 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / September 2007What's all the reporter crap, fx?
Okay, we get it. Foster kids have been abused. You know, I got sick of reading about foster kids being abused. Sick of reading it, sick of complaining about it, sick of all the people who just didn't give a damn enough to even read letters I wrote to all the omnipotent and impotent powers that be. I figured out, genius that I am, that I could not change the world. So I tried something else; I could change one child's life at a time. I am a CASA, a court appointed special advocate for kids who have been removed from their homes and placed in foster care due to neglect or abuse. I visit those kids, talk to their foster parents, their actual parents, their doctors, teachers, everyone, show up unannounced, listen to them and HEAR them, speak up for their best interest in court. I make sure they get the support and services they need and if I don't like the foster home they are in, I make sure they go somewhere else, somewhere safe, somewhere kind, somewhere that the foster parents know how scared and alone and untrusting these kids are. And each feeling is justified. Their social worker or CPS worker may change two or three times. I don't change. I am there until their case is resolved. My sole agenda is the best interest of that child. I sit in on meetings between parents who have struggled to provide even one clean UA so they can hold their kids. And at the end I watch those parents walk away, knowing it is unlikely that the kids will win out over the meth. And I am an adoptee and this breaks my heart every time. But I do it, to help one child at a time. CASA is nationwide. Volunteer. Be part of the solution. There's a kid out there who needs an advocate. Moses Good for you, Moses. > Okay, we get it. Foster kids have been abused. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Moses < snip > > I sit in on meetings between parents who have struggled to provide > even one clean UA so they can hold their kids. And at the end I watch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > CASA is nationwide. Volunteer. Be part of the solution. There's a kid > out there who needs an advocate. Or a stable, loving home. Or an adult friend and mentor. Or someone, just someone to help them grow and learn and know that they are precious, someone of worth and immeasurable value. Become a CASA. Become a Big Brother. Become a foster parent - a good one. Reach out through volunteering at your local place of worship. Give a hand up. Volunteer. Sometimes it means just taking your own kids out for a long walk. LTNS, Os. What an absolutely inspirational post. Keep on keepin' on. Dad osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> Local: Sat, Sep 22 2007 12:55 am Subject: What's all the reporter crap, fx? Okay, we get it. Foster kids have been abused. You know, I got sick of reading about foster kids being abused. Sick of reading it, sick of complaining about it, sick of all the people who just didn't give a damn enough to even read letters I wrote to all the omnipotent and impotent powers that be. I figured out, genius that I am, that I could not change the world. So I tried something else; I could change one child's life at a time. I am a CASA, a court appointed special advocate for kids who have been removed from their homes and placed in foster care due to neglect or abuse. I visit those kids, talk to their foster parents, their actual parents, their doctors, teachers, everyone, show up unannounced, listen to them and HEAR them, speak up for their best interest in court. I make sure they get the support and services they need and if I don't like the foster home they are in, I make sure they go somewhere else, somewhere safe, somewhere kind, somewhere that the foster parents know how scared and alone and untrusting these kids are. And each feeling is justified. Their social worker or CPS worker may change two or three times. I don't change. I am there until their case is resolved. My sole agenda is the best interest of that child. I sit in on meetings between parents who have struggled to provide even one clean UA so they can hold their kids. And at the end I watch those parents walk away, knowing it is unlikely that the kids will win out over the meth. And I am an adoptee and this breaks my heart every time. But I do it, to help one child at a time. CASA is nationwide. Volunteer. Be part of the solution. There's a kid out there who needs an advocate. Moses > Or a stable, loving home. Or an adult friend and mentor. Or someone, > just someone to help them grow and learn and know that they are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dad AdoptaDad, Don't you think you have a conflict of interest there? Most CASA's and GAL's are nothing but another mouthpiece for the corrupt Child Protection INDUSTRY. They pretty much do and say what the CPS agency wants them to. The percentage of kids removed for good reasons like Meth, rape, blood or broken bones, is small. The SPECIAL INTERESTS who are or benefit from the corrupt Child Protection INDUSTRY just LOVE to exaggerate the horror stories at hands of parents, while minimizing the even worse horror stories in the care of the state. It suits their profit and political ends. Most cases are splitting hairs. The Child Welfare League of America, the main mouthpiece of the Child Protection INDUSTRY itself reported that 1/3 of all kids in Foster Care could go home if only their parents had adequate housing. Inadequate housing is NOT "imminent danger of serious harm". The majority of child removals are for PREVENTIVE reasons, not for abuse but for "risk of abuse" . Juvenile Courts that remove kids are Kangaroo courts, substandard burden of proof, substandard rules of evidence. Unconstitutional. It's natural that fosters and adopters choose to believe the lies from caseworkers about the horrible circumstances that prompted the child to be removed from their natural parents. If you got a good deal on a generator, you really wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > If you got a good deal on a generator, you really > wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! Why are you still on alt. adoption? Marley Marley wrote > Why are you still on alt. adoption? > It's natural that fosters and adopters choose to believe > the lies from caseworkers about the horrible > circumstances that prompted the child to be removed > from their natural parents. > If you got a good deal on a generator, you really > wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! > Marley wrote > Why are you still on alt. adoption? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> If you got a good deal on a generator, you really >> wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! They should have been aborted. Or do enjoy your time on busses and food courts with feral crotchfruit? I bet you think breastfeeding is a great idea, too. Marley On Sep 22, 10:52 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Why are you still on alt. adoption? anyone can be on alt.adoption. especially the adopted tend to be here. > Marley > On Sep 22, 10:52 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > anyone can be on alt.adoption. Sure, but you don't have to bombard us with your crotchfruit woes. Marley > especially the adopted tend to be here. >> >> Marley osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> Local: Sat, Sep 22 2007 12:55 am Subject: What's all the reporter crap, fx? > Okay, we get it. Foster kids have been abused. You may but there are a few people on ASCPS who insist they are NOT! > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You may but there are a few people on ASCPS who insist they are NOT! Name them. >> osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption >> From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Name them. Starting with YOU dipshit!!!!! > >> osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > >> From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Starting with YOU dipshit!!!!! F off, you a.shole. Show me where I insisted kids aren't abused in foster care. >>> osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption >>> From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Starting with YOU dipshit!!!!! Oh Ken, you are so full of sh.t. Never, in my years of posting here, have I ever seen anyone, ANYONE state that foster children and adopted children are not abused by their caregivers. I have, however, seen many a claim that drugged out crack addicts make better parents than foster care givers and adoptive parents. Lie