 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / November 2008London editorial describing a problem
I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the situation where kids are removed for investigation and months later when investigators find absolutely NO child abuse, they STILL won't give the kids back, using the excuse that the children are settled in a new life and it shouldn't be disrupted. Is this creeping SOCIALISM or what? >I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the >situation where kids are removed for investigation and months [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Is this creeping SOCIALISM or what? England is a police state. Fortunately, activities in England had no connection to CPS in the United States, despite your indication that you believe they do.  Signature"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque" Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser Jan 22, 2008 > England is a police state. > Fortunately, activities in England had no connection to CPS in > the United States, despite your indication that you believe they do. Sure. It can't happen here, right? It's the same story all over the world: if you give people unaccountable power, this sh.t will happen. But Wills has his head so far up his a.s that he can't see. Andrew Usher >> England is a police state. >> Fortunately, activities in England had no connection to CPS in >> the United States, despite your indication that you believe they do. > >Sure. It can't happen here, right? Have I indicated that it can't? Even by implication? That is *can* happen at some unknown future time doesn't mean it's happening now. As you know, Greg has presented that activities in England, most specifically the activities of a think tank, are connected to CPS in the U.S. now. As of my writing this, he's been UNABLE to offer anything to connect the two. He can't even acknowledge my request for the evidence of a connection. >It's the same story all over the >world: >if you give people unaccountable power, this sh.t will happen. But >Wills has his head so far up his a.s that he can't see. That you are unable to accept the truth that the activities of groups in England have no effect on CPS in the U.S. only means you are unable to accept this simple truth. Nothing more. Signature"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer. > That is *can* happen at some unknown future time doesn't mean it's > happening now. Prove that it doesn't. > As you know, Greg has presented that activities in > England, most specifically the activities of a think tank, are > connected to CPS in the U.S. now. His post (allegedly) documented an actual child-removal case in England. How is that 'the activities of a think tank'? > >It's the same story all over the > >world: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > groups in England have no effect on CPS in the U.S. only means you > are unable to accept this simple truth. Nothing more. We already KNOW about your definition of 'truth', Kent. The real truth is that bureaucrats in the US are not magically immune to the temptations affecting their counterparts in England. Andrew Usher >I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the > situation where kids are removed for investigation and months [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is this creeping SOCIALISM or what? Greegor posts yet another off topic useless posting... >>I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the >> situation where kids are removed for investigation and months [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Greegor posts yet another off topic useless posting... Excuse me, but it seems that the children ARE effectively adopted without the official paper. G > I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the G > situation where kids are removed for investigation and months G > later when investigators find absolutely NO child abuse, they G > STILL won't give the kids back, using the excuse that the children G > are settled in a new life and it shouldn't be disrupted. G > G > Is this creeping SOCIALISM or what? G > Caught more of it in a repeat cycle. G > G > She complained about how when kids G > died DESPITE many visits from social services, G > the "councils" responded by removing triple G > the number of children for the purposes of G > what she called "risk aversion". Johnny > Greegor posts yet another off topic useless posting... MD > Excuse me, but it seems that the children MD > ARE effectively adopted without the official paper. Not only without official paper, but officially without any abuse as a basis. [...] >Johnny > Greegor posts yet another off topic useless posting... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Not only without official paper, but officially >without any abuse as a basis. For clarification: Are you proposing that only children who have been abuse, or thought to have been abused, are adopted? Your post gives the impression that is your claim. If so, you should know that children are adopted without having been the victims of abuse. "Us Man Whores don't need porno." -- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser. Message-ID: <23e9facf-66a4-4c9e-a8db-93a0812df68b@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> > For clarification: Are you proposing that only children who have > been abuse, or thought to have been abused, are adopted? Your post > gives the impression that is your claim. > If so, you should know that children are adopted without having > been the victims of abuse. More of your pathetic straw men. We know what he meant. Andrew Usher Context restored at no additional cost. >>>Not only without official paper, but officially >>>without any abuse as a basis. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >More of your pathetic straw men. We know what he meant. When viewed in context, your lie is exposed. I'm sure you're used to it, since you've been unable to post one item of truth since I first encountered you. A request for clarification can not, to the honest person, be seen as presenting a straw man argument. 