Anonymous wrote:I can tell you for a fact that the "Washington Post" thread has more than 1 dissenter. I didn't start the thread, but was an early poster. I dropped out of the thread as it got silly, but I know that I was not alone in my opinions. Why is it just the AP forum that is so incredibly sensitive to any sort of criticism? You know what they say about how people doing wrong tend to be the most sensitive and paranoid. Maybe you have a bit of a guilty conscience?

I didn't start it either, but I'm another dissenter. Everyone knows the program is in desperate need of an overhaul if it is to survive. We can't deny obvious facts.

Please just report the posts using the "report" button. I'll delete the responses if they are inappropriate. I have been deleting posts over the past few days and also blocked at least one poster.

I can tell you for a fact that the "Washington Post" thread has more than 1 dissenter. I didn't start the thread, but was an early poster. I dropped out of the thread as it got silly, but I know that I was not alone in my opinions. Why is it just the AP forum that is so incredibly sensitive to any sort of criticism? You know what they say about how people doing wrong tend to be the most sensitive and paranoid. Maybe you have a bit of a guilty conscience?

Over the past couple days, a bunch of old threads were revived with comments disparaging AP host families & nanny families. Seems to be the same tone - I'm just curious if it's one person who dug up a bunch of old threads on the AP forum and who's also disparaging NFs? I'm guessing half the "Washington Post" thread is from one person. I did try to engage the person and answer her questions, but she ignored that. Then I tried bumping up posts that posed actual questions and trying to give a genuine response, but they keep getting bumped down by updates repeating the refrain that the AP program should exist. It's totally taken over the board. For now, I'm just waiting for this person to go back to whatever she used to do before Monday morning.