 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / August 2006More murdering fosties
Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - They should round up the CPS ninnies responsible and charge them all with intentional disreguard - sent then to supermax and put em on tv. -------------------------------------- http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060810/FON0101/608100549 /1290/FONnews Posted August 10, 2006 Waupun foster home license revoked By Colleen Kottke The Reporter ckottke@fdlreporter.com JUNEAU - The foster home license of a Waupun couple where a child died earlier this year has been revoked after an independent review in Dodge County. The license came under scrutiny after a 3-year-old foster child died after allegedly being beaten by his foster father, Shane Marquardt, in the home on May 5. Dave Titus, director of the Dodge County Health and Human Services Department, said the license held by foster parents Shane and Jessica Marquardt, was withdrawn on July 24. The action comes as no surprise to Titus, who said the incident is an alleged criminal action and the subsequent license revocation was a "foregone" conclusion. However, he said the Marquardts have 15 business days to appeal the decision. An opinion also is expected next month by the state Department of Health and Family Services, which launched its own review of the circumstances leading to the death of Camron Gardner while he lived in the Marquardt's foster home in Waupun. Camron and his younger brother, Ethan Schwartz, were allegedly punched in the stomach by Marquardt after Marquardt, 32, flew into a rage. Dodge County welfare officials placed the children in the Marquardts' custody last October. Marquardt is charged with first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree reckless injury and is scheduled to make his next court appearance on Aug. 17 for a preliminary hearing. In the aftermath of the fatal beating, the Department of Health and Family Services told Dodge County child welfare officials that it intended to review the situation. The review is designed to identify any factors or conditions that may have contributed to or resulted in Gardner's death or Schwartz's hospitalization. "As the supervising agency, it's up to us to go in and do a review on how Dodge County handled the case to assure that this criteria was met," said Jennifer Jones, a spokeswoman for DHFS. If the review turns up negligence on the part of the county, a written recommendation will be issued, detailing improvements needed. Great Aunt Sandy Arneson said Ethan is currently in the custody of his birth mother Ashley Mundt and her grandmother, Pat Cramer. While Ethan has recovered from his injuries, Arneson said the incident has had lasting effects on the little boy. "He's still very afraid of adults he doesn't know, especially men," said Arneson. > Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. Nonsense. > Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - Not relevant to your claim below. > They should round up the CPS ninnies responsible and charge them all with > intentional disreguard - sent then to supermax and put em on tv. What is "intentional disreguard?" [sic] How could CPS have stopped this? What actions could they have taken prior to the events? Try to stick to facts, if you decide to answer. 0:-> > -------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > "He's still very afraid of adults he doesn't know, especially men," said > Arneson.  Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Sharon Long wrote: > Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. Kane wrote > Nonsense. Actually, the stats bely this. And the legal standards do also. All they had was a "preponderance" and "at risk of" neglect or "at risk of" abuse. Actual physical abuse is something like 2% of the removed kids. Sharon wrote > Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - Kane wrote > Not relevant to your claim below. Of course. Who ever HEARD of expecting people making JUDGEMENTS to live up to their own high have higher standards in their OWN lives? The hypocrisy is of course not relevant. (roight!) Sharon wrote > They should round up the CPS ninnies responsible > and charge them all with intentional disreguard - > sent then to supermax and put em on tv. Kane wrote > What is "intentional disreguard?" [sic] Was that REALLY hard for you to figure out, Kane? Or was this just an opportunity for you to mock an ordinary citizen who only understands 90% of the legalese mumbo jumbo? Kane wrote > How could CPS have stopped this? They could have gone to Iraq as minesweepers. Kane wrote > What actions could they have taken prior to the events? Send them to Iraq to ply their trade! Kane wrote > Try to stick to facts, if you decide to answer. Kane the demagogue says stick to the facts! ROFL! > Sharon Long wrote: >> Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually, the stats bely this. Proof please. > And the legal standards do also. Proof please. > All they had was a "preponderance" and "at risk of" neglect or > "at risk of" abuse. Most of those cases are adjunct...that is the children were part of a group of siblings. In other instances the "at risk" consisted of being in households with domestic violence, drug sales and manufacturing activity, sex offender having access to the household or