10 out of 10 for the attempt. Negative several million due to your dishonesty. Signature-... .- -.. .-- --- .-.. ..-. > >More of your pathetic straw men. We know what he meant. > > When viewed in context, your lie is exposed. I'm sure you're used > to it, since you've been unable to post one item of truth since I > first encountered you. Wrong. > A request for clarification can not, to the honest person, be seen > as presenting a straw man argument. Your 'request' was not honest. > 10 out of 10 for the attempt. Negative several million due to > your dishonesty. Contrary to your implication, pointing out your silliness is not dishonesty. Tell me, Kent: are you a psychopath? Andrew Usher >> >More of your pathetic straw men. We know what he meant. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Wrong. I've never seen anything honest from you. I consistently prove your lies. Usually you run away from the discussion once I've done so. >> A request for clarification can not, to the honest person, be seen >> as presenting a straw man argument. > >Your 'request' was not honest. You can deny the truth all you want. The truth will remain the truth. BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. Clearly I did understand his claim. >> 10 out of 10 for the attempt. Negative several million due to >> your dishonesty. > >Contrary to your implication, pointing out your silliness is not >dishonesty. If there was any silliness to point out, you would be correct. Since there was not, your lie stands as the lie it was and is. >Tell me, Kent: are you a psychopath? I don't think so. I'm certain if I were, the psychologist (she has a Ph.D. in the field) I'm married to would have made mention of it by now. And if not her, someone else equally qualified would have. Tell me, Andrew: Why are you so against being honest? Signature-... .- -.. .-- --- .-.. ..-. > I've never seen anything honest from you. I consistently prove > your lies. You've never proved a damn thing. > Usually you run away from the discussion once I've done so. I do not run away. I only stop replying once there is nothing more to say. > >> A request for clarification can not, to the honest person, be seen > >> as presenting a straw man argument. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can deny the truth all you want. The truth will remain the > truth. Save for the minor matter that we have no reason to believe it but your assertion. > BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. > Clearly I did understand his claim. Willsworld logic, I love it! > >> 10 out of 10 for the attempt. Negative several million due to > >> your dishonesty. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If there was any silliness to point out, you would be correct. > Since there was not, your lie stands as the lie it was and is. You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR but it only shows that you're an idiot. > >Tell me, Kent: are you a psychopath? > > I don't think so. I'm certain if I were, the psychologist (she > has a Ph.D. in the field) I'm married to would have made mention of it > by now. And if not her, someone else equally qualified would have. > Tell me, Andrew: Why are you so against being honest? More projection. Andrew Usher >> I've never seen anything honest from you. I consistently prove >> your lies. > >You've never proved a damn thing. You can deny the truth as often as you feel you need to. Ultimately, your denials do me no harm. Occasionally your dishonest denials bring a moment of levity. >> Usually you run away from the discussion once I've done so. > >I do not run away. I only stop replying once there is nothing more >to say. You mean once you can no longer lie your way out of it. >> >> A request for clarification can not, to the honest person, be seen >> >> as presenting a straw man argument. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Save for the minor matter that we have no reason to believe it but >your assertion. If my honest assertion is beyond your ability to accept, so be it. >> BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. >> Clearly I did understand his claim. > >Willsworld logic, I love it! If I was wrong in my understanding, he would have pointed out the error. It's interpersonal communication 101. >> >> 10 out of 10 for the attempt. Negative several million due to >> >> your dishonesty. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR I've never screamed any such thing. >but it only shows that you're >an idiot. I expect most idiots could expose your lies. It's not like you make any effort to hide them. Even so, one doesn't need to be an idiot to expose your inability or unwillingness to be honest. >> >Tell me, Kent: are you a psychopath? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >More projection. Avoidance noted. Now that you have that out of the way, please answer the question raised. Unless, of course, an honest answer is something you are unable or unwilling to give. SignatureDo not meddle in the affairs of Dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. > On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:01:36 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You can deny the truth as often as you feel you need to. I loudly proclaim the truth that you are lying and bullshitting. > Ultimately, your denials do me no harm. Occasionally your dishonest > denials bring a moment of levity. I suppose HITLER laughed too! > >> Usually you run away from the discussion once I've done so. > > >I do not run away. I only stop replying once there is nothing more > >to say. > > You mean once you can no longer lie your way out of it. None of your posts have ever affected my ability to rebut your nonsense claims. > >Save for the minor matter that we have no reason to believe it but > >your assertion. > > If my honest assertion is beyond your ability to accept, so be it. I don't accept that you are honest. You have proven yourself not to be. Looked up 'Warsaw Pact' yet Kunt? > >> BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. > >> Clearly I did understand his claim. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I was wrong in my understanding, he would have pointed out the > error. It's interpersonal communication 101. He could just regard you as not worth arguing with. > >You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR > > I've never screamed any such thing. I suppose you obtusely insist that every word must be used literally? > >but it only shows that you're > >an idiot. > > I expect most idiots could expose your lies. It's not like you > make any effort to hide them. I need not hide what isn't there. > >> Tell me, Andrew: Why are you so against being honest? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > raised. Unless, of course, an honest answer is something you are > unable or unwilling to give. That question can't be answered as it assumes a false premiss. Andrew Usher >> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:01:36 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I loudly proclaim the truth that you are lying and bullshitting. Present your lies as often as you wish. As I've stated, your inability or unwillingness to be honest does me no harm. >> Ultimately, your denials do me no harm. Occasionally your dishonest >> denials bring a moment of levity. > >I suppose HITLER laughed too! I suppose he did. I don't see how the probability that Hitler ever laughed equates to your denials of the truth bring the occasional moment of levity. Perhaps you could explain how your mind connects the two? >> >> Usually you run away from the discussion once I've done so. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >None of your posts have ever affected my ability to rebut your >nonsense claims. And yet you often have to run away after I've exposed various lies. Then lie and claim you left because you had nothing more to say. >> >Save for the minor matter that we have no reason to believe it but >> >your assertion. >> >> If my honest assertion is beyond your ability to accept, so be it. > >I don't accept that you are honest. Since you can't or won't be honest, this is to be expected of you. When you see honesty, it confuses you. You don't know what to make of it, so you reject the concept. >You have proven yourself >not to be. Yet you've never been able to expose even one lie from me. Little wonder, since I've not lied. >Looked up 'Warsaw Pact' yet Kunt? As a heterosexual, I find the vagina a subject of great interest and fascination. Because of this, your attempt to insult me by using a slang term for vagina fails. Much as everything else you've tried with me. Do you fail in everything in real life as well? Serious question. >> >> BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. >> >> Clearly I did understand his claim. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >He could just regard you as not worth arguing with. It wasn't a argument. It was a request for clarification and an explication of how he was in error if I understood correctly. You can lie about this all you need. The truth remains the truth, much to your displeasure. >> >You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR >> >> I've never screamed any such thing. > >I suppose you obtusely insist that every word must be used literally? I wasn't being literal in my reply. That you have to dishonestly imply that I was, only shows that you were lying about my shouting, in any usage of the term. >> >but it only shows that you're >> >an idiot. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I need not hide what isn't there. But it is there, as I have proved many times. >> >> Tell me, Andrew: Why are you so against being honest? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That question can't be answered as it assumes a false premiss. So you are unable or unwilling to give an honest answer. Fine. I presumed as much, but having you make it so clear is nice. Now be a good pet and present some sort of deceptive reply in a futile effort to recover from having made yourself look the fool you are. SignatureBless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin. I poked a badger with a spoon. > >I loudly proclaim the truth that you are lying and bullshitting. > > Present your lies as often as you wish. As I've stated, your > inability or unwillingness to be honest does me no harm. Funny you've never demonstrated one lie by me. > >> Ultimately, your denials do me no harm. Occasionally your dishonest > >> denials bring a moment of levity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to your denials of the truth bring the occasional moment of levity. > Perhaps you could explain how your mind connects the two? How dense are you? That's an implicit comparison between you and Hitler. > >None of your posts have ever affected my ability to rebut your > >nonsense claims. > > And yet you often have to run away after I've exposed various > lies. Then lie and claim you left because you had nothing more to > say. This is not even wrong. It is insanity. > >I don't accept that you are honest. > > Since you can't or won't be honest, this is to be expected of you. > When you see honesty, it confuses you. You don't know what to make of > it, so you reject the concept. DENIAL! DENIAL! DENIAL! > >You have proven yourself > >not to be. > > Yet you've never been able to expose even one lie from me. Little > wonder, since I've not lied. You just throw bullshit and hope some will stick, right? > >Looked up 'Warsaw Pact' yet Kunt? > > As a heterosexual, I find the vagina a subject of great interest > and fascination. Because of this, your attempt to insult me by using > a slang term for vagina fails. Much as everything else you've tried > with me. Since you are determined to argue in the manner of a woman, the term is entirely appropriate. You need a bitch slap Kent! > Do you fail in everything in real life as well? Serious question. Not as badly as you fail at logic. > >> >> BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. > >> >> Clearly I did understand his claim. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It wasn't a argument. It was a request for clarification and an > explication of how he was in error if I understood correctly. Greg has no obligation to correct your misunderstanding, if indeed you are being honest. > >> >You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I wasn't being literal in my reply. Yes you were. > That you have to dishonestly imply that I was, only shows that you > were lying about my shouting, in any usage of the term. Once you can agree to use the standard meaning of 'dishonest', we can talk about my allegedly not using the standard meaning of 'screaming'. > >> >but it only shows that you're > >> >an idiot. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But it is there, as I have proved many times. But only you can see it! MOMMY - there's a monster in the bath tub! > >That question can't be answered as it assumes a false premiss. > > So you are unable or unwilling to give an honest answer. Fine. > I presumed as much, but having you make it so clear is nice. No, it's simple logic. Andrew Usher AU > You just throw bullshit and hope some will stick, right? Kent does that a lot. > > >Looked up 'Warsaw Pact' yet Kunt? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since you are determined to argue in the manner of a woman, the > term is entirely appropriate. You need a bitch slap Kent! KW > Do you fail in everything in real life as well? Serious question. AU > Not as badly as you fail at logic. KW > BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. KW > Clearly I did understand his claim. AU > Willsworld logic, I love it! KW > If I was wrong in my understanding, he would have pointed out the KW > error. It's interpersonal communication 101. AU > He could just regard you as not worth arguing with. http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768 KW > It wasn't a argument. It was a KW > request for clarification and an KW > explication of how he was in KW > error if I understood correctly. AU > Greg has no obligation to correct AU > your misunderstanding, if indeed AU > you are being honest. http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768 Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768 Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk Commitment Date 01/16/2004 >> >I loudly proclaim the truth that you are lying and bullshitting. >> >> Present your lies as often as you wish. As I've stated, your >> inability or unwillingness to be honest does me no harm. > >Funny you've never demonstrated one lie by me. Since I've proved them your claim is *technically* true. Not in the deceptive manner in which you present it, but technically. >> >> Ultimately, your denials do me no harm. Occasionally your dishonest >> >> denials bring a moment of levity. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How dense are you? I was a member of Mensa. >That's an implicit comparison between you and >Hitler. So you have been reduced to ad homs. >> >None of your posts have ever affected my ability to rebut your >> >nonsense claims. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >This is not even wrong. It's more than wrong of you. >It is insanity. I don't think it displays any mental illness on your part. >> >I don't accept that you are honest. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >DENIAL! DENIAL! DENIAL! Id you wish. You deny the concept of honesty. >> >You have proven yourself >> >not to be. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You just throw bullshit and hope some will stick, right? No. Since I use only honesty, there's no way one can honestly claim it's bullshit. >> >Looked up 'Warsaw Pact' yet Kunt? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Since you are determined to argue in the manner of a woman, So you're misogynic as well. >the >term is entirely appropriate. You need a bitch slap Kent! How interesting that when beaten in a debate, you feel the need to use violence. >> Do you fail in everything in real life as well? Serious question. > >Not as badly as you fail at logic. Cite one such failure from me. Unless you'd rather get violent. >> >> >> BTW, did you note that Greg didn't offer an alternate explanation. >> >> >> Clearly I did understand his claim. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Greg has no obligation to correct your misunderstanding, if indeed >you are being honest. I didn't claim he was obligated. However, common courtesy would have him correct me if I were wrong. >> >> >You scream LIAR, LIAR, LIAR >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yes you were. Is there any lie you won't tell? Any lie at all? >> That you have to dishonestly imply that I was, only shows that you >> were lying about my shouting, in any usage of the term. > >Once you can agree to use the standard meaning of 'dishonest', we can >talk about my allegedly not using the standard meaning of 'screaming'. I'm being literal in my meaning of dishonest. >> >> >but it only shows that you're >> >> >an idiot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >But only you can see it! Me and everyone else reading. >MOMMY - there's a monster in the >bath tub! You're immature. Got it. >> >That question can't be answered as it assumes a false premiss. >> >> So you are unable or unwilling to give an honest answer. Fine. >> I presumed as much, but having you make it so clear is nice. > >No, it's simple logic. Which you consistently prove is beyond you. Signature-... .- -.. .-- --- .-.. ..-. >>>I just saw an editorial from London where the person described the >>> situation where kids are removed for investigation and months [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Excuse me, but it seems that the children ARE effectively adopted without > the official paper. There *IS* an adoption racket in America that is legalized BABY SELLING. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.