71 Comments Posted by BSMarcia

wrote:
Yup cus my frens mom sed that befor they burn the boddies thay take dem to a secrit room en drane the blood en den they painted the bilding red. I'm sorry I just can't control myself ; )
wrote:
Nuh uh I no cus my frens mom usetta work ther en she told me they did 2 rape en beet en kill the pacients and then threw them in the furnice to get rid of the boddies.
wrote:
Excellent!!!! You are toooo funny.
wrote:
Well I'm glad I cleared it up for you. However one thing you've said disturbs me still. This picture, I doubt, would have caused and client nightmares. Except for the highest functioning client (and there weren't a whole lot of them) I'm sure none of them would be able to interpret this picture to any degree. You seem to be assuming that the clients were higher functioning than what they were. The majority of clients at Pennhurst were in the Severe to Profound range of retardation. Believe me if you can't be toilet trained after 20 years you are not interpreting pictures.
wrote:
I 'm sorry I don't remember what the TA stood for. I want to say transendental something but I'm just not sure. It was a class held for staff to better help us cope with all the negativity that was directed at us through the press etc. I guess there were some people who found it helpful, however I and 95% of this perticular class found it incredibly boring and a waste of time. The main idea was to give each other warm fuzzies everyday and then our lives would be so much better. Whatever. We were the 2nd to last class I believe and most of us had tried to avoid going til the very end. I think the last class had even worse attitudes than our class. There were no clients involved and the class was held in an unused room. The shades were hung up in the room after each class was over. Our painting merely reflected how WE felt being forced to attend a class that no one wanted to attend. I don't think it was childish at all just overall frustration. And it was a way of getting under our instructors skin one last time. Hope that clears it up for you.
wrote:
Ok, once again.......this picture was NOT painted for the "children",was not seen by the "children" had NOTHING to do with the "children" Obviously you didn't go back and read what this picture was about. Rather than explain it all over again, scroll up to 7-8-05 and read the explanation. However, if you are like most of the morons who have left comments you probably still won't get it. And once again well said Lynn.
wrote:
Maybe if it had a seatbelt on it would have stayed where it was supposed to be. But then that would be abusing a chair and that may be punishable by law.
wrote:
I've got to ask my sister-in-law if she's ever seen that psychic dog wandereing around up there. She works at the Vets Center where I'm sure they are abusing our poor veterens since many of the employees used to work at Pennhurst. And you know old habits are hard to break.
wrote:
Sure can Lynn, I'm sure there are plenty more places it could be put to use. And hey I think it worked here she seems to have disappeared!
wrote:
25 years ago I might have enjoyed that. Lighten up. Yes, yes a terrible thing and I'm sure that person was restrained to a bed just for the fun of it by the horrible people who worked there. You're absolutely right. I was on some strange hallucinigentic trip for 11 years and everyone was actually sadistic and abused these poor creatures everyday of their pitiful lives. I'm glad I finally came down from that trip and have been enlightened by your insight. I feel better now.
wrote:
Oops......it's Orchid Lunar not Orchard. Silly me!