 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / August 2006Greegor, Another question you never answered....
Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the biological home was safe, and that removal was unwarranted? I have posed this question over and over again in response to your posts. You have responded with entire attributions deleted, and never yet addressed the question. Now it's time. If you are honest, please answer the question. By the way, Jordan Gonsioroski's funeral is now over. Raised for early part of her life by a mentally ill mother who relinquished custody after a CPS report where she would have involuntarily lost her child, and by her mother's boyfriend who has been charged with sexual assault of Jordan, she was sent to her biological father and his girlfriend 14 months age. No foster care was involved here. This was a familial placement with your belief, Greegor, that children are better with biological parents than experiencing the evils of foster care. The little 10 year old girl is now dead and buried as a result of scalding over 70% of her body. When the reported spankings do not work, what's a parent to do? A speaker at her funeral stated, "No child should have had to have such a life...No one should experience the kind of pain, the suffering, the brutality, and the kind of death that Jordan did. No one." "Her bright smile, her quick eye, her bounce and energy [were] snatched away from us." Her biological father described her as a willful child that was difficult to parent. Thank goodness for honoring all biological parents and railing against the evils of foster care. If you are interested, read the StarTribune article from Tuesday, July 25. LaVonne > Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and > tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the > biological home was safe, and that removal was unwarranted? You're a PhD and you wrote such a monster of a run on question? Foster care is statistically MUCH more dangerous than biological home. There is no automatic anything except that when caseworkers open their mouths lies come out. When they type more lies come out. 72 people all had their hand out and all played along like good little members of the Nazi party. None spoke out about the agency atrocities when shown documents proving it. In this case none were in fear of extermination for speaking up. They still did not speak out about atrocities, even as whole families cried. > I have posed this question over and over again in response to your > posts. You have responded with entire attributions deleted, and never > yet addressed the question. You asked a run on rhetorical question repeatedly and got ignored? Poor baby! > Now it's time. If you are honest, please answer the question. You first. LaVonne, do you believe that you were abused as a child? <snip!> >> Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and >> tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the >> biological home was safe, and that removal was unwarranted? > > You're a PhD and you wrote such a monster of a run on question? Compound sentences confuse you? Simply chunk them down. That should help. Eight grade stuff. And it did not qualify as a run on SENTENCE. What IS a "run on question?" > Foster care is statistically MUCH more dangerous than biological home. No, the statistics are not saying that. They are demonstrating that foster placement is highly observable, while bio family homelife is obviously NOT. Not legally. A worker cannot show up at your door...even if you are a client, and demand entry on NO grounds whatsoever. They can do so at foster homes, and they do. Surprise visits are common. > There is no automatic anything except that when caseworkers open > their mouths lies come out. When they type more lies come out. There IS one automatic something, Greg. It's automatic that you will make such all inclusive idiot claims as that. > 72 people all had their hand out and all played along like good > little members of the Nazi party. None spoke out about the > agency atrocities when shown documents proving it. > In this case none were in fear of extermination for speaking up. > They still did not speak out about atrocities, even as whole families > cried. What ARE you babbling about, child? >> I have posed this question over and over again in response to your >> posts. You have responded with entire attributions deleted, and never >> yet addressed the question. > > You asked a run on rhetorical question repeatedly and got ignored? > Poor baby! No, it was a simple question asked of you. Your dodging encourages the poster to try to reframe the question to make it more easily answered. How do I know this? Easy: "Do you support and advocate the use of lethal force for a parent to take their child from CPS custody." Remember how many times and for how long I had to ask that question of you in all the possible forms I used before you finally answered? Forcing people to behave in ways that YOU can then label as making YOU the victim is your specialty, Greg. Have you ever wondered why you get all woodie when you do it? >> Now it's time. If you are honest, please answer the question. > > You first. > > LaVonne, do you believe that you were abused as a child? No. You first. You were asked first. > <snip!> And you, who consider all questions of you as leading and calculated as preparatory as an attack, YOU aren't asking a leading question? R R R R R People that have been abused as children and risen above it often no longer allow themselves to classify their experience as "abuse," Greg. I, however can still call such experiences as abuse. What YOU are doing is using a question to avoid answering a question. It's not uncommon, but what is revealing about you is that you aren't even using a related question. As a weasel you are too obvious. Unethical, immoral, twisting other's words, even claiming them when they do not exist. That is your specialty. And it's in service to your need to be cast as the heroic victim. A "Savior" mindset. Interesting stuff. I wonder if you might even be working on creating an event that will cast you in the role of "the crucified?" I've certainly seen THIS before. About half the prison population has some form of it. But a review of the facts shows they were NOT the victims of persecution at all, but simply lied and or misinterpreted others, and events. Probably nothing like what you are up to though. Tell us, what are you up to these days that might get you in trouble? 