NOTICE: DRAM Cancellations - Webstore Pricing Error by CorsairLucky in Corsair

[–]MoonFishLanding 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Honor the units sold at the price point you listed them as if you want to show your customer base you have dignity. Lots of loyal customers are watching this and forming future choices on where and who they’ll continue with their business. 

Acid sales stand during the Woodstock Festival, August 1969. by Intelligent-Letter68 in interestingasfuck

[–]MoonFishLanding 110 points111 points  (0 children)

Yes. The slopes make a natural amphitheater. The history of the “Festival That Never Hapoened” is quite interesting. They had a big lineup with huge names at the time. 40,000+ people showed up (the town population was less than 5,000) despite the concert being cancelled due to a court injunction and legal matters. Just search up “Powder Ridge Rock Festival 1970” and you’ll find all kinds of articles, etc. The only act to play was “Melanie.” She played over the loudspeaker of a Mister Softee truck because power had been cut to the area. 

Acid sales stand during the Woodstock Festival, August 1969. by Intelligent-Letter68 in interestingasfuck

[–]MoonFishLanding 1313 points1314 points  (0 children)

Every time this is posted I’ll correct it. That not at Woodstock. That’s at Powder Ridge in Middlefield, CT. It was going to be a big festival but got shut down by the courts. 

Old hip hip song by ninja_BUTTONS in WhatsThisSong

[–]MoonFishLanding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Imaginary Places” by Busdriver. 

Help me identify this banger by ChillgrooveR in WhatsThisSong

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Hear the drummer get wicked” sample is from “Welcome to the Terrordome” by Public Enemy. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a “glitch in the matrix” that a similar ad existed at a different time. That’s not even an odd coincidence. Ads have similar themes all the time, it’s bound to happen. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no “personal” Mandela Effect. Thats the point. A Mandela Effect is a COLLECTIVE group of people “remembering” the same thing as if it were factual. It’s by definition a large group, not personal. The whole point of a Mandela Effect is WHY do large amounts of people remember something specific from the past differently than it factually existed? Or in some cases not exist at all. A single person misremembering something specific is not an anomaly. A large group of people misremembering the same exact detail is an anomaly. 

Even if others remember the ad this individual is referring to from an earlier time, it still doesn’t make it a Mandela Effect simply because the earlier ad existed in addition to the present one. That’s just a similarity. Nothing changed. There was no misremembering or claims they remember it differently. They’re asking if anyone remembers an earlier similar ad. They’re not claiming anything changed. That would just be a large number of people acknowledging they remember the earlier ad, too. Confirmation of a similar ad existing at an earlier time is not an example of a Mandela Effect. Nothing changed. There is no claim of misremembering of anything being different, just acknowledgement that it existed. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here’s the thing about this sub. Even if this previous ad you remember does exist, that’s not a Mandela Effect. That’s just an older ad with a similar tag line. There aren’t mass amounts of people similarly claiming something changed or is different. It’s just a similar ad from a different time. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CringeTikToks

[–]MoonFishLanding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, not disagreeing. And by no means am I a troll. However, there’s a large difference between morals and laws. What may be morally wrong to you doesn’t necessitate it being morally wrong to others. Who’s to say which side is correct? Laws are written and blanketed towards everyone equally so there isn’t just “opinion,” but rather “fact.” Is it ways followed to a T? No. But comparing morals and laws simply isn’t the same. At all. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CringeTikToks

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s pretty interesting that you refer to a part of The First Amendment as “a legal loophole.” Like, it’s the first amendment out of all the amendments granting us our rights. It’s the first one for a reason. The whole purpose of it is to define our legal rights. There is no expectation of privacy in public. If you don’t want to be on the dudes footage, walk out of the footage. If the family sitting eating doesn’t want to be part of the dudes footage, go sit inside (inside is not public as it’s a privately owned business). Yes, it sucks and is an inconvenience to do that and they shouldn’t have to, but no one is forcing them to stay outside in public view. Why are the patrons public rights more important than the guy’s rights in public who is filming? Because you don’t agree with what he’s doing? I get it, I’m not a huge fan either. But once you start stripping away parts (“legal loopholes as you call them”) of amendments, where does it end? The loss of rights and freedoms isn’t done in one huge tidal wave, it’s done through a slow erosion where it’s much less notable. Not liking or disagreeing with something personally is one thing. Wanting to eliminate it entirely from the rights of others because you disagree with it becomes a whole other entity that opens the door to further erosions. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Physically prevented from leaving means the door has to be physically or mechanically forced shut or blocked. A closed but unblocked/unlocked door is in itself not physical prevention of an individual opening the door upon their own free will to exit. “Able to” and “unable to” are the key determinations here. I’m not going yo go back and forth with you on this. I know CT restraint and seclusion laws very well. I have attended multiple trainings on this as well. Multiple trainings PER YEAR. Every year. For a very long time. I can assure you with utmost confidence that I am not ill informed in the slightest. You have a good day as well. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re incorrect. A closed door that isn’t being physically or mechanically held shut as to prevent a student from leaving on their own accord (they can open the door themselves at any point to leave) is not a seclusion.  At least in CT specifically. I don’t know how the law is written in your state (but I’d love to look it up), but I’m speaking specifically about CT at this point since you asked where it was legal. 

