 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / November 2006Do you take seriously the ...
... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, and are you really interested in the research? If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss, more directly: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science analysis. Of course, Doan will call you a liar, but of course, coming from him, a noted pathological liar, that's a plus. 0;-] I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on line. Some academic in nature. You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least, where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how they do it, in these newsgoups. Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups. Google is your friend. Kane > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, > and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on > line. Some academic in nature. LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to? > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least, > where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how they do it, > in these newsgoups. Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public, either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess? > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups. > Google is your friend. Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are. Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them? > Kane  SignatureMichael© Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt Freiheit für Deutschland ! > > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, > > and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to? I don't chose to. I gave them a lead. If they can't even google then there's little likelihood they would make good use of information they gleaned. Are YOU having trouble finding professional academic research groups and individuals? I correspond with them a lot. > > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide > > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public, > either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess? Guess, of course. But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess. And you? > > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups. > > Google is your friend. > > Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL Yep. > Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are. On this issue? Is someone's life or personal safety at risk? If not, no. > Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them? Oh, I do. On matters of real data and reseach. That's why you see a link to Murray Straus early in the post. We've debated him for some time, and while I've accessed his documents many times, I doubt many others here have -- from the source. And you? I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search tools. It's really not hard. If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link. I do that as you know. > Michael© You are yet another lie to insinuate other than the truth, Michael. You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone. You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument. You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a supposed data or research backed claim. Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael? 0:-> > Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt > Freiheit für Deutschland ! > > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, > > and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to? I don't chose to. I gave them a lead. If they can't even google then there's little likelihood they would make good use of information they gleaned. Are YOU having trouble finding professional academic research groups and individuals? I correspond with them a lot. > > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide > > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public, > either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess? Guess, of course. But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess. And you? > > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups. > > Google is your friend. > > Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL Yep. > Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are. On this issue? Is someone's life or personal safety at risk? If not, no. > Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them? Oh, I do. On matters of real data and reseach. That's why you see a link to Murray Straus early in the post. We've debated him for some time, and while I've accessed his documents many times, I doubt many others here have -- from the source. And you? I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search tools. It's really not hard. If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link. I do that as you know. > Michael© You are yet another liar to insinuate other than the truth, Michael. You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone. You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument. You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a supposed data or research backed claim. Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael? By the way, would you tell the absolute truth if it might have a reasonably good chance of putting someone in physical danger? Someone innocent? Now weasel or run. 0:-> > Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt > Freiheit für Deutschland ! >> > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related >> > topics, and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I correspond with them a lot. I'm having trouble finding these groups that you post to that you claim are professional or academic. Hence: Author: "0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> First Seen: 1/16/2006 Last Seen: 10/8/2006 Aliases: Other authors use this e-mail with different aliases. Select a different author: "0;->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> "Kane" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> kane <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> Pohaku Kane <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> pohaku.kane@gmail.com "0:->" pohaku.kane@gmail.com Newsgroups Ordered by Posts, descending First Seen Last Seen Days Active Posts Replies Threads Initiated Threads Touched talk.politics.guns 1/16/2006 10/1/2006 219 3018 2934 40 536 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1 Month / Last Month 1 / 9 1 / 18 1 / 16 0 / 1 1 / 13 Quarter / Last Quarter 1 / 60 1 / 669 1 / 655 0 / 6 1 / 95 Year / Last Year 219 / 0 3018 / 0 2934 / 0 40 / 0 536 / 0 alt.support.child-protective-services 1/22/2006 10/8/2006 238 2440 2325 92 399 Day / Last Day 17 / 1 15 / 1 1 / 0 11 / 1 Week / Last