Early withdrawal

[Anonymous]

So many kids that get pulled early wonder what life would be like if their parents had believed in them enough to allow them to graduate.  If you bring her home without even checking the plae out it out for yourself, it will be for you, not for her.



This board is full of hate and terror.  If that's what you want, enjoy and happy holidays.  "
[/quote]

You are obviously a program parent. You wouldn't be talking so much bullshit if you were in a program and experienced it for yourself. The kids who have been pulled are usually grateful that their parents saw through WWASPS' manipulation and scare tactics ("your child is in a terrible condition, he/she will DIE if you won't keep them here!", etc.)

Listen to your instincts. You know there's gotta be something wrong when an organization does not allow you to communicate freely with your child. Take your daughter home, and get her some real help.

[Anonymous]

have another parent that is going to visit take some pictures of her for you

 :roll:

I remember at SCL every few months, mostly around holiday time they would line us up and trot us into the 'woods' (the pine trees just surrounding the buildings) and take a picture of us. Theyd tell us to smile all big and shit, we never knew what the purpose of this picture was anyways. Turns out when I got home I found out the picture is sent to your parents- to guess what- eliminate their fears. Let me assure you, a picture means jack shit! That place was a private prison for middle class white kids run by crazy mormon cultees. If you don't swallow their ideology they will torture you until you do. I mean literally torture you both emotionally and physically. I can't believe parents pay to abuse their own children. If you had any idea what really happens, you wouldnt'- couldnt'- support WWASP or similar programs. If you did, I would hesitate to call you human.

[Anonymous]

This board is full of hate and terror.

WWASP and other programs are BASED on hate and terror. They wouldn't exist[/b] without hate and terror. The 'treatment' (torture) the programs spew is hate and terror. All you feel while locked up in a WWASP program is hate and terror. You payed to keep your kid in an environment of hate and terror.

You are projecting. It is you who is filled with hate and terror. You support it in every way.

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-10 03:24:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"

On 2005-12-09 16:18:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2005-12-09 14:55:00, Anonymous wrote:



"Nihilanthic,



         Surely I don't have a doctorate huh?  I'm sorry to inform you that while I have not yet completed my doctorate i have been accepted into an Ivy League University where I will do so.  Guess what the topic of my dissertation will be!  Yep, you've guessed it right, "Reducing Juvenile Recidivism: Evaluating the Effect of Long Term Residential Treatment Centers."  In case any of you are unaware recidivism is defined as: "A tendency to lapse into a previous pattern of behavior."  You're correct in that I cannot yet guarantee whatever the overall effects will be, at the conclusion of my research however I hypothesize that the recidivism rate of those who have graduated from residential treatment centers will be lower than those "troubled" teens who either never had the opportunity to attend a program or were pulled before completion.  



         I'm not quite sure why some of you seem to have an inability to express yourselves without the use of four letter words; I hope that you do understand that the use of such words as self expression is a outward sign of your inward ignorance!:D"

ProudGrad -- Dont take it personally this Nihilanthic guy is young, hasnt been fully educated himself and feels threatened by your success.  Once he moves into higher education himself (if he does) he will understand more and start to contribute more personal insight instead of just attacking and brow beating.


I use to be razed by some friends who stayed behind when I went away to college, but when they started taking courses themselves and matured that stuff goes away, Nihilanthic will grow out of it.


hang in there"

Im in my second year of college. Im also very openminded, but that doesnt mean I just BELIEVE what Im told. I dont really beleive much at all. Also, my IQ is 146, and Im a science major. Want to start an intellectual dick-wagging war? :lol:



I ask for proof, I ask for evidence - I ask them to enumerate what a program does, and how it does it, and I get no answers whatsoever.



When I push it, Im told it falls back upon seminars, and the evidence I've seen about the seminars is its little more than a LGAT. Coersive and traumatic mindgames are not therapy!



Also, no matter how much I curse, it doesnt change the fact. It just expresses my frustration and contempt of people such as yourself.