to someone who hasn't been here...as for me? I know exactly what's been said here and by whom. Betty (Dragonsgirl) wrote > Oh Ken, you are so full of sh.t. > Never, in my years of posting here, have I ever seen anyone, ANYONE state [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lie to someone who hasn't been here...as for me? I know exactly what's been > said here and by whom. Including Dave Moore? > Betty (Dragonsgirl) wrote >> Oh Ken, you are so full of sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Including Dave Moore? He named Dan. I have never seen Dan deny that children in foster care are not abused. Can you provide us with proof that shows different? Any one of us, Greg, that's all I'm asking for...one little link to me, you, Bob, Sherman, Kane, Dan, FM, LIT...ANYONE of US, those who regularly post here, or have, on the CPS issue...NOT the Show issue...show me one quote that says 'I do not believe that children in foster care are not abused.' And screw David Moore. He's not here for the same reasons the rest of us are. Betty (Dragonsgirl) wrote > >> Oh Ken, you are so full of sh.t. > >> Never, in my years of posting here, have I ever seen anyone, ANYONE state [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Lie to someone who hasn't been here...as for me? I know exactly what's > >> been said here and by whom. G > Including Dave Moore? Betty > He named Dan. Betty > I know exactly what's been said here and by whom. G > Including Dave Moore? Betty > He named Dan. > I have never seen Dan deny that children in foster care are not abused. > Can you provide us with proof that shows different? > Any one of us, Greg, that's all I'm asking for...one little link to me, you, > Bob, Sherman, Kane, Dan, FM, LIT...ANYONE of US, those who regularly post > here, or have, on the CPS issue...NOT the Show issue...show me one quote > that says 'I do not believe that children in foster care are not abused.' Which statement from me is it you want me to prove Betty? Got a quote and a link? I just can't remember asserting what you want me to prove! > And screw David Moore. Get out the Hoppy's kit and the Magnum goose loads. Go trapshooting to fine tune your aim. Don't bother shooting the brick as he throws it through your window. Aim for the torso unless you're really close. > He's not here for the same reasons the rest of us are. Which "us" are you talking about? Not that it matters. Have you asked Dan Sullivan about his connections to Dave Moore? Behind the public presentation I mean? Dan will tell you the truth won't he Betty? <<<snip>>> > Have you asked Dan Sullivan about his connections > to Dave Moore? Behind the public presentation I mean? I have no connections to Dave Moore whatsoever. None. > Dan will tell you the truth won't he Betty? And THAT'S the truth. Prove otherwise, Greg. Good grief. I almost long for Celesta...... Moses > <<<snip>>> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Prove otherwise, Greg. And there you have it Greg. Any more questions? > Betty (Dragonsgirl) wrote >> >> Oh Ken, you are so full of sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Got a quote and a link? > I just can't remember asserting what you want me to prove! Yep. You've lost it. >> And screw David Moore. > > Get out the Hoppy's kit and the Magnum goose loads. > Go trapshooting to fine tune your aim. LOL You're so eternal. > Don't bother shooting the brick as he throws it through your window. Bust out every damn one of them for all I care LOL > Aim for the torso unless you're really close. Awwww...come on Greg. Surely you know that you always shoot for the center of gravity. >> He's not here for the same reasons the rest of us are. > > Which "us" are you talking about? Not that it matters. Yeah, you're right. It doesn't matter a whit. > Have you asked Dan Sullivan about his connections > to Dave Moore? Why no, actually, I haven't. I don't talk to Dan as regularly as you believe I do, so why go out of my way now? Behind the public presentation I mean? Public presentations? I don't get it. Could you clarify? > Dan will tell you the truth won't he Betty? If I ask. > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You may but there are a few people on ASCPS who insist they are NOT! Then I for one would greatly appreciate it if this particular battle remained on ASCPS and not bleed over to alt.adoption. Do us all a favor, fx, if you ever read anything other than what you've posted. TIA. J. >> osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption >> From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do us all a favor, fx, if you ever read anything other than what > you've posted. He's not the one who initiates the crossposting. The CPS sluts do. > >> osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > >> From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > He's not the one who initiates the crossposting. The CPS sluts do. Greg initiated the crossposting in this thread. > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > If you got a good deal on a generator, you really > wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! Given your abiding distaste for adopters, perhaps you'll do us all a favor and remove alt.adoption from your posts? TIA. J. > > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > J. And adoptees. How can you stand these dolts, Moses? Marley You think alt.adoption should function totally without any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? What percentage of adoptions CAME FROM CPS and Foster Care removals vs. Overseas? Were you hoping to ignore the crappy means by which kids were OBTAINED from their natural parents? Judith Leekin ADOPTED 11 kids for money, and mistreated them. They were "special needs" kids and adults so she got $55 per kid per day, Medicaid, FS, etc. That same $55 per kid per day (etc.) was NOT available to parents who might have wanted to keep their special needs child. The court process that removes kids is crappy, substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How do you think that's not relevant to alt.adoption? Is this the usual thing where some longstanding group or individuals think of a newsgroup as if it was their private property? Or did somebody think they had some right to a newsgroup where they wouldn't be confronted with opinions they don't like? fx simply put the NEWS back into some NEWSGROUPS. The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the disasters and horror stories IN STATE CARE. Caseworkers, Fosters, Adopters, Social Workers, Psychologists and several Prosecutors have been nailed for child molestation in the last 6 months, and in amazing numbers. > Caseworkers, Fosters, Adopters, Social Workers, > Psychologists and several Prosecutors have been > nailed for child molestation in the last 6 months, > and in amazing numbers. Gregory Scott Hanson was convicted twice and served time in jail for abusing his mentally ill wife. A few years later he was "founded" by Iowa CPS for abusing his girlfriend's seven year old daughter. The child was removed from her mother's custody in February of 2001 when a report was made to the police that Greg locked the little girl out of her own home with no shoes, socks or coat. During the subsequent investigation it was learned that Greg spanked the little girl, forced her to take cold showers as punishment, physically forced her into the shower and took the little girl around the town so she could retrieve bottles and cans from people's garbage for the deposit money. Lisa Watkins, the little girl's mother, hasn't had custody of her daughter since February of 2001. Fortunately the authorities placed the child with her grandparents. Greg hasn't complied in any meaningful way with the requests of the Courts that would help to reunify the mother with her daughter. Greg Hanson 401 7 Ave SW Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 (319) 550-1421 http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame Greg S Hanson DOB 05/22/1959 Linn County > You think alt.adoption should function totally without > any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? > > What percentage of adoptions CAME FROM > CPS and Foster Care removals vs. Overseas? Not many here We are Grade A prime homegrowns. > Were you hoping to ignore the crappy means > by which kids were OBTAINED from their natural parents? > > Judith Leekin ADOPTED 11 kids for money, and mistreated them. > They were "special needs" kids and adults so she got > $55 per kid per day, Medicaid, FS, etc. Child welfare belong back in the hands of the police. > That same $55 per kid per day (etc.) was NOT > available to parents who might have wanted to > keep their special needs child. Why should it be? It is not the role of the government to pay people to support their brats. > The court process that removes kids is crappy, > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. > > How do you think that's not relevant to alt.adoption? You people are not relevant to alt.adoption, > Is this the usual thing where some longstanding > group or individuals think of a newsgroup as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > nailed for child molestation in the last 6 months, > and in amazing numbers. If you would leave your personal vendettas and name-calling at home, alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. Why should we care what a bunch of breeder boys say about each other? BTW if you care so much why haven't you been fighting safe haven laws? Marley G > You think alt.adoption should function totally without G > any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? G > What percentage of adoptions CAME FROM G > CPS and Foster Care removals vs. Overseas? M > Not many here We are Grade A prime homegrowns. Twenty and thirty years ago most kids put up for adoption were put up VOLUNTARILY. Kids available for adoption today have for the most part been RIPPED OFF off from their natural parents. G > Were you hoping to ignore the crappy means G > by which kids were OBTAINED from their natural parents? G > Judith Leekin ADOPTED 11 kids for money, and mistreated them. G > They were "special needs" kids and adults so she got G > $55 per kid per day, Medicaid, FS, etc. M > Child welfare belong back in the hands of the police. I agree with that. So do many Family Rights folks. G > That same $55 per kid per day (etc.) was NOT G > available to parents who might have wanted to G > keep their special needs child. M > Why should it be? It is not the role of the M > government to pay people to support their brats. While I wish it was not, government IS in that role. Too often in order to obtain help for "special needs" kids, parents have to give them up to the state, where of course the government pays even more than they would have to help the parents keep their "special needs" kid. G > The court process that removes kids is crappy, G > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. G > How do you think that's not relevant to alt.adoption? M > You people are not relevant to alt.adoption, And yet you couldn't explain HOW that is so? You just pronounced it to be so Marley? G > Is this the usual thing where some longstanding G > group or individuals think of a newsgroup as G > if it was their private property? Or did somebody G > think they had some right to a newsgroup where they G > wouldn't be confronted with opinions they don't like? G > fx simply put the NEWS back into some NEWSGROUPS. G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the G > disasters and horror stories IN STATE CARE. G > Caseworkers, Fosters, Adopters, Social Workers, G > Psychologists and several Prosecutors have been G > nailed for child molestation in the last 6 months, G > and in amazing numbers. M > If you would leave your personal vendettas What Vendetta is described in the text above that you responded to? It described how the system itself is loaded with child molesters and they are getting caught in amazing numbers. M > and name-calling at home, What name calling was in the text you responded to? M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. Even if you WERE the voice of an entire population a newsgroup is NOT a protected reserve for your personal interests and agenda. M > Why should we care what a bunch of M > breeder boys say about each other? Now you think that alt.adoption is Marley's own special version of CHILDFREE or what? WHY? If you were adopted because your parent/s gave you up voluntarily and that is painful for you, just imagine your newer or future counterparts where they were RIPPED OFF from their parents without really good reason. Some might actually believe the usual lies about how BAD their natural parents were, but others DO KNOW that the reasons they were ripped from their natural family were NOT GOOD REASONS. How could a survivor of Foster/Adoption NOT be rather interested in the details of just how children are currently made available for adoption? M > BTW if you care so much why haven't M > you been fighting safe haven laws? Family Rights activism generally is not against somebody VOLUNTARILY giving up a child, but in a situation where the MOM drops off the baby, the abuse of the DAD's parental rights is sometimes of great concern. >G > You think alt.adoption should function totally without > G > any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I agree with that. So do many Family Rights folks. I'm glad to hear that.. > G > That same $55 per kid per day (etc.) was NOT > G > available to parents who might have wanted to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > While I wish it was not, government IS in that role. Then get the state out of it. Don't breed if you can't pay for it. Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. The world has too many ugly stupid people already Why add to the pool? > Too often in order to obtain help for "special needs" > kids, parents have to give them up to the state, > where of course the government pays even more > than they would have to help the parents keep > their "special needs" kid. I'm aware of that and it's wrong. Again, throw it back in the state's face. I know it's pointless but taxpayers shouldn't be fundking anything but essential services and even that is questonable outside of some very narrow parameters. Get back to the voluntary society. > G > The court process that removes kids is crappy, > G > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And yet you couldn't explain HOW that is so? > You just pronounced it to be so Marley? Mea culpea. I was actually speaking of the warfare. We are not Iraq and this is not our fight. Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption. > G > Is this the usual thing where some longstanding > G > group or individuals think of a newsgroup as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > G > fx simply put the NEWS back into some NEWSGROUPS. But very little of it concerns our discussions. And certainly your "molestation" war has nothing to do with us. > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > itself is loaded with child molesters and they are > getting caught in amazing numbers. I am speaking of your own flamewars, not the fostercare "system." > M > and name-calling at home, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a newsgroup is NOT a protected reserve for your > personal interests and agenda. Of course, not, who over here cares about what you guys think of each other's sex lives? > M > Why should we care what a bunch of > M > breeder boys say about each other? > > Now you think that alt.adoption is Marley's > own special version of CHILDFREE or what? Yes, actually. Adoption has very little to do with children; and everything to do with adults. Kids are simply the product to move. > WHY? If you were adopted because your parent/s > gave you up voluntarily and that is painful for you, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but others DO KNOW that the reasons they were > ripped from their natural family were NOT GOOD REASONS. You're not talking about me. Go to www.bastards.org and http://bastardette.blogspot.com Adoption is the grand theatre of the absurd. > How could a survivor of Foster/Adoption NOT > be rather interested in the details of just how > children are currently made available for adoption? I'm not a survivor of adoption. > M > BTW if you care so much why haven't > M > you been fighting safe haven laws? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the baby, the abuse of the DAD's parental > rights is sometimes of great concern. SH circumvents ethical child placement. SH is an initiative (which has taken on a life of it's own) of the National Council for Adoption as a response to our open records victories in Oregon and Alabama. It should be of great concern to anyone who is invested in family rights. SH laws are an attack on every family in this country. And, of course, as Glenn Sacks writes, if a man does it he's a deadbeat, if a woman does it she's a hero. Marley > > M > Why should it be? It is not the role of the > > M > government to pay people to support their brats. > > > While I wish it was not, government IS in that role. > > Then get the state out of it. Don't breed if you can't pay for it. Pay for what? Open heart surgery? Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? > Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. > The world has too many ugly stupid > people already Why add to the pool? Marley, I got that you hate children. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU were a child once? Is it fair to say that you hate PEOPLE in general and yourself specifically? > > Too often in order to obtain help for "special needs" > > kids, parents have to give them up to the state, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I know it's pointless but taxpayers shouldn't > be [funding] anything but essential services What bureaucrat doesn't want to portray what they do as an "essential service" ? > and even that is questonable outside > of some very narrow parameters. Get > back to the voluntary society. I'm sure you meant well, somehow, but you seem fairly naive. What has your experience with the world of work actually been? Have you been a producer? Are you a disability case? > > G > The court process that removes kids is crappy, > > G > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mea culpea. I was actually speaking of the warfare. > We are not Iraq and this is not our fight. Who is this "our" that you are speaking for? > Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption Well I can't concede that the story you pointed out was only DISTANTLY connected, because you didn't point one out. Please explain what part of CPS, Foster Contractors, Courts and major adoption fiascos are NOT relevant to adoption and why. > > G > Is this the usual thing where some longstanding > > G > group or individuals think of a newsgroup as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > G > fx simply put the NEWS back into some NEWSGROUPS. M > But very little of it concerns our discussions. And M > certainly your "molestation" war has nothing to do with us. Actually, it does. Who do you think Dan Sullivan works for and represents? > > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am speaking of your own flamewars, not the fostercare "system." Who do you think Dan Sullivan represents? > > M > and name-calling at home, > > > What name calling was in the text you responded to? You bypassed this one? M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. G > Even if you WERE the voice of an entire population G > a newsgroup is NOT a protected reserve for your G > personal interests and agenda. M > Of course, not, who over here cares about what M > you guys think of each other's sex lives? Why do you think Dan is so anxious to discredit me? He uses ad hom, arguing "to the man" rather than addressing issues. Does that give you a clue? M > Why should we care what a bunch of M > breeder boys say about each other? G > Now you think that alt.adoption is Marley's G > own special version of CHILDFREE or what? M > Yes, actually. How did you logically transition from that to the next sentence? How are these two sentences connected? M > Adoption has very little to do with children; and everything M > to do with adults. Kids are simply the product to move. To the INDUSTRY perhaps, but Not to most natural parents. > > WHY? If you were adopted because your parent/s > > gave you up voluntarily and that is painful for you, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > but others DO KNOW that the reasons they were > > ripped from their natural family were NOT GOOD REASONS. > You're not talking about me. Go [ bastards.org ] and http://bastardette.blogspot.com > Adoption is the grand theatre of the absurd. It goes deeper than that. Adoption does not just exist by itself. It is part of a large "Child Protection INDUSTRY". > > How could a survivor of Foster/Adoption NOT > > be rather interested in the details of just how > > children are currently made available for adoption? M > I'm not a survivor of adoption. Please forgive me for the misunderstanding. M > BTW if you care so much why haven't M > you been fighting safe haven laws? > > Family Rights activism generally is not against > > somebody VOLUNTARILY giving up a child, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > SH circumvents ethical child placement. Please tell me who defines ethical child placement. > SH is an initiative (which has taken on a life of it's own) > of the National Council for Adoption as a response > to our open records victories in Oregon and Alabama. I thought it was a response to some horrific deaths. I bet the legislators would say that also. But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. > It should be of great concern to anyone who > is invested in family rights. With THOUSANDS of cases where CPS pulls crap and families are tore apart you think Family Rights should focus on the few safe haven cases? Is that like the ADHD theory of political activism? > SH laws are an attack on every family in this country. Perhaps, but the "in your face" battles for Family Rights are taking priority for good reason. Sheer NUMBERS dictate that. The sympathies are there, but not the NUMBERS. Distraction is a problem. > And, of course, as Glenn Sacks writes, if a man does > it he's a deadbeat, if a woman does it she's a hero. Distraction is a problem. Do you let your real cause take a back seat to your personal CHILD FREE obsessions Marley? I've got a question for you Marley! Have you had opposition LOBBYISTS or agents provocateur burrow into your cause? That you know of? Family Rights groups see them blatantly, regularly, and on an ongoing basis. If you're not at war, you're either so impotent and ineffectual that they're not after you, or you're just oblivious to the fact. >> > M > Why should it be? It is not the role of the >> > M > government to pay people to support their brats. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? Tha would be the optimal choice.. Of course, the pediacentric will never agree to that. Only the rich shold breed. Less wealthy might be able to get a sponsor. >> Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. >> The world has too many ugly stupid >> people already Why add to the pool? > > Marley, I got that you hate children. I hate people. > Has it ever occurred to you that YOU were a child once? As and adoptee I never was a child. I was never born. > Is it fair to say that you hate PEOPLE in general > and yourself specifically? No, I hate people. I love myself. And I love hot guys especially if they aren't USians. >> > Too often in order to obtain help for "special needs" >> > kids, parents have to give them up to the state, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm sure you meant well, somehow, but > you seem fairly naive. No, I've worked in politics for 35 years. > What has your experience with the world of > work actually been? Have you been a producer? > Are you a disability case? I've more than yoiu can imagine. >> > G > The court process that removes kids is crappy, >> > G > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who is this "our" that you are speaking for? How much plakiner can it be? Your litle molester name-calling. >> Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Actually, it does. > Who do you think Dan Sullivan works for and represents? You are brining your dirty laundry over to us who know nothing about it . We'd have never heard of any of you guys if you'd stay at home. Why should anybody here belive anything you guys say? Who are you? >> > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been >> > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> > What name calling was in the text you responded to? How dense are you? Molestation crap. > You bypassed this one? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > How did you logically transition from that to the next sentence? > How are these two sentences connected? What are you talking about? I answered your question. > M > Adoption has very little to do with children; and everything > M > to do with adults. Kids are simply the product to move. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Adoption does not just exist by itself. > It is part of a large "Child Protection INDUSTRY". Of course, it is It picks up kids that peole dont' want. >> > How could a survivor of Foster/Adoption NOT >> > be rather interested in the details of just how [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Please tell me who defines ethical child placement. It's certainlhy not the state advising parent "no blame, no shame, no name, anonymojus babybee dumping. >> SH is an initiative (which has taken on a life of it's own) >> of the National Council for Adoption as a response >> to our open records victories in Oregon and Alabama. > > I thought it was a response to some horrific deaths. > I bet the legislators would say that also. Leggies are idiots. They have no idea the history of the movement. > But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY > they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The sympathies are there, but not the NUMBERS. And as adoptees, are focus is on the numbers of newborn who are being "legally abandoned" to the adopton mill. Good fresh white meat. > Distraction is a problem. