Petition to Ban GoodK If He Doesn't Cut This crap.

[_beastie]

What does GoodK's age have to do with it? You lap up everything a certain 14 year old claimed about God Himself.

[_The Dude]

What does GoodK's age have to do with it? You lap up everything a certain 14 year old claimed about God Himself.

[_Chap]

The truth of the matter is, Bob is bailing because he is in an argument he can't win and deep down, as a parent who I very much doubt would put HIS child in one of these places, he knows it.

I am still planning on addressing Marg's well-thought-out points, which Bob claims don't exist, later tonight.

She has raised no point to which I have not responded.

I neither support nor defend these boot camps. I have repeatedly said I don't and wouldn't send my kids there. I don't care one way or the other about "behavioral modification" stuff; I am not here to defend it. My only interest in this subject area is to express amazement that you -- and you in particular -- just lap up everything this 24-year-old kid says about a very complicated sociological matter.

If the treatment regime at the institution in which GoodK was effectively incarcerated by his father is in any substantial degree like what he says it was (no 'lapping up' needed here), we are not talking about 'a very complicated sociological matter', but an obvious case of the grossly inappropriate and harmful exercise of adult power over children who are getting authoritarian brutality when instead they need intelligent help to deal with their family's failure to do their job of bringing them up as happy and decent future adults.

[_marg]

What does GoodK's age have to do with it? You lap up everything a certain 14 year old claimed about God Himself.

Now that was good

[_Calculus Crusader]

If the treatment regime at the institution in which GoodK was effectively incarcerated by his father is in any substantial degree like what he says it was (no 'lapping up' needed here), we are not talking about 'a very complicated sociological matter', but an obvious case of the grossly inappropriate and harmful exercise of adult power over children who are getting authoritarian brutality when instead they need intelligent help to deal with their family's failure to do their job of bringing them up as happy and decent future adults.

It is not necessarily the family's failure, which you would no doubt realize if you removed your head from your posterior every once in a while.

[_Chap]

If the treatment regime at the institution in which GoodK was effectively incarcerated by his father is in any substantial degree like what he says it was (no 'lapping up' needed here), we are not talking about 'a very complicated sociological matter', but an obvious case of the grossly inappropriate and harmful exercise of adult power over children who are getting authoritarian brutality when instead they need intelligent help to deal with their family's failure to do their job of bringing them up as happy and decent future adults.

It is not necessarily the family's failure, which you would no doubt realize if you removed your head from your posterior every once in a while.

MMMMWAHHH! (why isn't there a kissy icon amongst the smilies?) . But consider yourself osculated on the top of your sweet little occiput, CC. I'd love to take you home and put you on my mantel-shelf as an ornament.

[_Alter Idem]

I propose that, if GoodK doesn't publicly renounce this lawsuit idiocy in 24 hours, the moderators boot him from the board. I don't think he should be able to ruin it for the rest of us.

Who's with me? Post in this thread if you agree.

While I'm not sure he can be banned for threatening a lawsuit (that's up to Shades'--it's his board), I believe others here should consider the problem his behavior poses to the board. He's shown that when he gets upset with other posters, he REALLY gets upset--I don't think any of us want to find ourselves in Goodk's crosshairs.

I think Goodk should be warned and then BANNED if he continues to break board rules, just the way Moniker was when she continued to ignore board rules. If he can't control himself, he'd be better off finding something else to occupy his time. I think Shades should consider his responsibility to the other board members on MD who should not have to worry about becoming the target of an angry, retaliatory poster.

[_Pokatator]

He's shown that when he gets upset with other posters, he REALLY gets upset--I don't think any of us want to find ourselves in Goodk's crosshairs.

I've confronted GoodK and said things that I am sure he didn't want to hear and I am not afraid of his crosshairs. But in retrospect, I have also never called him a liar, or called his parents, or conducted "tests" on him and about him, or threatened him and the list goes on. So what do I have to fear from him or any other poster if I am civil and moral?

I've had other posters mad as hell at me in the past and I am thankful that I didn't use any "tests" on them at that time and just chose to walk away from the fray.

PS I hate divorces.