ISAC your information is NOT accurate....

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-05 12:14:00, Carey wrote:

"There goes the mud slinging again. :lol: "

Actually, just the truth Carey.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 17:10:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Well, I think it's weird ISAC is selling information.  Yeah, they probably spent alot of time and money doing their investigation, but there are other ways to keep the lights on.  Also all the promotional hype on the website is a real turn off, even if it is well-deserved.  My advice is don't toot your OWN horn so much. It is not professional and reminds me of the much reviled parent-referral-services who are notorious for falling our over themselves (self-adulation).



 :nworthy:

[Anonymous]

Again, my question was "Why didn't you notify them of the error instead of posting it on fornits?" I should think that going to the source would be more suitable than posting a thread about it or did you have other intentions when you started the thread? Maybe you were hoping to have others see them as liars?

I don't believe that ISAC would like anyone to believe that their word is "God". I have been on their website and don't see the similarity to WWASP. Could you please explain? What beef do you have with them? You come across as being very upset with them. Especially when you compare them to WWASP. Why would you compare a child advocacy group to that of WWASP?

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-05 11:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Piss off Carey....it's all too evident that it is impossible to carry on any kind of a debate of the issues with you without your snotty little digs.....to be honest with you it's how people used to talk to me in the program whenever I didn't bow down to them.  I supported you before, but I have lost all respect for you.  Your intentions may or may not be honorable, but you are sinking to the level of those that you protest so much.

No, she's pointing out the exact same thing that many others have thought and posted before, Bill.  

I started this out saying that you were not the only one at fault in this little war and I still believe that but DAMN....your like one of my kids that just keeps it going.  The tone you come across with is one that is just dripping with sweet venom.  Just like when the group would rip someone apart then tell them how much they love them and they're "helping" them.  You're one of those martyrs that insists on everyone acknowledging how they suffer all in the name of helping (back of the hand laid gently across the forehead while sighing "don't mind me" :roll: )  Seems to me that you need this little cause to fill some kind of void in your life.

Wow, the POT calling the kettle black again! Little cause? Oh please, this little cause is obviously your income!

I'd say Cary's cause would be her children.While, isn't your revenge?

Go ahead, jab at me some more.  As I said before, it's of no use to continue to try and have a meaningful dialog with you.

Pardon me, but you seem to be the one jabbing!

Someone said before that this seems like more of a revenge/anger thing with your ex than anything else.  From the way you come across here, you seem vindictive...but you do it in the smarmy passive aggressive manner."

*Tsk* *Tsk*

Look in the mirror ISACers. You have all been guilty of stiring up enough crap on this forum and Straight's forum, to be comparable to the Elan posters.  :roll:  

Get some class!

[Anonymous]

Again, my question was "Why didn't you notify them of the error instead of posting it on fornits?" I should think that going to the source would be more suitable than posting a thread about it or did you have other intentions when you started the thread? Maybe you were hoping to have others see them as liars?

I did explain it.  You just didn't get it.

Here it is again:

ISAC is only interested in telling you what they want you to hear. ISAC's web site is run similar to the WWASP website. They post what they want,they advertise what they want, they tell you only what they think you need to know.

That is why I posted it here.  Because here, everyone is welcome and everyone has a voice.

[Carey]

That was me.

[Anonymous]

Isaac claims the seed was started by a synanon member. No evidence this is true.

Isaac claims the modality used by Wwasp was developed by The Straight. Not true.  The wwasp is related to CEDU,not the straight, and uses a modality much different than the straight did.

Isaac has made up a name for this modality which credits the Straight for the entire teen industry. The roots of WWasp predate the straight by almost ten years.


and on and on.............


Isaac is full of shit and needs to be started over.

[Anonymous]

Isaac attempts to connect the straight and Wwasp by saying Mel sembler was a fundraiser for the republican party and a wwasp person is a republican policital fundraiser in Utah.  f

How weak is that?  ISAAC is fast and loose with their "facts".


Isaac, I am not sure why you do what you do, but whatever it is you are doing, you are not doing it well. I would hope that your intentions are better than your end results. Your "research" final result is to make the entire body of critics of the teen help industry look less credible.

[spots]

Apparently, Carey (forgetting to log in again) said:

ISAC is only interested in telling you what they want you to hear. ISAC's web site is run similar to the WWASP website. They post what they want,they advertise what they want, they tell you only what they think you need to know.

