On 2005-03-11 18:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
as I said in another post, it doesn't matter who disclosed zita's name,
No, it does matter! It matters a lot! I don't care how low an opinion you have of the kid's mother, the people entrusted w/ her care at the school had no business disclosing her identity.
What's more disturbing than that, though, is some of the things the kids have said. At least I HOPE it's kids. I hate to think the adults are that immature. It seems that every time someone pisses off "Mama", we get a string of offensive dirt on that person's sex life, home life, personal appearance, etc. Even if half of this crap were true (which I
seriously doubt) what business do these kids have discussing any of these personal details in a group setting?
I understand from some of the more calm and level discussion here that the kids are encouraged to divulge their secrets and private issues in group. And I must add this. So far, it seems that the kids who are now out (home or not) have been the most mature, sincere and compassionate participants. Notice how few of them are still hanging around? I think they've got better sense than the rest of us.
But look how this treatment method actually turns out! Never mind that it seemed like a good idea at the time. This is what happens when you get a bunch of kids together and love bomb them so they'll tell all their secrets and then encourage them to provide supervision and therapy to each other.
Mark and Cheryl are adult business owners. They offer a service, which they bill as education and therapy. It's not out of line for past customers of that business to discuss their level of satisfaction w/ that service. It is entirely out of line to make public the private business of minor children who are involved.
But, as I just said in another post, that is one of the primal flaws of forced group therapy. There is no meaningful confidentiality. When the other group members get pissed off, all pretense of unconditional love and confidentiality go the way of last year's campaign promises.
Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
--Alexander Hamilton
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity AnonymousSome days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.