Come the millennium,

month 12,

in the home of greatest power,

the village idiot will come forth to
be acclaimed the leader.
--Nostradamus

"

Okay 146 (you can call me 148) Lets assume you are open minded (as you say) and the rest of us are closed minded.  Well closed minded people, like ourselves, cant accept or imagine any other position except the one we hold, so we need data or a strong argument to persuade or dissuade us.  So may I put it out it to you?  What supportive (non-empirical) data do you have to support your views?  What percentage of kids would benefit by not going to an RTC?  Are kids safer attending a public school or an RTC?  Are kids better off running away vs going to an RTC? What is your data source and population, sample sizes?
I think science will be good for you, at first glance you dont seem to do well interfacing with people (I mean that sincerely), my brother is like that, he does well researching alone or with a small peer group.
Anyway, I have answered your question using Empirical data, you have rejected it.  Lets see your numbers!!

[Anonymous]

You retards don't get it. THERE ARE NO NUMBERS!  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: Computate THAT!

[Anonymous]

On 2005-12-10 03:41:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:

"146 IQ... put your dick away I put you to shame!



146.5!

Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author

"

Alas, I have no penis with which to demonstrate

My cleverness or intellect, so guess I just don't rate.

But penis or vagina, I can clearly state:

A fellow with such a high IQ should learn to punctuate.

 :lol:

[Nihilanthic]

Okay 146 (you can call me 148) Lets assume you are open minded (as you say) and the rest of us are closed minded. Well closed minded people, like ourselves, cant accept or imagine any other position except the one we hold, so we need data or a strong argument to persuade or dissuade us. So may I put it out it to you? What supportive (non-empirical) data do you have to support your views? What percentage of kids would benefit by not going to an RTC? Are kids safer attending a public school or an RTC? Are kids better off running away vs going to an RTC? What is your data source and population, sample sizes?
I think science will be good for you, at first glance you dont seem to do well interfacing with people (I mean that sincerely), my brother is like that, he does well researching alone or with a small peer group.
Anyway, I have answered your question using Empirical data, you have rejected it. Lets see your numbers!!

First off, considering my IQ of 146 is roughly 1:500, I severely doubt thats yours. If youre trying to start a rivalry or to make me get mad, its not going to work. Theres just too few people smarter than me on this planet (about .2% of the population :wink:) to make me think one of them somehow got suckered into that brainwashy bullshit... especially becuase they're too smart to be tricked by it.

Anyway, youre the one saying a RTC works.

1. Wheres the evidence of a RTC working thats not CLEARLY BIASED?

2. WHAT does a RTC do?

3. HOW does it do that?

4. WHAT answer to empirical data? You havent showed any! Wheres all the information and facts and statistics? All I've seen is WWASP's nonverified, nonverifiable, biased and non-reviwed "statistics", on the side of SUPPORTING their claims, anyway.

Lesse, why do I have the views I do?

1. A large group of people, who are isolated from eachother by time, and distance, totally out of contact, are all accusing the industry of the same things, Their stories all match up. If they were lying, then 25+ years and two generations coudlnt all keep the same lie spread out over the entire USA and numbering in the hundreds of thousands, could they? NO. Thats statistically impossible. Also, each INDIVIDUAL has kept their story straight through the years!

2. The NIMH says the entire model of the program (to the best that I understand them to be, as people such as yourself still cant state what a RTC does, or how it does it, at all) based on humiliation, coersion, etc is ineffective, does not reduce redicivism, and can be damaging in and of itself. Theyre a scentific establishment, you are someone who doesnt even post with an anonymous identity. I havent been able to find the NIMH link, however http://pcs.la.psu.edu/bootcamp2000/Boot ... 0Study.htm Pennsylvania did a study on their OWN bootcamps and found that it didnt positively effect recidivism.

