On 2006-04-05 16:14:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"I am back now the penguin issue has resolved itself for the.. well I really can not say better.
I suppose I will just have to bite the proverbial bullet and ask this question which has been on my mind all night.
Now that the point has been conceded that it is possible that abuse has gone on out of sight and out of mind, what other back door shennanigans could have possibly occured?
Please lets not use back door in this case as a reference to some bizzare non straight courting ritual. A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
--Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author
"
You seem to be having a discussion with yourself about a different topic than the one presented in the original post.
Your attempt at realizing that anything and everything, such as sexual misconduct, is possible was already stated. By stating that Maia wrote that Ray was told by female staff that the same female staff were 'breaking' the girl patients by using sexual misconduct. Got it? That you want to think that we have conceded to your misconception on this particular point is a misperception of who posted it first. Learn to read. The only frequency I can cop to about your short and useless posts is that you seem to be tired in your use of dry logic. So, let me make the first post I wrote short and logical for you.
Maia is clearly a good writer, she did herself a disservice by incorporating a liar like Richard Bradbury into her book; certainly she used him and he used her and its win/win, but it adds no credibility to her work by writing out his lies and bullshit.
Can it be proven that he B&E'd? No. Can it be proven that the sexual molestation of most of the girls in Straight by 'some' female staff members happened specifically while Ray was a staff member? No. I see your viewpoint, but its conjecture (inference from defective or presumptive evidence) you're using and it's hardly poetic nor does it make you sound any more dry than you are trying to be.
The correct viewpoint can be found and easier seen by simply focusing in on the details of what was written. And since you missed it first, and probably missed it again where I just halfquoted Maia about two paragraphs up - I'll write it again.
...Maia Szalavitz writes that Richard Bradbury remembers hearing 'some' (two or more?) female staff stating (saying) that they used sexual molesting as a means to 'break' several (three or more? apiece?) female patients...
So focus in on that for a second. Maybe you'll go to the bookstore and see what I'm saying. Maia has no less honed her craft like she has done in prior works. She takes alot of hard research and makes clear use out of it, and more to the point she is taking a hard situation and turning an obviously disturbed person's ramblings and delusions into something useful and whoever edited her material is a flawless editor no joke. I don't condone Ray's bullshit, but Maia knows exactly what I'm talking about by using specific details to focus in and weave a really good report/history! It doesn't matter that Richard happened to be around with Wes when Maia found out about boot camps and eventually fell upon thestraights.com. Could have been anyone, and anyone would have probably lied to fuck over the original owners of Straight. I haven't read any further but I'm sure Melvin Sembler is mentioned again and again in here in this book. But its not just that Ray is a fucking panzy liar, its the way he does it. He's not smooth about it, he makes no defense but instead hides like a fucking panzy when he's dead busted in lies. And so Maia has immortalized the little dickbag as such and I feel bad for Maia beyond her perfected and excellent writing on the history of boot camps.