Week 1 / 7 17 / 101 15 / 98 1 / 3 11 / 27 Month / Last Month 8 / 30 118 / 335 113 / 310 4 / 22 33 / 59 Quarter / Last Quarter 8 / 92 118 / 1054 113 / 995 4 / 48 33 / 180 Year / Last Year 238 / 0 2440 / 0 2325 / 0 92 / 0 399 / 0 alt.parenting.spanking 1/20/2006 10/7/2006 239 1855 1783 56 235 Day / Last Day 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1 Week / Last Week 0 / 7 0 / 30 0 / 30 0 / 0 0 / 11 Month / Last Month 7 / 29 30 / 161 30 / 158 0 / 3 11 / 19 Quarter / Last Quarter 7 / 79 30 / 544 30 / 534 0 / 9 11 / 70 Year / Last Year 239 / 0 1855 / 0 1783 / 0 56 / 0 235 / 0 talk.politics.misc 1/16/2006 7/30/2006 93 527 527 0 62 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 8 0 / 21 0 / 21 0 / 0 0 / 5 Year / Last Year 93 / 0 527 / 0 527 / 0 0 / 0 62 / 0 alt.support.foster-parents 1/22/2006 10/8/2006 119 482 469 11 65 Day / Last Day 4 / 0 3 / 0 0 / 0 3 / 0 Week / Last Week 1 / 6 4 / 46 3 / 46 0 / 0 3 / 8 Month / Last Month 7 / 27 50 / 90 49 / 88 0 / 1 10 / 17 Quarter / Last Quarter 7 / 66 50 / 222 49 / 218 0 / 4 10 / 39 Year / Last Year 119 / 0 482 / 0 469 / 0 11 / 0 65 / 0 misc.survivalism 1/18/2006 9/20/2006 67 428 428 0 28 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 7 0 / 14 0 / 14 0 / 0 0 / 4 Year / Last Year 67 / 0 428 / 0 428 / 0 0 / 0 28 / 0 alt.impeach.bush 1/20/2006 9/30/2006 77 406 406 0 63 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 6 0 / 8 0 / 8 0 / 0 0 / 4 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 10 0 / 15 0 / 15 0 / 0 0 / 7 Year / Last Year 77 / 0 406 / 0 406 / 0 0 / 0 63 / 0 us.military.army 1/18/2006 7/6/2006 58 296 296 0 27 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1 Year / Last Year 58 / 0 296 / 0 296 / 0 0 / 0 27 / 0 alt.atheism 1/16/2006 7/6/2006 35 293 293 0 10 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 2 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 3 Year / Last Year 35 / 0 293 / 0 293 / 0 0 / 0 10 / 0 or.politics 3/26/2006 6/1/2006 28 284 274 0 18 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Year / Last Year 28 / 0 284 / 0 274 / 0 0 / 0 18 / 0 seattle.politics 1/18/2006 8/20/2006 36 282 282 0 15 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2 Year / Last Year 36 / 0 282 / 0 282 / 0 0 / 0 15 / 0 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh 1/17/2006 9/12/2006 77 272 272 0 47 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 1 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 12 0 / 32 0 / 32 0 / 0 0 / 9 Year / Last Year 77 / 0 272 / 0 272 / 0 0 / 0 47 / 0 az.politics 1/16/2006 8/20/2006 33 261 261 0 17 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 3 Year / Last Year 33 / 0 261 / 0 261 / 0 0 / 0 17 / 0 misc.health.alternative 2/15/2006 8/31/2006 68 247 247 0 68 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 22 0 / 128 0 / 128 0 / 0 0 / 18 Year / Last Year 68 / 0 247 / 0 247 / 0 0 / 0 68 / 0 talk.politics.medicine 2/15/2006 8/31/2006 68 244 244 0 66 Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 21 0 / 124 0 / 124 0 / 0 0 / 17 Year / Last Year 68 / 0 244 / 0 244 / 0 0 / 0 66 / 0 I see you initiate posts in several groups, none professional or academic, unless you are not using one of your aliases. Then you would be using a sock, something you claim you don't do yet freely accuse others of doing. Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? >> > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a >> > bonifide researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess. > And you? See above. >> > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups. >> > Google is your friend. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search > tools. It's really not hard. I use tools quite well that are at my disposal, seems something is amiss in your claim though. See above. > If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust > me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things > that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone. A liar is a liar. Color it however you wish in your moral and ethical way. > You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument. Yes you generally do, Kane. > You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when > there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a > supposed data or research backed claim. > > Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael? I'm not a liar, so how would I enjoy being something I'm not? > By the way, would you tell the absolute truth if it might have a > reasonably good chance of putting someone in physical danger? Someone > innocent? I would either, tell the absolute truth and live with the consequences or refrain from saying anything and live with the consequences of remaining silent. I would not lie as you seem so easily able to justify doing. > Now weasel or run. I've done neither. > 0:-> > >> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt >> Freiheit für Deutschland ! SignatureMichael© Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt Freiheit für Deutschland ! > Michael© > > Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt > Freiheit für Deutschland ! > > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, > > and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them? LOL! Doan > > Kane > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt > Freiheit für Deutschland ! > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics, > and are you really interested in the research? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science > analysis. And you too can be published! ;-) Doan Kane wrote > I participate with other researchers in many professional > groups on line. Some academic in nature. Dangerously funny! > Kane wrote > > I participate with other researchers in many professional > > groups on line. Some academic in nature. > > Dangerously funny! I'll see if they think so and get back to you. 0:-> > Kane wrote > > I participate with other researchers in many professional > > groups on line. Some academic in nature. > > Dangerously funny! Remember what they said about an empty Kane? It often makes lot of noises! Doan Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't respect any club with standards so low that they would have him. WHERE are these esteemed (esteamed) groups Kane? Drop some names! Let me guess, NACO! :) > Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't > respect any club with standards so low that they would have him. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Let me guess, NACO! :) NACO is not an academic organization. And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. If YOU can't find them that's your problem. 0:-} "0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> scribbled in alt.parenting.spanking: >> Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't >> respect any club with standards so low that they would have him. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. If YOU can't find them > that's your problem. Like the few groups you frequent that I have posted where you use your Kane name? Or are you participating in these esteemed think tank groups using a sock, stoneman? Professional and academic Usenet groups. LMAO! > 0:-} SignatureMichael© Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt Freiheit für Deutschland ! Kane wrote > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. > If YOU can't find them that's your problem. Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with professionals and serious researchers in an attempt to claim some credibility. Clearly he KNOWS he has none. Then he won't name them! Classic David Koresh. Cult of personality. > Kane wrote > > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > professionals and serious researchers > in an attempt to claim some credibility. Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research questions? > Clearly he KNOWS he has none. What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy. > Then he won't name them! Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name sources. > Classic David Koresh. > Cult of personality. Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem. 0:-} > > Kane wrote > > > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy. Commander McBrag.... > > Then he won't name them! > > Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name > sources. That's why your so incredible! > > Classic David Koresh. > > Cult of personality. > > Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem. By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that don't have INTERNET LINKS? No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic! >>> Kane wrote >>>> And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that > don't have INTERNET LINKS? You don't establish that at the time, Greg. It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and NOT clarifying that they were not on line. > No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic! We are not in academia. If we were my arguments would be somewhat different. We'd meet face to face, and have our reference work at hand, if a question of authenticity of fact came up. Here when such questions of credibility come up we are at a dead end if we and readers cannot access the information primary source HERE. You and other liars like you not only take advantage of the absence of access, but you hide it until it's forced out of you. You are moral cheats. But that's not news. When you make a claim of information from others that is NOT available here, say so. If you make a claim that IS backed by access on the Internet, give the Universal Resource Locater number (as converted into characters that we see as a clickable link), and you might remove some of the stench of your lies and other subterfuge. 0:-> > It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and > NOT clarifying that they were not on line. Hi, Kane, I had posted the information and cited its sources for many years in this newsgroup. The sources were cited in text APA style and listed at the end of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the information. For years. Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited researchers, but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their findings. You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies -- something you have yet to do. Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue. Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social science, will involve material that is not available on the internet. Most of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books and is not available on the internet. In fact, the unpublished internet report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources, cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. <g> It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works. > > It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and > > NOT clarifying that they were not on line. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the > information. For years. When I wasn't reading here. > Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited > researchers, Yep. > but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their > findings. R R R R not hardly, podner. You have not cited any evidence they adjusted for the obvious....that fosters are captive and can be easily counted for abuse against children, and bio parents are not. Simple, but devestating to your claims. > You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in > citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During > that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies -- > something you have yet to do. You are HOPEING I haven't. You don't know it for a fact. You are sliding into Greg's habit of fanticizing about what someone does or doesn't do. > Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of > the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue. No, I said the source was cited. And I showed that the same people that cited them (the same way you had, in bibliography, had also cited BY QUOTE another reseacher that shows what bullshit you spread, for she made the very same observiation I have that YOU are avoiding. Namely that foster parents are under heavy scrutiny and bio parent are NOT. > Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social > science, will involve material that is not available on the internet. So what? We aren't off the net. > Most > of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books > and is not available on the internet. So what? You have NOT answered even from those sources that we cannot view here anything that would rebut my own, and the researcher quoted, on the issue foster observability, Doug. > In fact, the unpublished internet > report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources, > cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. <g> They were the same as YOU posted, but not the one I quoted from their quote. <g> Show an equally applicable quote that would rebut, from your sources, the one I provided. I'll wait...it's been three years so far. I'm obviously patient. > It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature > available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information > and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have > a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works. On the contrary, as I have pointed out I have studied CPS for coming up on 30 years, Doug, and most of the time not from the internet. You, if you did not have that personal agenda you refuse to respond to here when I ask you about it, and quietly and secretly snip my question, would have to admit that your driving motivation is vengence, no? 0:-> Kane wrote > and quietly and secretly snip my question Is your Megalomania evolving into Paranoia Kane? You constantly complain about perceived improprieties in responses to you. You're like somebody in a street fight griping that somebody else is not following the Marquis De Queensbury rules! People MUST answer you or they are violating some rule? You seem to insist (as if you have a right to) that "snippage" only takes place as a violation of the ""rules"". Snippage can be used to highlight what a person IS responding to. I am NOT required to quote your text I am not responding to. Your belief in excessive requoting is NOT universal. Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge. You argue to justify an industry that paid you. Pat yourself on your back and put yourself up for sainthood. Clearly your identity is wrapped around the CPS INDUSTRY. I suspect that an unspoken implication of your arguing here is about squelching your own self doubt about CPS and your connection to it. I also suspect you were a victim of child abuse and that you have lied about it to this newsgroup and perhaps even to yourself. Perhaps you tell yourself it is a moral or ethical lie. Perhaps you just thought it was tactically advantageous to you. > Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts > are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge. At least Kane hasn't advised anyone to do something to get themselves arrested in Faamily Court, as you did, Greg! Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? Why don't you give her YOUR expertise? OH WAIT! You were KICKED OUT of that support group site! How intelligent is that? It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of. You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule. Ironically you have been caught giving people such BAD advice that quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded you are working AGAINST families. Your reposting of messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public newsgroup would likely get you expelled from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights group that exists or will exist. The fact that you or one of your minions lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF and posted them in a public newsgroup would certainly prove your intentions. How smart is that? > > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? > > Why don't you give her YOUR expertise? He is doing that. I presume she is interested enough in her own case to be following this conversation for herself. If not, why don't you, since you've already posted to her, invite her here to do so? Afraid? > OH WAIT! > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site! I'm still waiting for you to produce the circumstances. What you call 'kicked out' may be something very different from your reality. > How intelligent is that? It isn't possible, and intelligence has little to do with it, to control other peoples actions. I suspect a few fools like you to be involved. But we'll see when you prove he was "kicked out" and it wasn't by kooks. Have at it, boy. Prove yourself. > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of. Could it be that there are those that want losses instead of wins, and are losers rather than winners, that just can't stand to have someone successful, a multiple winner in the fight against child protective services around? It would tend to highlight their being losers, now wouldn't it? > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule. Actually you have it quite backwards. Dan appears to have a healthy ego ... those are the kind based on facts, verifiable reality. The reality is that Dan has successfully beating what you losers portray as an evil all powerful unbeatable foe, CPS. Yet he's done it again and again. Family after family with overturned founding, child after child returned from foster care. Cases with complex issues, even serious medical ones where he had to find, and he did, the research that proved the unlikelihood of guilt on the part of the parents....and of course, they DID get their children back. If there is one criticism I have of Dan is that he wastes his valuable time on twits such as you, and the loser contingent of antiCPS little thugs that are cruising for CPS families to abuse and use to cover up their own failings. > Ironically you have been caught giving people > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of > parents and Family Rights people concluded > you are working AGAINST families. Please list here, the "BAD advice" that he gave. I'm very curious to see proof of this, since I have never seen Dan give a single piece of bad advice on CPS matters. His advice tends to be conservative, tactically sound -- and proven repeatedly, and resulted in tens of families winning against CPS. Even he has, many times, beaten CPS in his own case. Please explain just how, and by what evidence, "quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded," he was "working AGAINST families." I suspect those people include many of the losers that have moved on from this newsgroup, after being exposed -- mostly by Dan. > Your reposting of messages from a private > SUPPORT GROUP web site You are misrepresenting the website. It is not a private group. > into a public > newsgroup would likely get you expelled > from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights > group that exists or will exist. Since anyone can join those forums there is nothing the least private about them. Would they stop me, for instance, from joining? If so, given this is a public medium, would that not be a violation of my rights? Would you, for instance, try to stand between me and a group that could pump me for information, as Dan has, from own long standing experience winning for kinship relative placement families? I coached, taught, advocated, and was an activist for 13 plus years, and count over 2,000 relative families that successfully gain custody of their grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and even siblings, in a system that during that time was dead set against providing support to relatives seeking foster custody, and adoption of their little relatives. I accumulated a mass, in fact a <chuckle> vast mass, of operations and practice information for both CPS, the juvenile justice system, mental health, and the legal system that we extremely valuable to those families. And you'd do everything you could to keep me out or kick me, wouldn't you, Greg? Costing any families that came to such groups the value of my experience. Isn't