"This study examined whether offenders who graduate from Pennsylvania's Motivational Boot Camp Program are less likely to recidivate than offenders who are released from prison. Overall, our analysis indicates that, when we control for the influence of other variables, there is no significant difference between the two groups with respect to recidivism. Rather, offenders who are young, unemployed, commit property offenses, are from rural areas, and have longer maximum sentences are more likely to recidivate regardless of whether they go to Boot Camp or prison.

We found employment status to be the best predictor of recidivism. Those offenders who are unemployed are almost three times as likely as those who are employed to commit a new crime or technical violation. Further, when using only new crime convictions as our measure of recidivism, we found unemployed offenders to be over twice as likely as employed offenders to be convicted of a new crime."

Ain't that a BITCH? Oh, btw, not a 4 letter word :lol: It seems getting the kid a JOB makes them less likely to commit a crime. HAR DE HAR HAR. If you'd LET THE KIDS GROW UP THEYD BE FINE!

3. The LGATs employed by the programs have been demonstrated to be little more than what is colloquially known as a "mind fuck", or a pathological effect from being forced into a psychological regression from physical and emotional stress. You know, no rest, humiliation, elimination control (bathroom breaks), not being well fed, coersion, etc. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm <- look, a source!

So yeah. You got any proof? Any evidence?

The ONLY thing I see from your side are business owners defending their incomes, and parents who dont want to admit they were wrong for whatever reason, if not because they were unduly influenced by the LGATs... or, in laymans terms, brainwashed.

Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.

[Nihilanthic]

TSW!

Its not doublespeak, its contextual readjustment!

I believe that relgion is the belief in future life and in God. I don't believe in either. I don't believe in God as I don't believe in Mother Goose.
--Clarence Darrow, American lawyer

[Helena Handbasket]

I second this. The main difference between the ones on here who are open-minded about the issue and those who can't reach beyond the four-letter words as they trash programs and parents seems to be education. Whether they lack any authentic experience or a degree, the one defining characteristic seems to be ignorance. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. "

Ok, this is just too good to pass up.

Hey, ProudGrad - there's a whole lotta fuckin' swearin' going on at the universities.  There's a whole lotta fucking and drinking going on too! :grin:

At any rate... although it's none of your fucking business, here's my defining characteristic

You can address me as Ms. Handbasket, Esquire, since I was also accepted to law school, but wasn't able to attend... and I'll address you as Doctor Proudgrad, okay?

[Anonymous]

In my experience, people who brag about their IQ scores, generally are pretty stupid.

[Nihilanthic]

On 2005-12-11 06:06:00, Anonymous wrote:

"In my experience, people who brag about their IQ scores, generally are pretty stupid."

In my experience, people who resort to ad-hominem attacks in light of having what they said discredited, disproven, and dismissed are pathetic.

First management had plans and then strategic plans. Now we have vision, and we're only one small step from hallucination.
-- Ansley Throckmorton upon assuming the presidency of Bangor Theological Seminary in Bangor, Main per Information World 8-4-`97

[Anonymous]

In my experience, people who resort to ad-hominem attacks in light of having what they said discredited, disproven, and dismissed are pathetic."

::mecry:: Thanks for hurting my feelings and ruining my day.  :cry:

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-11 03:01:00, Nihilanthic wrote:

"

Okay 146 (you can call me 148) Lets assume you are open minded (as you say) and the rest of us are closed minded. Well closed minded people, like ourselves, cant accept or imagine any other position except the one we hold, so we need data or a strong argument to persuade or dissuade us. So may I put it out it to you? What supportive (non-empirical) data do you have to support your views? What percentage of kids would benefit by not going to an RTC? Are kids safer attending a public school or an RTC? Are kids better off running away vs going to an RTC? What is your data source and population, sample sizes?

I think science will be good for you, at first glance you dont seem to do well interfacing with people (I mean that sincerely), my brother is like that, he does well researching alone or with a small peer group.

Anyway, I have answered your question using Empirical data, you have rejected it. Lets see your numbers!!