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) >>> Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and >>> tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What IS a "run on question?" Same as a run on sentence, which differs from compound/complex sentences or questions. I referred Greegor to www.dianahacker.com. She has written wonderful books on grammar and writing style. I thought Greegor could find her books interesting and helpful. I had a difficult time responding to most of his post, because there seems to be no logical connection either within or between paragraphs. It appears that he has stated a wealth of unrelated concepts, many of them stated as facts without supporting evidence. He is also practicing verbal abuse and diversion when he refuses to answer my question. He's nothing if not predictable, don't you think? LaVonne >> Foster care is statistically MUCH more dangerous than biological home. > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > 0:-> >>>> Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and >>>> tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > LaVonne I've observed that the labor of maintaining paranoia, the complex that includes seeing one's self as the target of others evil intent, and seeing evil in so many places to maintain that belief, is overwhelming. The evidence is in the disconnects and rambling nature of a paranoids narrative. It is quite difficult to follow them. They MUST rely on obfuscation of others, and sadly, themselves, to maintain the facade. Among the things that identify them is the strong tendency to prejudge and label groups and the people in them as all being the same. The ONLY good members of the group used to maintain the rationale for the paranoia are the ones that depart the group and agree with the claims of the paranoid. They are his "proof," that he's not imagining or manufacturing things. The simple fact that it is impossible to find in a large group near absolute consistency in intent (and impossible task since intent is internal and not displayed) seems to escape them as they insist everyone in the group is evil. Reality. Facts. Logic. Nothing seems to reach them. Do we know anyone like this? 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) Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child? > LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child? Greg, do you believe LaVonne believes she was abused as a child. If so, why. If not why? Thanks for your prompt and courteous reply. Kane 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) Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? > Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? Is this a cry for help? 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) Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? >>Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and >>tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the >>biological home was safe, and that removal was unwarranted? > > You're a PhD and you wrote such a monster of a run on question? You may want to go to www.dianahacker.com. Diana Hacker has written four marvelous guides for writing gramatically and clearly. Each book costs approximately $30.00. I require my students to choose two of the four books to purchase when working on their thesis. Any of these books would help you to understand the difference between a complex question and a "run on question." > Foster care is statistically MUCH more dangerous than biological home. If "foster care is statistically MUCH more dangerous than biological home" you would have posted your resource than contains the statistics. But you are once again posting your opinion as fact. Without supporting evidence, this sentence is meaningless. > There is no automatic anything except that when caseworkers open > their mouths lies come out. When they type more lies come out. What do you mean by "no automatic anything?" Since this was included in the paragraph beginning with the reference to the dangers of foster care versus a biological home, I'd assume the two ideas are connected. There is nothing I can see in the paragraph that links these two ideas. Diana Hacker's books could help you to write a coherent paragraph, containing one thought, with an opening statement, supporting statements, and a concluding statement. > 72 people all had their hand out and all played along like good > little members of the Nazi party. None spoke out about the > agency atrocities when shown documents proving it. > In this case none were in fear of extermination for speaking up. > They still did not speak out about atrocities, even as whole families > cried. Who are the 72 people? What documents are you talking about? What case are you referring to? I can find nothing in this post that even remotely clarifies what you are talking about. Diana Hacker's books help individuals learn to connect one paragraph to another, so that the writing makes sense. I really would consider checking the books out, Greegor. >>I have posed this question over and over again in response to your >>posts. You have responded with entire attributions deleted, and never >>yet addressed the question. > > You asked a run on rhetorical question repeatedly and got ignored? > Poor baby! So, you have no answer. I can accept that. I also find your posting consistency not only predictable but humorous. If you can't or won't answer the question, practice verbal abuse and diversion. The problem is, Greegor, your style is so obvious that you aren't even good at the strategy. Now, do you care to attempt an answer the question? Here is is: "Does that fact that a child was removed from a biological home and tragically placed in an abusive foster home automatically mean that the biological home was safe, and that removal was unwarranted? LaVonne >>Now it's time. If you are honest, please answer the question. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <snip!> Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? > Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? "Believe?" Were you abused as a child? 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) Greegor wrote: > Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? Kane wrote > "Believe?" > Were you abused as a child? What child does NOT believe they've got it rough? Kids (and even adults) seem to compete with each other for who has it the worst! "You think YOU had it rough, I had to zzz...." LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child? > Greegor wrote: >> Does LaVonne believe she was abused as a child? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > LaVonne, Do you believe you were abused as a child? Weren't you just answering that above? And isn't this thread a wonderful relief from having to face what a vapid wimp you are in simple debate? You seem to be dodging, Greg. You claimed this question had to do with your research efforts. I note that you hypothesis was rejected as incapable of getting a passing grade for even a literary review. Why not create a real one? Don't know how? Study up. We all had to. Your turn now. Take 'George' with you. You can keep each other stimulated. He seems to be having some of the same crisis our old friend Michael went through. Where-ever did 'George' hear of Dan Sullivan, Greg? Did you and George think I was asleep? Never presume I miss anything. It's rare that I do. You need a better tactical planner. You aren't making it. And incapacity to estimate outcomes (strategy) so as to set goals, (strategy) and thereby define your tactics is your problem. And you turned down a very fine strategic and tactical planner when he offered to help you too. You could have whuped a.s on me with Dan on your side, boy. Instead, R R R R instead R R R R R......<wheeze - oh dear, my poor ribs> you've got this new little cohort collected you think is going to run interference for you. Watch where you step. Some of them are sh.tting in your path. 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) |
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.