living within it, and similar risks. These are substantial, unless of course you disagree. But then you don't value children much anyway, do you Greg? > Actual physical abuse is something like 2% of the removed kids. So sexual abuse, neglect, and similar are not abuse? You'd only remove for injuries above a certain level, isn't that right, Greg? > Sharon wrote >> Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > making JUDGEMENTS to live up to their own high > have higher standards in their OWN lives? As I said, the one is not equivalent to the other. No "relevance" between the statements. > The hypocrisy is of course not relevant. (roight!) That's because there is none beyond what you fantasize. > Sharon wrote >> They should round up the CPS ninnies responsible [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Was that REALLY hard for you to figure out, Kane? Of course, since it's a nonsense statement. CPS doesn't intentionally disregard, or if they do, I'd like to see some proof rather than these all inclusive general assignments of guilt before the charges are proven. You got any? > Or was this just an opportunity for you to > mock an ordinary citizen who only understands > 90% of the legalese mumbo jumbo? Darned if I can know what she does or doesn't understand. I'm trying to find out. > Kane wrote >> How could CPS have stopped this? > > They could have gone to Iraq as minesweepers. In other words, you have no reasonable argument so you'll turn to flippancy and stupidity, as usual. > Kane wrote >> What actions could they have taken prior to the events? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kane the demagogue says stick to the facts! ROFL! I am not a demagogue, and sticking to facts is a perfectly reasonable request. What you think of as being a "demagogue," on my part is of course that I DO DEMAND facts rather than this blathering emotionalism you folks are prone to. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) > Sharon Long wrote: > Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. Kane wrote > Nonsense. Greg wrote > Actually, the stats bely this. Kane wrote > Proof please. AFCARS, NCANDS or smell test? Greg wrote > And the legal standards do also. Kane wrote > Proof please. Greg wrote > All they had was a "preponderance" and "at risk of" neglect or > "at risk of" abuse. Kane wrote > Most of those cases are adjunct...that is the children were part of a > group of siblings. In other instances the "at risk" consisted of being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > These are substantial, unless of course you disagree. Of course! The specified legal standard is "proponderance" in most states. PLUS it only has to show "at risk of" neglect or "at risk of" abuse. You already KNOW this, Kane. Kane wrote > But then you don't value children much anyway, do you Greg? You're not a demagogue you say? Greg wrote > Actual physical abuse is something like 2% of the removed kids. Kane wrote > So sexual abuse, neglect, and similar are not abuse? Which? You wrapped extremely different things together! Get with the program, the buzzword now is "maltreatment". But abuse and neglect are still tracked seperately. Kane wrote > You'd only remove for injuries above a > certain level, isn't that right, Greg? That would imply some level of trust. I don't trust the agencies, period. They proved themselves not worthy. Sharon wrote > Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - Kane wrote > Not relevant to your claim below. Greg wrote > Of course. Who ever HEARD of expecting people > making JUDGEMENTS to live up to their own high > have higher standards in their OWN lives? Kane wrote > As I said, the one is not equivalent to the other. No "relevance" > between the statements. Greg wrote > The hypocrisy is of course not relevant. (roight!) Kane wrote > That's because there is none beyond what you fantasize. Sharon wrote > They should round up the CPS ninnies responsible > and charge them all with intentional disreguard - > sent then to supermax and put em on tv. Kane wrote > What is "intentional disreguard?" [sic] Greg wrote > Was that REALLY hard for you to figure out, Kane? Kane wrote > Of course, since it's a nonsense statement. CPS doesn't intentionally > disregard, or if they do, I'd like to see some proof rather than these > all inclusive general assignments of guilt before the charges are proven. > You got any? Wallis v Escondido Case made from the report of a nucase in a LOCKED PSYCHO WARD! Greg wrote > Or was this just an opportunity for you to > mock an ordinary citizen who only understands > 90% of the legalese mumbo jumbo? Kane wrote > Darned if I can know what she does or > doesn't understand. I'm trying to find out. Your efforts are heartwarming! Kane wrote > How could CPS have stopped this? Greg wrote > They could have gone to Iraq as minesweepers. Kane wrote > In other words, you have no reasonable argument so you'll turn to > flippancy and stupidity, as usual. No, I MEANT it, they could have prevented the whole problem by parachuting without a pack, Scuba diving without a tank.. Taking a 50 foot walk off a 30 foot pier.. The point was that if they HAD NOT removed, the kid would now be alive. Kane wrote > >> What actions could they have taken prior to the events? Greg wrote > Send them to Iraq to ply their trade! Kane wrote > Try to stick to facts, if you decide to answer. Greg wrote > Kane the demagogue says stick to the facts! ROFL! Kane wrote > I am not a demagogue, That's what YOU say! Kane wrote > and sticking to facts is a perfectly reasonable request. It might be if you weren't a demagogue! You go after knee jerk reactions all the time. Kane wrote > What you think of as being a "demagogue," on my part is of course that I > DO DEMAND facts rather than this blathering emotionalism you folks are > prone to. Nah, it's your MISUSE of stats in an attempt to create a HYSTERICAL reaction and government expenditure. >> Sharon Long wrote: >> Most of the kids in foster 'care' wern't abused or neglected at home. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > AFCARS, NCANDS or smell test? Library of Congress. You can find out how to make a million dollars there. But where exactly? I'm not saying. Just like you. Now, stupid what does AFCARS, NCANDS say. And where does it say it, and defend what it says with logic and supporting facts. Explain what any missing information might mean (there's plenty). For a boy that is in conflict with authority you seem willing to use it as though it's all powerful and I should fall to my knees in respect at the mere mention of the federal government data sources. You know that's not in character for me. > Greg wrote >> And the legal standards do also. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Get with the program, the buzzword now is "maltreatment". > But abuse and neglect are still tracked seperately. Yep, but neglect is a category of abuse. Stop being more stupid than you have to be. AND, going back to YOUR citations, stupid, they say that "neglect" is more dangerous (more fatalities) than physical or other kinds of abuse. Explain please. > Kane wrote >> You'd only remove for injuries above a >> certain level, isn't that right, Greg? > > That would imply some level of trust. Of you? > I don't trust the agencies, period. > They proved themselves not worthy. But you are? R RR R R RR R Too much. > Sharon wrote >> Maybe Camrons parents spanked him - OMG - [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Your efforts are heartwarming! I know. But I doubt you recognize them, since you presume and assume all too much about others. > Kane wrote >> How could CPS have stopped this? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problem by parachuting without a pack, Scuba diving without a tank.. > Taking a 50 foot walk off a 30 foot pier.. Can I take it you wish them dead then? What would this say, if true, about the state of Iowa considering you threatening? > The point was that if they HAD NOT removed, the kid would now be alive. If you'd never been born, etc. > Kane wrote >>>> What actions could they have taken prior to the events? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That's what YOU say! Yep. Prove me wrong. > Kane wrote >> and sticking to facts is a perfectly reasonable request. > > It might be if you weren't a demagogue! > You go after knee jerk reactions all the time. On the contrary, that is exactly what I do NOT do, and you, projecting, are guilty of in nearly every post, Greg. You are the perfect mouthpiece for the nutso anti government anti CPS nutsos you echo so well. > Kane wrote >> What you think of as being a "demagogue," on my part is of course that I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nah, it's your MISUSE of stats in an attempt to create > a HYSTERICAL reaction and government expenditure. I make no such attempt. Even the Pugh Commission, who you and your cronies have cited PARTS OF to try and prove CPS malpractice, agrees with me. Underfunded, under trained, and overloaded with cases, Greg. You don't fix those problems with wishes. Or court orders. Though I was pleased to note one CPS system taken over by a federal court judge had as HIS first order of business TO GET MORE FUNDING TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEMS I BRING UP HERE. Lack of staff. Lack of training. Too many cases per caseload. Keep on lying, Greg, it's at least amusing to see the lengths you'll go to. 0:- Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane wrote > Yep, but neglect is a category of abuse. Stop being more stupid than you > have to be. AND, going back to YOUR citations, stupid, they say that > "neglect" is more dangerous (more fatalities) than physical or other > kinds of abuse. Did it ever occur to you that the broad category of neglect hits people for factors of POVERTY? Clutter, for example, has a LOT to do with INCOME and financial situation. Larger places with basements, attics or storage areas can have a huge effect on that. Sheer square footage can resolve it. Square footage is a huge part of how landlords decide rent amounts. > Kane wrote >> Yep, but neglect is a category of abuse. Stop being more stupid than you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did it ever occur to you that the broad category of > neglect hits people for factors of POVERTY? Nope, because unless the poverty includes actual neglect they are NOT investigated. And if they are investigated and they are NOT neglecting their children, no problem for them. You are lying, Greg, a little propagandist for the anti CPS anti Government crowd. > Clutter, for example, has a LOT to do with > INCOME and financial situation. Yes, in SOME cases that's true. And