First off, considering my IQ of 146 is roughly 1:500, I severely doubt thats yours. If youre trying to start a rivalry or to make me get mad, its not going to work. Theres just too few people smarter than me on this planet (about .2% of the population :wink:) to make me think one of them somehow got suckered into that brainwashy bullshit... especially becuase they're too smart to be tricked by it.



Anyway, youre the one saying a RTC works.



1. Wheres the evidence of a RTC working thats not CLEARLY BIASED?



2. WHAT does a RTC do?



3. HOW does it do that?



4. WHAT answer to empirical data? You havent showed any! Wheres all the information and facts and statistics? All I've seen is WWASP's nonverified, nonverifiable, biased and non-reviwed "statistics", on the side of SUPPORTING their claims, anyway.



Lesse, why do I have the views I do?



1. A large group of people, who are isolated from eachother by time, and distance, totally out of contact, are all accusing the industry of the same things, Their stories all match up. If they were lying, then 25+ years and two generations coudlnt all keep the same lie spread out over the entire USA and numbering in the hundreds of thousands, could they? NO. Thats statistically impossible. Also, each INDIVIDUAL has kept their story straight through the years!



2. The NIMH says the entire model of the program (to the best that I understand them to be, as people such as yourself still cant state what a RTC does, or how it does it, at all) based on humiliation, coersion, etc is ineffective, does not reduce redicivism, and can be damaging in and of itself. Theyre a scentific establishment, you are someone who doesnt even post with an anonymous identity. I havent been able to find the NIMH link, however http://pcs.la.psu.edu/bootcamp2000/Boot ... 0Study.htm Pennsylvania did a study on their OWN bootcamps and found that it didnt positively effect recidivism.



"This study examined whether offenders who graduate from Pennsylvania's Motivational Boot Camp Program are less likely to recidivate than offenders who are released from prison. Overall, our analysis indicates that, when we control for the influence of other variables, there is no significant difference between the two groups with respect to recidivism. Rather, offenders who are young, unemployed, commit property offenses, are from rural areas, and have longer maximum sentences are more likely to recidivate regardless of whether they go to Boot Camp or prison.



We found employment status to be the best predictor of recidivism. Those offenders who are unemployed are almost three times as likely as those who are employed to commit a new crime or technical violation. Further, when using only new crime convictions as our measure of recidivism, we found unemployed offenders to be over twice as likely as employed offenders to be convicted of a new crime."



Ain't that a BITCH? Oh, btw, not a 4 letter word :lol: It seems getting the kid a JOB makes them less likely to commit a crime. HAR DE HAR HAR. If you'd LET THE KIDS GROW UP THEYD BE FINE!



3. The LGATs employed by the programs have been demonstrated to be little more than what is colloquially known as a "mind fuck", or a pathological effect from being forced into a psychological regression from physical and emotional stress. You know, no rest, humiliation, elimination control (bathroom breaks), not being well fed, coersion, etc. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/awa ... hology.htm <- look, a source!



So yeah. You got any proof? Any evidence?



The ONLY thing I see from your side are business owners defending their incomes, and parents who dont want to admit they were wrong for whatever reason, if not because they were unduly influenced by the LGATs... or, in laymans terms, brainwashed.

Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.

"

Sorry about the I.Q. status problem, you will get over it.  I know it seems statistically that there are not many people above 146, but they are everywhere, believe me.  As you get older it means very little people are looking at how well you produce or utilize what you have, not what you have.  Anyway you must do more than what you provided us.

To base decisions on statements like "A large group of people" is not going to fly in industry.  If you are doing research for a drug company for say a sleep medicine and they review board asks you what you findings are and you reply by say "A large group of people slept very well" Do you think you would get FDA approval? or a "Thank you niles we will promote you to team leader?".  You need studies and scientific evidence not gut feels or he said she said.

You also referenced a study by the Pennsylvania Dutch on Boot camps. (Short term, to reduce criminal  behavior).  This model isnt even used anymore, the closest model today to this is SUWS of the Carolinas.