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you let your real cause take a back seat to your > personal CHILD FREE obsessions Marley? What does Glenn Sacks quote have to do with this. Glenn Sacks is making an absolutely correct political point. > I've got a question for you Marley! > > Have you had opposition LOBBYISTS or agents > provocateur burrow into your cause? No. We don't compromise. The others do. > That you know of? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you're not at war, you're either so impotent and ineffectual > that they're not after you, or you're just oblivious to the fact. Funny thing, We've gotten records open in 3 states What have you done? Marley G > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids G > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? MG > Tha would be the optimal choice.. Of course, the MG > pediacentric will never agree to that. Only the MG > rich shold breed. Less wealthy might be able to MG > get a sponsor. What good do you think it does anybody to spout this drivel? MG > Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. MG > The world has too many ugly stupid MG > people already Why add to the pool? G > Marley, I got that you hate children. MG > I hate people. Including yourself. G > Has it ever occurred to you that YOU were a child once? MG > As [an] adoptee In another post you said "I'm not a survivor of adoption". Please explain the contradictions. MG > I never was a child. I was never born. Why spout this gibberish? More confusion? G > Is it fair to say that you hate PEOPLE in general G > and yourself specifically? MG > No, I hate people. This must make it hard to get any activism done. > I love myself. You present conflicting information on that point. > And I love hot guys especially if they aren't USians. What does your love life (or lack thereof) have to do with this? > >> > Too often in order to obtain help for "special needs" > >> > kids, parents have to give them up to the state, > >> > where of course the government pays even more > >> > than they would have to help the parents keep > >> > their "special needs" kid. > >> I'm aware of that and it's wrong. > >> Again, throw it back in the state's face. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What bureaucrat doesn't want to portray > > what they do as an "essential service" ? Bypassed? > >> and even that is questonable outside > >> of some very narrow parameters. Get > >> back to the voluntary society. > > > I'm sure you meant well, somehow, but > > you seem fairly naive. > No, I've worked in politics for 35 years. In what capacity? You seem so out of touch with people that it's rediculous. > > What has your experience with the world of > > work actually been? Have you been a producer? > > Are you a disability case? MG > I've more than yoiu can imagine. More what? Disabilities? Do you have a college education? You hate kids and people. What's your diagnosis? > >> > G > The court process that removes kids is crappy, > >> > G > substandard and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > How much plakiner [plainer] can it be? > Your litle molester name-calling. Answered further down, detractors work for the system. > >> Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > We'd have never heard of any of you guys if you'd stay at home. Why should > anybody here belive anything you guys say? Who are you? I'm just somebody whose family CPS tried unsuccessfully to grind up. > >> > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > >> > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > How dense are you? Molestation crap. Didn't Dan and his cronies post my home address and phone number? Guess who they work for! > > M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What are you talking about? I answered your question. Originally you ran together two statements: "Yes, actually. Adoption has very little to do with children; and everything to do with adults. Kids are simply the product to move." I questioned the way you ran those statements together. > > M > Adoption has very little to do with children; and everything > > M > to do with adults. Kids are simply the product to move. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Of course, it is It picks up kids that peole dont' want. That is a LIE. It used to be about unwanted kids. Now they are removing kids that are very much wanted using substandard process, pretexts and jingoism. > >> > How could a survivor of Foster/Adoption NOT > >> > be rather interested in the details of just how [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It's certainlhy not the state advising parent > "no blame, no shame, no name, anonymojus babybee dumping. It's becoming clear you have some resentment because you were a dumped baby from an earlier era. Is that right? > >> SH is an initiative (which has taken on a life of it's own) > >> of the National Council for Adoption as a response [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Leggies are idiots. > They have no idea the history of the movement. I didn't disagree with you. Do you think this attitude is one that will help win support for your cause? > > But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY > > they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And as adoptees, are focus is on the numbers of newborn who are being > "legally abandoned" to the adopton mill. Good fresh white meat. Abandonment is rare compared to "stolen" by use of a bogus process that pits loving parents against a process that is like a monolithic steam roller. > > Distraction is a problem. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What does Glenn Sacks quote have to do with this. Glenn Sacks is making an > absolutely correct political point. True. That was my point. You are meandering off on tangents. You fail to concentrate. > > I've got a question for you Marley! > > > Have you had opposition LOBBYISTS or agents > > provocateur burrow into your cause? > > No. We don't compromise. The others do. I don't think you understood my question. > > That you know of? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Funny thing, We've gotten records open in 3 states. > What have you done? You personally? Me personally? Have you had somebody named Oliver Sutton join your group and try to derail things from the inside? A saboteur? That's Dan Sullivan and a few cronies. > G > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids > G > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What good do you think it does anybody to spout this drivel? You might be asked the same about all your posts, Greg. > MG > Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. > MG > The world has too many ugly stupid [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > MG > I never was a child. I was never born. > Why spout this gibberish? More confusion? You're getting taken for a ride, Greg. > G > Is it fair to say that you hate PEOPLE in general > G > and yourself specifically? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You seem so out of touch with people that it's rediculous. Greg is out of touch with spelling. > > > What has your experience with the world of > > > work actually been? Have you been a producer? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > More what? Disabilities? Greg enjoys making light of people with disabilities. > Do you have a college education? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Answered further down, detractors work for the system. Greg thinks anyone who recognizes him for what he REALLY is works for "the system." > > >> Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I'm just somebody whose family CPS tried unsuccessfully to grind up. Greg's girlfriend's seven year old daughter was removed in Feb of 2001. And the mother hasn't had custody since. Was CPS really unsuccessful? > > >> > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > > >> > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Guess who they work for! Greg doesn't know either. > > > M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > Do you think this attitude is one that will help > win support for your cause? Which cause? > > > But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY > > > they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > You are meandering off on tangents. > You fail to concentrate. Greg is the expert on failing to concentrate and moving off on tangents. > > > I've got a question for you Marley! > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > That's Dan Sullivan and a few cronies. Yeah, it isn't Greg with his monumental bullshit. Wait till he brings Ken Pangborn to alt.adoption. > > G > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids > > G > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Greg is out of touch with spelling. Dan never met a substantive issue he couldn't obfuscate. > > > > What has your experience with the world of > > > > work actually been? Have you been a producer? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Greg enjoys making light of people with disabilities. Ask Dan about Kathleen Dickenson the Lyme person. > > Do you have a college education? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Greg thinks anyone who recognizes him for what he REALLY is works for > "the system." Like Donald Lewis Fisher, former CASEWORKER? Show us your UNION card Dan! > > > >> Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Was CPS really unsuccessful? What happenned to your assertion that I set it up deliberately to sue the state for millions? Did you forget that? > > > >> > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > > > >> > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Greg doesn't know either. Show us your UNION card Dan! > > > M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > Which cause? Marley's cause. > > > > But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY > > > > they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Greg is the expert on failing to concentrate > and moving off on tangents. Notice how Dan highlights the MAJOR issues? > > > > I've got a question for you Marley! > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yeah, it isn't Greg with his monumental bullshit. It wasn't a denial was it? > Wait till he brings Ken Pangborn to alt.adoption. What Dan means to say is his buddy Dave Moore and the hipcrime program. Dan has quality friends. Fake identities galore, various real world threats, from bomb to poison pop can to acid in the face to soliciting murder. VOIP phone to present any fake Caller ID he wants, etc. Hipcrime to generate Jabberwocky like messages to flood newsgroups and rogue cancels to delete messages he doesn't like. Once Dan even called out for Dave to flood out a newsgroup because he was losing so miserably. But Dave couldn't come to his rescue because he figured he was being watched. Didn't you WONDER why Dan Sullivan posted my home address and phone number? His other stooge, Firemonkey, solicited collect calls to me and ""visits"" to my address. Are you figuring out who Dan works for? > > > G > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids > > > G > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Dan never met a substantive issue he couldn't obfuscate. What exactly IS the issue, Greg? > > > > > What has your experience with the world of > > > > > work actually been? Have you been a producer? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Like Donald Lewis Fisher, former CASEWORKER? > Show us your UNION card Dan! I've never been in a Union. > > > > >> Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > What happenned to your assertion that I set it up > deliberately to sue the state for millions? What happened to your assertion that CPS was unsuccessful in grinding up your non-existent family. > Did you forget that? No. > > > > >> > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > > > > >> > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Show us your UNION card Dan! Never was in a Union. > > > > M > alt.adoption might be more amenable to your invasion. > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > Marley's cause. Could you be more vague? > > > > > But when it comes to this arena, what things SAY > > > > > they are for or about is often NOT the actual truth. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Notice how Dan highlights the MAJOR issues? What are the major issues you're bringing to alt.adoption, Greg? > > > > > I've got a question for you Marley! > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > What Dan means to say is his buddy Dave Moore > and the hipcrime program. He's not my buddy. Why do you think he is? > Dan has quality friends. > Fake identities galore, various real world threats, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Once Dan even called out for Dave to flood out > a newsgroup because he was losing so miserably. Never happened. Care to prove your assertion, Greg? > But Dave couldn't come to his rescue because > he figured he was being watched. You know what someone else thinks? > Didn't you WONDER why Dan Sullivan posted my > home address and phone number? So the people on alt.adoption could thank you personally, Greg. > His other stooge, Firemonkey, solicited collect calls > to me and ""visits"" to my address. > > Are you figuring out who Dan works for? I've been self employed for decades, Greg... in an industry completely unrelated to children, and child protection. When YOU figure out who I work for, Greg, post it with the credible evidence. > > > > You seem so out of touch with people that it's rediculous. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What exactly IS the issue, Greg? Spelling, apparently! ... > Was CPS really unsuccessful? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What happened to your assertion that CPS was unsuccessful in grinding > up your non-existent family. The one you're so anxious to identify to harassers like Dave? MG > Leggies are idiots. MG > They have no idea the history of the movement. G > I didn't disagree with you. G > Do you think this attitude is one that will help G > win support for your cause? DS > Which cause? G > Marley's cause. DS > Could you be more vague? ? > > > > True. That was my point. > > > > You are meandering off on tangents. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What are the major issues you're bringing to alt.adoption, Greg? > > > > Have you had somebody named Oliver Sutton join your group > > > > and try to derail things from the inside? A saboteur? G > That's Dan Sullivan and a few cronies. DS > Yeah, it isn't Greg with his monumental bullshit. G > It wasn't a denial was it? DS > Wait till he brings Ken Pangborn to alt.adoption. G > What Dan means to say is his buddy Dave Moore G > and the hipcrime program. DS > He's not my buddy. Is that a moral or ethical lie Dan? Or just convenient? Should I post your pleas for the other newsgroup to be flushed? > Why do you think he is? ""Please Mister Hipcrime, flush the newsgroup!!"" G > Dan has quality friends. G > Fake identities galore, various real world threats, G > from bomb to poison pop can to acid in the face to G > soliciting murder. VOIP phone to present any fake G > Caller ID he wants, etc. Hipcrime to generate G > Jabberwocky like messages to flood newsgroups and G > rogue cancels to delete messages he doesn't like. G > Once Dan even called out for Dave to flood out G > a newsgroup because he was losing so miserably. DS > Never happened. DS > Care to prove your assertion, Greg? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/986ef83 f884f26b8 Greegor Aug 23, 2:47 pm Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads- rights.unmoderated, alt.support.divorce, misc.kids, alt.support.foster- parents From: Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:47:58 -0700 Local: Thurs, Aug 23 2007 2:47 pm Subject: Dan Sullivan says to his hipcrime buddy David Moore: SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! 6 top posted message threads in ascps:: SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! Dan Sullivan 9:15am SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP, asap!!! Dan Sullivan 9:16am Please, SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! Dan Sullivan 9:16am SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP, now!!! Dan Sullivan 9:17am CAN SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! Dan Sullivan 9:55am WILL SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP??? Dan Sullivan 9:56am SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! 