if it's not dangerous clutter it does not result in a case being opened. An investigation? Possibly, but clutter alone has not and does not constituted neglect, Greg. > Larger places with basements, attics or > storage areas can have a huge effect on that. For those that clutter dangerously, no, it is Zero effect to have more space. > Sheer square footage can resolve it. How would that effect dangerous clutter? Take the chainsaw next to the wood stove in the Maine case that was on TV. I've never stored a chainsaw, and I've owned dozens, indoors in my life. They go in a shed separate from human habitation, where their are no fire or spark sources even then. Ever seen a little chainsaw explode in flames? I have. Stupid faller I had cut an 80 acre plot of timber for me smoked right next to his saw. I had to take him to the hospital. No fun at all. The explosion made a ten foot fireball, and cooked his skin all up one side. Those are the kinds of clutter CPS removes children for, and even then they give people time to clean up the DANGEROUS part of the clutter, stupid. In the Maine case the family did NOT do the required cleanup, including a cracked glass coffee table with an active toddler in the house. But you and those just like you argued that CPS was overstepping their bounds. Of course had their BEEN a fire and children injured or killed YOU'D have been among the first claiming CPS was not doing it's job leaving children in DANGEROUS clutter. > Square footage is a huge part of how landlords decide rent amounts. What has that to do with DANGEROUS clutter, by leaving DANGEROUS objects and conditions in place around small children, stupid? And what makes you think that all or the majority of "clutter" cases involve rented accommodations? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane wrote > Yep, but neglect is a category of abuse. Stop being more stupid than you > have to be. AND, going back to YOUR citations, stupid, they say that > "neglect" is more dangerous (more fatalities) than physical or other > kinds of abuse. Greg wrote > Did it ever occur to you that the broad category of > neglect hits people for factors of POVERTY? Kane wrote > Nope, because unless the poverty includes actual neglect they are NOT > investigated. And if they are investigated and they are NOT neglecting > their children, no problem for them. You are lying, Greg, a little > propagandist for the anti CPS anti Government crowd. You are a whore for the system. Greg wrote > Clutter, for example, has a LOT to do with > INCOME and financial situation. Kane wrote > Yes, in SOME cases that's true. And if it's not dangerous clutter it > does not result in a case being opened. An investigation? Possibly, but > clutter alone has not and does not constituted neglect, Greg. Initially it was the only reason our case was opened. You already went over the list of items referred to. There was no gasoline, no chain saws, etc. Greg wrote > Larger places with basements, attics or > storage areas can have a huge effect on that. Kane wrote > For those that clutter dangerously, no, it is > Zero effect to have more space. Yer a nut case! Greg wrote > Sheer square footage can resolve it. Kane wrote > How would that effect dangerous clutter? > Take the chainsaw next to the wood stove in the Maine case that was on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > had to take him to the hospital. No fun at all. The explosion made a ten > foot fireball, and cooked his skin all up one side. Interesting story but not very relevant. Short attention span? Kane wrote > Those are the kinds of clutter CPS removes children for, UM, Kane, you already acknowledged that workers who have an intuitive "bad feeling" but nothing substantial will put down CLUTTER or messy house as a CATCH ALL, to make a case with the idea they would (come up with something later). Now you are trying to exaggerate CLUTTER by attaching the word DANGEROUS to it and talking about chain saws. None of which fits most such cases. Kane wrote > and even then they give people time to clean up > the DANGEROUS part of the clutter, stupid. To the standards that don't exist, no doubt! Kane wrote > In the Maine case the family did NOT do the required cleanup, including > a cracked glass coffee table with an active toddler in the house. Are you talking about the McGuckin incident? Where the kids held the authorities at bay for weeks, and crapped in buckets because they were under siege? But THEN you pointed out the buckets of feces? Is that the one you're saying had a chain saw in a photo? > But you and those just like you argued that CPS was overstepping their > bounds. > Of course had their BEEN a fire and children injured or killed YOU'D > have been among the first claiming CPS was not doing it's job leaving > children in DANGEROUS clutter. Greg wrote > Square footage is a huge part of how landlords decide rent amounts. > What has that to do with DANGEROUS clutter, by leaving DANGEROUS objects > and conditions in place around small children, stupid? > And what makes you think that all or the majority of "clutter" cases > involve rented accommodations? Economics. You're talking about DANGEROUS CLUTTER! You wouldn't be attempting to whip up some HYSTERIA now would you? > Kane wrote >> Yep, but neglect is a category of abuse. Stop being more stupid than