There is nothing wrong with publishing "edited" information on your own site, such as ISAC may have done.  There certainly should be no obligation for such a child advocacy group, most of whom are 40-something Straight survivors, to provide rebuttal or alternative "WWASPS-is-really-a-good-thing" information.  One would think that, understanding that ISAC stands for "International Survivors' Action Committee" would hint toward their anti-behavior-modification attitude.  

ISAC has done a great service in publishing many first-person abuse statements, in publishing the tangle of suspicious businesses that make up WWASPS, in publishing records of closures, lawsuits, etc. against WWASPS, in providing volunteer support folks who can talk a victim (in my case, I as a relative with a child incarcerated incommunicado in WWASPS), in facilitating communication between victims and various media and government officials anxious to find "the other side of the story" opposing WWASPS' marketing blitz. Their site is huge, if you spend time looking at all the document links, and the State Department warning is the tip of the iceberg, only visible to those who choose to slid lightly through the information instead of working hard to find what ISAC has gathered together.

To say that "ISAC's has it's facts wrong and shouldn't be trusted" is like saying "The Pentagon is spending money poorly and it should have its funding cancelled".  Say something specific, or don't say anything at all, because your blanket statement doesn't mean diddly.

Well, here we are on page 5 or so of this thread, and Carey has managed to take a reference to ISAC's information and turn it into a cussing match.  For those still with us, please take a few minutes to check out the ISAC's site.  The wealth of information available may help you decide whether you really want to turn your child over to the WWASPS organization or not.

[Anonymous]

Just who the hell our these ISAAc people anyway?

They claim "25 years of investigative...." and "drug free workplace" among other things. Yet I am sure they are a new group. Then they chide a wassp group for doing the same thing, having a recent incorporation and claiming years and years of experience..

Is there even a workplace or is this just a rouse? How can you be help to a "drug free workplace" when there is no workplace? Isn't the ISAAC address someone's house?

They claim to have "health professionals, etc.." like they have a huge "staff" yet none of these staff members are listed.

Interesting.

I have a vision of one or two, or even a handfull of former straight people trying to generate an image of this huge staff with all this investigative experience.


I doubt it..

Once again, there is a HUGE crediblity problem here that isn't helping anything but apparantly the ego of a very few people and discrediting the hard work of people legitimately trying to stop the abusive teen help industry.

Message to ISAAC, you don't say anything until you are absoulutey sure of your facts....EVER. Then you carefully understate your position. Never assume or interpolate facts during an "investigation" and never release these facts until they can be verified by a third party source.

Otherwise, what you have are "factoids", a rather dubious acheivement. Just because you write something down in report format does not make it credible.



 :silly:

[Carey]

ISAC is only interested in telling you what they want you to hear. ISAC's web site is run similar to the WWASP website. They post what they want,they advertise what they want, they tell you only what they think you need to know.

Hey ISAC and Spots about that statement...the one I posted again right here...well it was an answer to someones question.  More importantly, it was my answer to a question that was asked of me.  

Someone asked me why I did not address the inaccuarcies I found on your site to you or anyone else at ISAC.  Well that was my answer.  

You can toot your horn all you want, but it has nothing to do with my answer to the anons question as to why I posted the statement here.  Like I said I posted here because this is where people, INDIVIDUALS that is, are able to do so without any censorship.

Spots

Apparently, Carey (forgetting to log in again) said

 Hmmm...maybe that is why I followed the post with and "That was me."  Maybe you just got lost on that.  Might have been to hard for you to follow.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 15:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 15:48 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 15:50 ]

[Anonymous]

Here we go round the mulberry bush, again.

Carey, you started this thread with:
?ISAC your information is not accurate. You better go back and check your information. If you don't have the details and facts straight you will be seen as less than creditable.?

This comment is obviously a confrontation directed specifically at ISAC on this, a public forum. What was your intention? I believe it?s more of your typical MO designed to incite argument, rather than share useful information.

What benefit did the comment have to the general public?

If your purpose was to disclose information that you believe to be inaccurate, then why not address it that way? Why not spell out the inaccuracies you found. Dear Public Readers at Fornits, I read a couple of pages at ISACs and discovered that they have a few things wrong about my specific situation. They are 1) blah, blah, blah   2) blah, blah, blah.