1 Dan Sullivan Aug 23 2 Dan Sullivan Aug 23 3 Dan Sullivan Aug 23 4 Dan Sullivan Aug 23 5 Dan Sullivan Aug 23 Hmm.. It sure looks like you are soliciting Dave Moore to perpetrate a denial of service attack with his hipcrime Ouija board, Dan! Doesn't that make you a co-conspirator? You posted these from your real usenet account, no fakery. I can't IMAGINE why David Moore might be indisposed for a little while! Or maybe he figured out that he's not as invisible as he thought? Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com! i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: SOMEBODY FLUSH THIS NEWSGROUP!!! Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:15:59 -0700 Organization:http://groups.google.com Lines: 2 Message-ID: <1187878559.450544.38980@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.45.119.155 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1187878560 3396 127.0.0.1 (23 Aug 2007 14:16:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:16:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: 1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting- host=24.45.119.155; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0 > > But Dave couldn't come to his rescue because > > he figured he was being watched. > You know what someone else thinks? > > Didn't you WONDER why Dan Sullivan posted my > > home address and phone number? > > So the people on alt.adoption could thank you personally, Greg. Like this? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/search?grou p=alt.support.child-protective-services&q=%22550-1421%22&qt_g=Search+this+group > > His other stooge, Firemonkey, solicited collect calls > > to me and ""visits"" to my address. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've been self employed for decades, Greg... in an industry completely > unrelated to children, and child protection. Yet according to Dan, when people talk about careers, Dan brings up that he helps families fight CPS agencies. > When YOU figure out who I work for, Greg, post > it with the credible evidence. Your own posts make it fairly clear Dan! > > > > > You seem so out of touch with people that it's rediculous. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Spelling, apparently! I thought you'd post something stupid, Greg. And you did!!! > > Was CPS really unsuccessful? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The one you're so anxious to identify to harassers like Dave? I simply reposted what was already posted. > MG > Leggies are idiots. > MG > They have no idea the history of the movement. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Is that a moral or ethical lie Dan? Or just convenient? > Should I post your pleas for the other newsgroup to be flushed? Did I ask anyone specifically to do the flushing? > > Why do you think he is? > > ""Please Mister Hipcrime, flush the newsgroup!!"" I never wrote that. Prove otherwise. > G > Dan has quality friends. > G > Fake identities galore, various real world threats, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > perpetrate a denial of service attack with his hipcrime Ouija board, > Dan! I don't see me asking anyone specific to flush the newsgroup. Does "somebody" have to mean Moore? Does "flush" have to mean "perpetrate a denial of service attack with his hipcrime?" > Doesn't that make you a co-conspirator? Of what? > You posted these from your real usenet account, no fakery. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > host=24.45.119.155; > posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0 yawn > > > But Dave couldn't come to his rescue because > > > he figured he was being watched. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/... I didn't see anyone thanking you. > > > His other stooge, Firemonkey, solicited collect calls > > > to me and ""visits"" to my address. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yet according to Dan, when people talk about careers, > Dan brings up that he helps families fight CPS agencies. That's not my career. And I never claimed it was. I've never made a single penny helping people. > > When YOU figure out who I work for, Greg, post > > it with the credible evidence. > > Your own posts make it fairly clear Dan! Post the credible evidence that makes it "clear." > > > M > Why should it be? It is not the role of the > > > M > government to pay people to support their brats. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pay for what? Open heart surgery? Can't pay for storage space so as to provide a comfortable and clutter free home to your child. > Are you trying to say that nobody should have kids > or that only the independently wealthy should have kids? No, she's saying that you should have at least the minimum ability to care for a child if you are going to have one. > > Get an abortion Get a vasectomy. Get a tubal. > > The world has too many ugly stupid > > people already Why add to the pool? > > Marley, I got that you hate children. She obviously doesn't hate 'children', Greg. She dislikes irresponsible 'breeders'. > Has it ever occurred to you that YOU were a child once? > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Who is this "our" that you are speaking for? America? I thought even YOU could understand that. > > Many of the posts fx is posting have no relevance to alt.adoption > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Actually, it does. > Who do you think Dan Sullivan works for and represents? Dan Sullivan does not work for CPS. And even if he did, Marley is correct...that newsgroup is designed for adult adoptees. Not child protective services. > > > G > The greater Child Protection INDUSTRY has been > > > G > having a Public Relations meltdown with all of the [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > If you're not at war, you're either so impotent and ineffectual > that they're not after you, or you're just oblivious to the fact. Betty wrote > She obviously doesn't hate 'children', Greg. She dislikes > irresponsible 'breeders'. Obviously? Marley has said so outright and unequivocally. > > > Mea culpea. I was actually speaking of the warfare. > > > We are not Iraq and this is not our fight. > > > Who is this "our" that you are speaking for? > > America? I thought even YOU could understand that. No, Betty, it was an analogy, simily or allegory. It was about Dan's feuding in an attempt to shut me up. Betty wrote > Dan Sullivan does not work for CPS. > And even if he did, Marley is correct...that newsgroup is designed for > adult adoptees. Not child protective services. The kids just appeared out of thin air right? Betty, You are an adopter aren't you? > Betty wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, Betty, it was an analogy, simily or allegory. > It was about Dan's feuding in an attempt to shut me up. I don't care if you shut up, Greg. I just want you to realize what you to Lisa Watkins' little girl WAS child abuse. Show some sympathy. Grow a conscience. Accept the fact that you really harmed that little girl. What's the chance of that happening, Greg? > Betty wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Betty, You are an adopter aren't you? What difference would that make? >> Betty wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > What difference would that make? Hold on to your britches Dan, I'm sure he's going to come up with a doozey! Maybe I'm tied to the mafia, and they paid off the state to let me adopt...or, maybe it was the silicone manufacturers that I 'work' for....oh sh.t, this could get deep. Couldn't ever have anything to do with having a good and stable home for the child...or being his blood relative, or successfully completeing parenting classes WITHOUT offering to teach them, or any of the other reasons that it really was and Greg fights so hard AGAINST. > Betty wrote >> She obviously doesn't hate 'children', Greg. She dislikes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The kids just appeared out of thin air right? All of them? None of the children adopted throughout the years have been placed for adoption by their parents? None have been abandoned? None have been orphaned due to death of their parents, etc? None came from other countries? Come on Greg! CPS took 'em all and put 'em up for adoption, right? Gimme a break! > Betty, You are an adopter aren't you? I am. Would you like to make some other assinine point about it? Feel free, you're so good at it. I mean, what with all the bitch and groan that I actually did adopt that child without your approval when the state won't even let you live in the same house with a kid...I jsut figure you've got another bitch up your sleeve, so by all means...whip it out! >> The kids just appeared out