you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You are a whore for the system. Nope. > Greg wrote >> Clutter, for example, has a LOT to do with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Initially it was the only reason our case was opened. You must be thinking of another case. > You already went over the list of items referred to. > There was no gasoline, no chain saws, etc. Sorry. I watched the video, commented along with others in ascps about it, and there most definitely WAS a chainsaw sitting next to a wood stove. Your memory must be terribly bad OR you are a liar, or both. From a conversation with our old mutual friend, bobb. "> Existing law, in > fact, supports my position for a child should be removed only when there > is evidence of great danger and bodity harm but the bar has been lowered > to allow even the cluttered house to suggest 'great danger' Oh for sh.t sakes, that old saw. Don't you ever get tired of such nonsense? No one ever had a child removed because the house was "cluttered". The Maine story was a perfect example. It was claimed exactly as you state, but when the camera panned the rooms in the home it wasn't just "clutter." It was a hog pen, and a chainsaw was sitting, in the winter time, right next to a wood stove. A heavy plate glass table was left broken unmended and unremoved with small children in the house. Have you any idea what a piece of broken plate glass can do to human flesh? My dad used to us it to finish some of his fine cabinet pieces in the crevases because it was so extremely sharp and metal tool would be sharpened to that fine an edge. " And long after: "Remember the videos here some years back of a household that was "cluttered?" They were asked to clean it up and make it safe. Remove the broken glass coffee table where there were toddlers. Get the damn chainsaw out of the living room where it resided by the woodstove in winter. (Ever seen gasoline go off, bobberito? Likely no one would survive, let alone a toddler closeby.) They wouldn't do it. Not 'couldn't do it," but wouldn't. " No one, Greg, attempted to argue with me then that there was no wood stove or chainsaw, because THEY SAW IT WITH THEIR OWN EYES on PBS, stupid. Right along with that glass topped coffee table in a house with a toddler. Broken GLASS CPS had requested they remove, and they did NOT. You are SO full of sh.t, Greg. > Greg wrote >> Larger places with basements, attics or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yer a nut case! You don't want to store chainsaws in your basement either. Not with furnaces, and freezers, and refrigerators, and kids that might play down there. > Greg wrote >> Sheer square footage can resolve it. > > Kane wrote >> How would that effect dangerous clutter? You did NOT answer, Greg. >> Take the chainsaw next to the wood stove in the Maine case that was on >> TV. I've never stored a chainsaw, and I've owned dozens, indoors in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Interesting story but not very relevant. Short attention span? You just denied it even existed. And we ARE talking "clutter," here, Greg. That was a "clutter" case that you and other's here argued was wrong of CPS. Bullshit. > Kane wrote >> Those are the kinds of clutter CPS removes children for, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as a CATCH ALL, to make a case with the idea they > would (come up with something later). Citation please. You are making that up as you go along. LET'S SEE MY WORDS, LIAR. > Now you are trying to exaggerate CLUTTER by attaching > the word DANGEROUS to it and talking about chain saws. Nope. I am doing the very opposite. I'm saying children are NOT removed for "clutter" only "dangerous" clutter. As in the example I offered hoping that for ONCE you didn't use your faulty memory to lie. > None of which fits most such cases. None of what fits most which cases, Greg? You are claiming children are removed for simple clutter that some storage space could solve. I'm telling you you are a liar, Greg. They are removed (and often not even REMOVED AT ALL, as in the Maine PBS video case) but the family is asked to correct the problem. Frankly I think CPS in Maine, in that particular case, was dead wrong NOT to take the child out of the home instantly when that chainsaw showed up next to the wood stove. Anyone THAT stupid is bound to put children at risk again. YOU are that stupid, aren't you Greg? You'd defend, like bobber did, the keeping of the chainsaw next to the stove in winter to keep it "warm and easier to start," wouldn't you, Greg? A bomb, waiting to go off and even the CPS workers didn't notice. I got it on the first pan of the camera across the hogpen of "clutter." Damned near choked on my salad, I did. > Kane wrote >> and even then they give people time to clean up >> the DANGEROUS part of the clutter, stupid. > > To the standards that don't exist, no doubt! Bullshit. Standards are explicit, Greg. Fire danger is ONE of the items that IS in fact looked at. Fumes from gasoline ARE highly combustible. A point even bobber made, in his rambling. > Kane wrote >> In the Maine case the family did NOT do the required cleanup, including [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and crapped in buckets because they were under siege? > But THEN you pointed out the buckets of feces? Nope, that was in Washington state, stupid. I'm talking about the CPS MAINE case broadcast on PBS. Are you insane as well as stupid and a liar? How many times do I have to say MAINE, for you to wake UP? > Is that the one you're saying had a chain saw in a photo? There was NO video made of the McGuckin "incident" by PBS, dummy. MAINE...NOT WASHINGTON. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/search?grou p=alt.support.child-protective-services&q=PBS+Maine&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this +group The fuggering MAINE PBS video'd story with the glass topped coffee table in it and a toddler in the house, stupid. >> But you and those just like you argued that CPS was overstepping their >> bounds. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Economics. > You're talking about DANGEROUS CLUTTER! Yep. > You wouldn't be attempting to whip up some HYSTERIA now would you? How? By mentioning that CPS focuses on dangerous clutter, not clutter, when they open a case? Yes, I'm talking about dangerous clutter. Why wouldn't I, considering it's to counter YOUR claim, forever unproven, that children are "removed" for nothing more than simple clutter. Hell, even with "dangerous" clutter children are not usually removed. The family, as the Maine family was, is simply asked to clean up the mess. Often CPS contractors are sent out to HELP with the cleanup. You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. It's YOU that try to whip up hysteria and make claims that are NOT supported by the evidence. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane wrote > You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. > > It's YOU that try to whip up hysteria and make claims that are NOT > supported by the evidence. Please provide the evidence. > Kane wrote >> You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please provide the evidence. Please ask an intelligent question. Your posting history is proof of your intent, stupid. Nearly all of it. You do NOT present a balanced view and you ATTACK those that do. You do so by asking accusatory questions about their "gender" identities, a low and vile form of harassment, Greg, among other sh.t tactics. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) Kane wrote > You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. > It's YOU that try to whip up hysteria and make claims that are NOT > supported by the evidence. Greg wrote > Please provide the evidence. Kane wrote > Please ask an intelligent question. > Your posting history is proof of your intent, stupid. > Nearly all of it. Thanks for being so specific! Kane wrote > You do NOT present a balanced view and you ATTACK those that do. You do > so by asking accusatory questions about their "gender" identities, a low > and vile form of harassment, Greg, among other [s] tactics. You posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year but now you're complaining about gender confusion? > Kane wrote >> You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks for being so specific! When there is a mountain of sh.t it hardly suffices to demand the evidence of a single turd, Greg. Your posting history is a pile of turds, likely higher than you are tall by 10 times. > Kane wrote >> You do NOT present a balanced view and you ATTACK those that do. You do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year but now > you're complaining about gender confusion? Yes. My intent and yours was considerably different. My obscenity was to draw attention and wake up the sleeping. Yours is a personal and low kind of attack, Greg. Based on your own sick biases, sadly. Tell me, what is it about someone that changes gender that you find worth even mentioning, let alone questioning them publicly about? Does this somehow reduce them in human importance, or color their opinion in ways that disqualify them? Please explain. 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >> Kane wrote >>> You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > 0:-> Can I expect a reply sometimes in the near futures, Greg? Or are you going to ignore this question like you do ALL the hard questions that reveal you to be the bigoted shitheel you so obviously are? 0:-> Signature"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) >>> Kane wrote >>>> You are a liar in a pack of lying hyenas, Greg. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> Does this somehow reduce them in human importance, or color their opinion >> in ways that disqualify them? Take a wild guess, Dumbo - folks that can't figure what sex they are are a confused bunch - confinement to an institution might help, but to pretend they're "normal' well - sheeash - how freakin stupid can u b? Who'd want a faggots opinion anyway?? Another fag? lol. >> Please explain. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 0:-> Kane wrote > My obscenity was to draw attention and wake up the sleeping. ROFL! > Yours is a personal and low kind of attack, Greg. As opposed to posting gratuitous profanity for over a year? > Based on your own sick biases, sadly. > Tell me, what is it about someone that changes gender that you find > worth even mentioning, let alone questioning them publicly about? > Does this somehow reduce them in human importance, or color their > opinion in ways that disqualify them? Perhaps for some people. |
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.