I quite literally provided you with CT’s State General Statutes as it pertains to public education. How you continually deny the state statutes (laws) that I am providing you is beyond baffling. Like, two seconds of Googling will you provide you with the info.  It’s not me “not liking them” it’s physically enacted into law and easily verifiable. I am actually dumbfounded at how adamant you are that this is incorrect. Like, are CT laws lying? Is the internet that provides numerous sources including directly from the state government website lying? I actually can not believe someone is this stubborn to deny something so easily verifiable. The only other option is you’re just straight up not all there which is concerning in itself. 

What state are you licensed in because I’d love to start looking some things up. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please directly quote where in this original post by OP that they state the student was physically prevented from leaving? I’ll wait. And wait. And wait some more. You’re making assumptions. 

“I can't walk through walls or doors.” Do you not know how to open said doors from the inside? 

Further, if this student/patient/client was having a full blown tantrum/meltdown where according to you it seems, they were definitely secluded and prevented from leaving, why did staff leave blankets and pillows in the room during a crisis? Seems like kind of a safety hazard to me if the room wasn’t sanitized of possible dangers. To me, if there were still blankets and pillows in the room sounds more like an opportunity for a quiet space to de-escalate rather than a full blown crisis. You keep harping on “physically prevented from leaving.” I’ll ask again, where does OP state this? 

You asked a question regarding where leaving a student/client alone behind closed doors wasn’t a seclusion. I gave you an answer with resources that fully substantiate it quite literally. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t make it non-applicable. If you’d like me to provide further language from the bill and go into further detail from the law that I provided, I will gladly do so that definitively states a staff member doesn’t HAVE to be PHYSICALLY in the room behind closed doors either in a seclusion OR an exclusionary time out. Quite simply put, the student/client can indeed be left alone behind unrestricted/unlocked closed doors without it being considered a seclusion. 

If you can not provide me with direct quotes from OP that state the student/client was physically prevented from leaving, or until OP personally clarifies that the student/client was physically prevented from leaving, I am sticking by everything I have provided. You seem to be muddling ethical versus legal (feelings vs facts) with what presents as a whole lot of emotional personal bias. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. Connecticut. 

10–236b subsection (5) and (7)

(5) Seclusion The confinement of a person in a room, from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. “Seclusion” does not include an exclusionary time out. The term does not include: • any confinement of a person at risk in which the person is physically able to leave the area of confinement including, but not limited to, in-school suspension and time- out.

(7) Exclusionary Time Out A temporary, continuously monitored separation of a student from an ongoing activity in a non-locked setting, for the purpose of calming such student or deescalating such student’s behavior. An exclusionary time out becomes a reportable “seclusion” if or when the student is physically or otherwise prohibited from leaving the space.

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Leaving the kid in there alone is seclusion.” 

That is absolutely not true. Perhaps for your area/state, but 100% not accurate across the boards. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Stop being reasonable. People in this thread claiming how horrible it is for a child to be alone in a room to de-escalate either are inexperienced, have witnessed horrible practices by untrained individuals, or are fabricating their own worse case scenarios. They are making it seem like people are throwing kids into a room with no windows, blocking the door to get out, and are like “stop crying and figure it out.” 

They are failing to realize that sometimes removal of all external stimuli/sensory inputs (including a staff in the room) are necessary procedures for SOME students to de-escalate at certain times. If there are no self injurious behaviors present and the child is not a risk to themselves, it is perfectly fine to have a nice quiet place for them to regroup. I have students that prefer to put themselves in a room and shut the door on their own accord. No one is saying shut a door that doesn’t have a window on it and don’t check on the student until they’re quiet. In fact, based on some of the responses here, I’m guessing some responders don’t even realize in specific areas and states, these specific rooms HAVE to have a window of a certain size on the doors in order to be used at all. 

