefits of Group Therapy?  You couldn't tell this was a troll and a pro-program cheer leader from that alone?  Why feed them?  Why even respond to such a dumb topic that is so obviously posted by a troll?  Ignore them.  Don't let their pointless topics, already covered in a 100 other threads be the topics we respond to.  

All of these new topics have so many commonalities.  The posters topic is the same as the posters name.  The opening post contains either one simple line and nothing more or a cut-and-paste pre-written and pro-program item like a brochure from some program or an article they found somewhere.  And then they follow up with replies to their own topics under similar sounding names.  Such as Prove It says Prove It!  I Think All Programs are Wonderful says I Think All Programs are Wonderful.

Are we really falling for this?  Are we really going to feed in to it and allow one troll to control the topics?  Ignore them!

74
Quote from: "Troubled teens"
I think programs help troubled teens.  There are many Fornits members who are not open to that school of thought.

Why are people responding to this thread at all?  It was clearly posted by a troll.  Rather than choosing a name and sticking with it, they post as Troubled Teens?  Come on!  This is obviously just a troll trying to post topics for their own amusement.  I'd rather see us discussing deaths, abuse and the latest news and keeping those topics on the top of the topic lists rather than feed in to these bozos and their blatantly fabricated topics.  

The opening post simply said the troll finds the programs useful and helpful and that members of Fornits don't.  Who cares?  Why would this be worth discussion?

Troubled Teens never posted again.  Instead he came back as Point Of View for his name to write a reply which included Point of View in his pro-program response.  Then he came back again with the name BCA to cheer lead for Boulder Creek Academy?  Come on people, why feed in to this?  This is obviously just one person posting pro-program topics.

This and other recent topics are clearly meant to distract from the real topics we should be discussing.  I say ignore them, don't reply to them and keep the topics on matters we think are actually worth discussing.

75
The Troubled Teen Industry / Why are we feeding the pro-program trolls?
« on: October 02, 2009, 03:11:02 PM »
These new topics where the title of the subject is the same or nearly the same as the name of the poster clearly represents a troll, so why are we feeding in to them?  Do they now control Fornits?  

If this thread had been posted by someone naming themselves WhyAreWeFeedingTheTrolls, it would seem obvious this is not a real poster but someone who is just making multiple accounts to post new topics they can respond to.  This is typical troll behavior and I think we should stop feeding in to them and replying to their silly topics.  Just ignore them and their topics will fall away to the bottom of the page and then vanish to other pages.  

We are now seeing them post brochures for topics, as though advertising for programs.  These should not be responded to.  Responding only keeps them on top of the topic list.  What we need to remain on top are topics related to deaths, abuse and the latest news such as Aspen admitting in court that they don't actually provide therapy or treatment.  This is news worth posting.  

I find it revealing that they can't come up with a name for themselves, except to match the title of their new topic, and then they never reply to their own posts, they come back as Guest to reply and cheer lead their own topics.  I say leave them alone, and let them fill up their own topics by themselves.  Let them play with themselves.  Don't respond to their new topics.  It just encourages them.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14