of thin air right? > All of them? > None of the children adopted throughout the years have been placed for > adoption by their parents? > None have been abandoned? > None have been orphaned due to death of their parents, etc? > None came from other countries? Want to discuss the kids from other countries? Good subject. How many adoptive American parents have had their lives turned into nightmares by that little racket, eh Dragongirl? Of the importation of eastern bloc children has made LOTS of $$$$$$$ for the racket. Billions if the truth were known. How many unsuspecting parents adopt those children from Romania, Russia etc who suffer not plain attachment disorder, but the extreme end of reactive attachment disorder? How many have faced financial disaster and violence from which the profiteers offer no escape? How many teen age mothers have been pressured to give up their babies against their will? How many were drugged to get that permission? Yes we all know about the crack addicted mothers. Do you think they are the majority? How many mothers have lost their children on the claims of a case worker that she suffered from "Munchausen's syndrome by Proxy?" Aside from video catching the mothers in the act, what is the "science" to prove MSBP? When closely examined it has run into real problems in courts in both the U.K and here in the U.S. hasn't it? Oh yes, adoption is a story that can't be questioned, right Dragongyrl? >>> The kids just appeared out of thin air right? > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Oh yes, adoption is a story that can't be questioned, right Dragongyrl? Ken, I've refrained from saying this in the past, but son, today is your lucky day....you just aren't the brightest crayon in the box, are you? Did you see me, above, or anywhere else for that matter, deny that adoptions are not questionable in some cases? You are like the little old lady down the street that hears a creak in the floor boards and just KNOWS that someone is in her house weilding a knife ready to kill her! Overkill, Ken. In reality we all know that some adoptions aren't legal, some are coerced, some do not turn out as they were planned, etc. I don't need you to point that out to me...I'm a big girl and NEVER made any claim that was different. I just didn't waste my time time typing out all the possibilities like you did because...well, Ken, it's been said before and I'm not one who's big on repeating things over and over again. And no, Ken, I don't want to discuss kids from other countries...I don't particularly like your style of changing the subject and refuse to cooperate with it. > You think alt.adoption should function totally without > any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > nailed for child molestation in the last 6 months, > and in amazing numbers. I presume you're replying to me, although you don't do readers the courtesy of including the post to which you're responding. I don't object to overlap, simply overkill. Fx has laid down a barrage of posts with little if any discrimination. The personal battles which originate elsewhere add nothing to the content here. Your own posts aren't worth responding to on the merits because they bear the unmistakable stink of the fanatic. I'd have a better chance of engaging in a reasoned discussion with George Bush on Iraq. J. > > You think alt.adoption should function totally without > > any overlap discussions of CPS or Foster Care? [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > J. Well said! I'll knock off alt.adoption on any post I respond to. Best, Dan Sullivan > > > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > > > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > If you got a good deal on a generator, you really > wouldn't WANT to know that it was stolen merchandise! Whoa! I take serious exception to your allegations! It is required of the CASA that they hold no interest save for what they view as the best interest of the child. The CASA is the only person in the courtroom to advocate solely for the child's best interest. We can and often do disagree with the social workers from CPS. We can and often do disagree with the parents of the kids. Perhaps your area is different than mine, perhaps you are not familiar with CASA. Check out their website. It will tell you about the new laws in place and why CASA people are there. I am not mouthpiece for Child Protective Services, but I sure am for the kids. Moses > > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > It is required of the CASA that they hold no interest > save for what they view as the best interest of the child. Absent proof of parental unfitness, best interest of the child can ONLY be determined by the parents. (from a high court ruling) > The CASA is the only person in the courtroom to > advocate solely for the child's best interest. Odd statement since CPS claims they do. > We can and often do disagree with the social workers from > CPS. CPS people are generally NOT licensed Social Workers. The correct term is CASEWORKER. When they use SW II it is like a rank or PAY GRADE and not an indication of a Social Work license. Typically if they were licensed SW's before becoming a CPS caseworker, they allow that to lapse because much of what they do is so unethical and violates the SW code that they would be more liable to law suit. > We can and often do disagree with the parents of the kids. Absent a court determination of parental unfitness, best interest of the child can ONLY be determined by the parents. (from a high court ruling) > Perhaps your area is different than mine, perhaps > you are not familiar with CASA. Their recruiting fliers here presume parents are guilty of child abuse. > Check out their website. It will tell you about the new > laws in place and why CASA people are there. What part of Citizens Review Board as it is implemented has to do with citizens? The board is stacked with former Fosters, former contractors to the agency, and former employees. Citizens do not have access to it as an Avenue of redress. > I am not mouthpiece for Child Protective > Services, but I sure am for the kids. I could muster a THOUSAND parents who have experienced Court Appointed Special Advocates and Guardian Ad Litems, and most would strongly disagree with you! Have you EVER been in a court process where US Santosky v Kramer or derivatives were used to obtain the higher standards mandated for a case involving such a "sacred" LIBERTY INTEREST? Burden of proof (Preponderance 51%) thrown out in favor of the (Clear and Convincing 80%) standard? Ever seen the "Rules of Civil Procedure" exceptions thrown out? Like the hearsay exception? Ever wondered why the courts assume a standard for burden of proof that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in every case in Juvenile Court? Did you think hearsay was Constitutional? But then, CASAs aren't usually attorneys are they? Much less a truly aggressive lawyer... > > > osmoses Sep 22, 12:55 am Newsgroups: alt.adoption > > > From: osmoses <pinkyjabber...@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > Odd statement since CPS claims they do. Greg, you know that's not true. CASA works from the child's POV in advocacy. > > We can and often do disagree with the social workers from > > CPS. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > But then, CASAs aren't usually attorneys are they? > Much less a truly aggressive lawyer... Of course they aren't. You know the difference between a CASA and a GAL, don't you? > Greg, you know that's not true. > CASA works from the child's POV in advocacy. Neither a GAL nor a CASA does that. They do claim "childs best interest" which almost never means representing what the child wants. Representing child's Point Of View would be an attorney representing the child's wishes. CASAs are NOT attorneys. >> Greg, you know that's not true. >> CASA works from the child's POV in advocacy. > > Neither a GAL nor a CASA does that. > They do claim "childs best interest" which almost > never means representing what the child wants. Kids want to eat candy all day long...suppose you think that would be in their best interests? They don't want to take meds...how about that? They like to walk around without proper attire on....should CASA's advocate for their right to do so because that's what they WANT? > Representing child's Point Of View would > be an attorney representing the child's wishes. > > CASAs are NOT attorneys. No effin' sh.t? You're a real Sherlock in the making. Join your local CSI...I'm sure they could use a sharp tack like you. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message