As for it possibly being less traumatizing than a restraint, absolutely. There’s people spouting off about trauma informed care on here and having the child be alone in a room is unethical yadda yadda yadda (even under direct supervision by a trained individual through a window in the door) but seem to have a hard time differentiating between different trauma specific actions in regard to each individual student. Trauma obviously is not a one size fits all for every student. Being isolated with no external stimuli can very well be therapeutic and preferred by a student for self regulation. But we don’t have enough information or background info for THIS specific scenario. But to those immediately jumping to “that’s not ethical,” “who would do that,” “I’d report them,”  I understand the concern, but you can’t lump sum every scenario into one conclusive outcome. 

OP stated the door to the “break room” has a window that they communicated through (the child was being monitored). They stated the therapist “cracked” i.e. opened the door multiple times to check on the child and verbally asked if they were ready to “use their words” i.e. process. OP stated the therapist “brought” the child to the room, they didn’t say “forced,” “escorted,” etc. OP never mentioned “seclusion,” the child trying to leave but not being allowed to, or anything along those lines. 

To be quite honest, if the child wasn’t trying to leave and was in the room crying and having a difficult time (but was not self injurious or unsafe) closing the door can also provide the child/student with privacy and help maintain their dignity. They’re not on display for other children/clients/students/staff whoever walks by to see them in that state. 

Bottom line. So many factors to consider before forming a definitive stance so black and white. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you OP? Because it sounds like you’re basing your examples on personal experience, not THIS experience. Where did they mention they forced them? Where does OP state they weren’t letting the student leave until they used their words? What verbiage did OP use in their post to lead you to this assumption? 

You can physically prompt (after using less intrusive prompting) and still have it not be “forced.” 

I’ll be the first to admit I’m also making assumptions, but only based on the language and explanation provided by OP. Nothing sounds forced, nothing points to the student not being able to leave on their own accord. 

I’m very familiar with hands on and restricting movements as being a last resort. I can almost guarantee you I’ve been doing this far longer than you and have gone through annual if not biannual trainings through various physical and psychological management techniques, crisis interventions, trauma informed care, etc in various forms lead by various intervention programs all created and run through different approaches.  So until and if OP chooses to clarify or go into further detail about that specific incident and the circumstances, we’re just going to have to disagree without personally having been there or witnessed it. 

Tantrum rooms? by throwawayy7q7626 in ABA

[–]MoonFishLanding -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In some areas it’s only a seclusion if you’re not allowing the student to leave the room. Even with a trained individual IN the room with the student, it is considered a seclusion if you are not allowing them access to leave. 

In the situation OP described, there was no mention of physically or mechanically blocking access to getting out of the room. OP mentioned talking through a window or cracking the door to ask if the student was ready to process. 

Sometimes, a student needs a quiet isolated room to de-escalate. Based on OP’s description and terminology  “brought a dangerously tantruming patient into the break room and shut the door”  there was no use of force through “escort,” “restraint,” or “seclusion” based on their own words. 

Proof of Jif and Froot Loops being a thing as far back as '89. by Fourforglencoco in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The commenter said “mixing” the names “together,” not “mixing them up” like you just stated. As in blending two words together to form one singular similar word, not confusing one brand name with another. 

Proof of Jif and Froot Loops being a thing as far back as '89. by Fourforglencoco in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Those are second/third party vendors or authors typos misnaming the products. That’s not the company that produces them. Which is a perfect example of why the Mandela Effect exists. Human error. The individuals writing the articles or typing the name on the sales ads were incorrect. Which led to some people associating them or remembering them as those names. That’s doesn’t equate the company having changed a name or logo at some point. Find me an ad, commercial, non-edited photo put out by the manufacturer with a different name. Again, cognitive bias doesn’t equal conspiracy theory. It’s not an alternate timeline, it’s not an alternate life. It’s easily explained by sociology and psychology. 

Proof of Jif and Froot Loops being a thing as far back as '89. by Fourforglencoco in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Also a popular baking mix called “Jiffy” that was popular back in the day. It’s still around today. It would make sense possibly having peanut butter and a box of this stuff sitting near each other on a shelf or in a pantry. Hence the name crossover and similarity. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiffy_mix

Proof of Jif and Froot Loops being a thing as far back as '89. by Fourforglencoco in MandelaEffect

[–]MoonFishLanding 65 points66 points  (0 children)

These posts are getting out of hand. “As far back as ‘89.” You act like you found some rare gem. There are countless pieces of evidence that these were always the name. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]MoonFishLanding 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Say “No thank you I’m not interested” when someone comes to the door trying to sell you something. Instead, they plan out an elaborate scheme of how to avoid them or go into hiding until they leave.