You make a vague comment and present NO facts and then have the nerve to ask someone else to be ?a little more specific??  And irony of ironies, you later defend again with this comment, ?Look, it is important that when you make an accusation that you have the facts to back it up.?  I was wondering, why doesn?t that apply to you? Do you feel you have enough credibility to make blanket accusations and people will believe them without evidence or rationale?

This anon hit the mark with this, ?I should think that going to the source would be more suitable than posting a thread about it or did you have other intentions when you started the thread? Maybe you were hoping to have others see them as liars??

It appeared again that you had made a public accusation with no substance and defended it with, ?...nobody is baiting. I just like helping people out.?  Helping out WHO? Who was the opening accusation helpful to?

And finally after at least two requests, you make this confession, ?Second, the information on the boys in at least one of those articles is innacurate. I have not finished reading the entire piece of work put together by ISAC.?

And who the fuck is ?everyone? in this comment, ? What makes everyone mad is the fact that they can not argue thier case....?  NO.. that is not what makes ?EVERYBODY? HERE mad. SOMEbodies are mad/frustrated/disgusted/bored  about/with the fucked up way you communicate on a public forum.

And then these lame and contradictory comments:
"I am sure that with what little I read, and the inaccuracies I found, there very well could be more.
There really is not anything on ISAC's site, other than the State Department's warning, that carries any weight.?

That?s a pretty bold accusation. Where are the ?facts? to back it up? Or, is it yet another exaggeration?  And you warn others as to how they might gain/maintain credibility? Your accusation had NO credibility until you posted that personal information about YOUR SONS was wrong. The rest of your comments are further accusations that haven?t been proven and remain your opinion.

I know little about ISACs and after reading all your posts, know not a thing more, except that they may have gotten some of your information wrong. What a long-ass thread to read to get to that conclusion. THAT is the point SOME people are making. You've been asked on numerous ocassions to make your accusation and present the "facts" to substantiate it.

[Anonymous]

Yes, who are the powers-that-be at ISAC and why would anyone trust information for sale?  Really baaaaaaad move.

[Anonymous]

(QUOTE) Message to ISAAC, you don't say anything until you are absoulutey sure of your facts....EVER. Then you carefully understate your position. Never assume or interpolate facts during an "investigation" and never release these facts until they can be verified by a third party source. Otherwise, what you have are "factoids", a rather dubious acheivement. Just because you write something down in report format does not make it credible. (QUOTE)

Damn good advice, Anon.

[Carey]

Anon,

ISAC your information is not accurate. You better go back and check your information. If you don't have the details and facts straight you will be seen as less than creditable.

Nothing has changed, still a valid point!

My intention and the benefit - To let others know that what they find on ISAC is not the whole truth nothing but the truth....

Carey, you started this thread with:
?ISAC your information is not accurate. You better go back and check your information. If you don't have the details and facts straight you will be seen as less than creditable.?

This comment is obviously a confrontation directed specifically at ISAC on this, a public forum.

If your purpose was to disclose information that you believe to be inaccurate, then why not address it that way?

Because that is not the way I choose to address it.

Do you feel you have enough credibility to make blanket accusations and people will believe them without evidence or rationale?

Wow, now that is a good one.  That is what you people do constantly!!!!!!   ISAC'S whole site is nothing more than accusations...there is not a shred of evidence on it.  They have one of Amberly's 3 sworn statements on it.  How creditable is that?  It is not.  She is a known liar.  But hey, if that is the best they have,then that is the best they have.

And you ask if I am creditable, well I have never lied.  If you beleive Amberly, a known liar, then you don't beleive in truth you beleive in what you want to beleive in.  Hey, but you know what, I can't control that.  


I am helping out.  I may not be helping you, but I am helping out.  The people who read Fornets will be able to hear not just your side or the other side, but they will hear from someone who thinks outside the "boxes."  I am trying to help people to think independently.


Sorry I have upset you so very badly...get over it, already!! :wave: Remember, keep your cool and stay in control of yourself...the only person you can control is you!

 :wink:

ISAC is only interested in telling you what they want you to hear. ISAC's web site is run similar to the WWASP website. They post what they want,they advertise what they want, they tell you only what they think you need to know.

The inaccuacies are there! :wink:

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 19:44 ]