Then you referenced an "Awareness Study" from 1983 whos conclusion is still an argument.  This is all that can be found?

[Anonymous]

What I find interesting is, why aren't parents asking, no, demanding this data from the programs BEFORE they send their child?

Because they simply do not care. Provide me a better explanation please if you do not agree.

Program supporters love to come on to this board and ask for imperical evidence of every abuse claim made on this board. They ask this because it is impossible to produce, especially on THIS side of the fence. Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. You should have done the research BEFORE you sent your kid to an abusive camp. Not when you are fighting about it afterwards. It doesn't work that way.

[Nihilanthic]

1. IQ shit.... um, whatt there to get over? Im not hung up on anything, but apparently you "two" are. You also keep trying to piss me off over it... I do think the bagheads protesteth too much.

2. The same applies to you. The programs have the burden of proof to demonstrate their effectiveness. Ive yet to see it.

2a. What statement is based on "a large group of people", exactly? Is this one of those tricks wehre I dont know what youre suggesting so I have to defend every possibility?

Furthermore, the fact that everyone who is accusing the programs of being abusive or ineffective all saying the same thing, with the circumstances that there are (seperated by thousands of miles and decades) does indicate its extremely unlikely that theyre lying. Because there is as of yet no conclusive study undertaken about it, and because LGATs do, infact, unduly influence their participants, this is DEFINITELY compelling enough to arouse suspicion and warrant further investigation. Sadly, that has nfot been undertaken yet.

Also, "a large group of people" is the amount you use when you do a study or collect data. Should you use a small group?  :rofl:

You take a suitably large group and you collect data (say, for a sleeping pill) and see how many of that group have improved sleep, how many have no effect, and how many have bad side effects to determinte its efficacy.

The programs have not done that. No such data exists specifically about programs accomplishing this. However, their analogue, bootcamps, have no change in recidivism. I seriously doubt that programs are any different - especially in light of the lack of hard evidence about them.

3. Uhhh, what? Bootcamps aren't used anymore? They were on maury recently. Bootcamps havent gone anywhere, but pennsylvania doesnt do it. PS, it was done by the state of pennsylvania, not the 'pennsylvania dutch'  :roll: Furthermore it was the best ANALOGUE to a program I could find, because NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE ON PROGRAMS! Programs are based on coersion, humiliation, and control, so are bootcamps. There isnt forced exercise in a bootcamp like setting in most programs, but that doesnt change the crux of what it is.

4. No, its not all that can be found, and most of the time you dont need to have some huge list of sources. Sir Isaac Newton came up with his theory of gravity nearly 500 years ago... does that mean it doesnt work anymore? A lot of geometry was developed by the greeks and the phythagoreans! Thats in the THOUSANDS.

Nice try, but no banana. Youve still failed to address the fact that

a. The burden of proof rests with you and the programs. Wheres the beef?

b. My IQ doesnt have anything to do with this. Continued ad-hominem attacks only discredit you. Also, four is a four letter word. Go get offended, ok?

c. The large group of people is all we have to go by, and its also the basis of any scientific study. You want your sample group to be as large as possible... unless youd rather hand-pick a small group and then spout off bullshit based on that  :wink:

You cant discredit thousands and thousands of people, spread out by decades and thousands of miles, all telling the same story. Theyre not lying. Its not possible for them to be lying without a rather massive conspiracy, which is 1. unlikely 2. extremely ineffective so far, Id think that if there were some conspiracy afoot it would have been more effective by now!

You also cant discredit the study of LGATs because there is only one of them or its from the 1980 - you can discredit it if you have evidence to the contrary! Do you? Also, whether I have one, or one thousand studies, its all the same thing.

Futhermore, you have yet to explain what a program does, or how it does it. Ive said this HOW many times now?

Go back to that ivy leage university, you clearly need to.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-- Albert Einstein