that right, Greg, you loser? > The fact that you or one of your minions > lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP > web site It is not a private support group website. You need to get that clear in your little pointy yead. And we certainly can see why you are frantically kicking up a must dust as possible...since you gave dangerous LEGAL advice to someone in one of those groups. Is that not so, Greg? > that you had been KICKED OUT OF > and posted them in a public newsgroup > would certainly prove your intentions. You mean to tell us, coward, that you would not have posted the same advice to that women right here in this newsgroup....to go ahead and challenge the secret recording laws of her state, and attemp to use the recording in court in her case? > How smart is that? Yes, I have to ask that too. Just how smart is it to keep offering such valuable services as Dan does in such hostile company as that of you losers that cluster for comfort and your little circle jerk in this support groups (you little thugs manage to take them over and crowd out both the people that need expert help, and shout down those that can give it)? I have to presume he's either a misguided nut himself, or, and far more likely 0:-], very dedicated to his advocacy and activism to family rights. Which do you think it is? You might want to remind yourself, as you ponder, that Dan didn't drop out of the blue into this issue. He's been doing it for over three years that I know of, activily, and I believe longer AS A FORMER CPS TARGET HIMSELF. And for all that time he has been winning, and you and your cronies, for all that time, have been doing what, Greg? What? Why, continuing your remarkable string of losses, of course. No wonder you folks hate him irrationally. 0:-> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please. I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might make against you.. 0:-] Why won't you prove your claim? Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice: haven't you noticed? Put up, Greg. Put up. And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are. Kane >>> Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? >> Why don't you give her YOUR expertise? [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > 0:-> Kane wrote > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. Severely flawed characterization. Got an exact citation and a link? Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations? > I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please. > I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might > make against you.. 0:-] It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private support group to a public newsgroup. > Why won't you prove your claim? Don't you mean your characterization of my claim? > Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch > hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice: > haven't you noticed? > Put up, Greg. Put up. Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice? He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own? > And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you > are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are. > Kane wrote > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. > > Severely flawed characterization. Nope. > Got an exact citation and a link? Sure, four posts up the thread from your post I'm replying to where it says: ... Dan Sullivan wrote: > > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? Why don't you give her YOUR expertise? OH WAIT! You were KICKED OUT of that support group site! How intelligent is that? It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of. You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule. Ironically you have been caught giving people such BAD advice that quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded you are working AGAINST families. Your reposting of messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public newsgroup would likely get you expelled from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights group that exists or will exist. The fact that you or one of your minions lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF and posted them in a public newsgroup would certainly prove your intentions. How smart is that? .......... > Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations? Does that above look fabricated to you? If so then speak to Greg. They are copied from a post just few back up the thread from here. I guess I forget your poor memory, Greg. Sorry. Let's pull some quotes and see if indeed you did claim he gave bad advice and got kicked off news groups for it. Why shucks, there's one now: "Ironically you have been caught giving people such BAD advice that quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded you are working AGAINST families." By the way, Greg, you've not dealt with a poster from one of those support groups showing where YOU posted from this group to that one, OUR comments without permission. Now what was it I was supposed to have done, Greg? Oh yeah, you asked: "Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations?" > > I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please. > > I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might > > make against you.. 0:-] > > It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private > support group to a public newsgroup. Sure it would. You've done it before. And it's not a private group, Greg. You are lying. > > Why won't you prove your claim? > > Don't you mean your characterization of my claim? Nope. You claimed Dan gave bad advice, Greg..your own words: "you have been caught giving people such BAD advice " I'm sure Dan would give you permisson to quote him...in fact I believe he has done so already, by asking for you to do so...quote him, please. Thank you. I know we can count on your honesty, integrity, and general all around good name and character. > > Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch > > hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice: > > haven't you noticed? > > Put up, Greg. Put up. > > Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice? Uh...as far as I know he hasn't accused himself of giving BAD advice, so he might just have a bit of trouble finding that "...such BAD advice.." you mention. Help the man out, Greg . I mean be fair. If you are going to destroy Dan Sullivan, don't ask him to help you do it, eh? Be a man. Do it on your own. Stand behind your claim, your words: "you have been caught giving people such BAD advice ..." > He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own? He didn't lift anyone's text. He quoted. Sourced it too. And all you have to do is post his bad advice, Greg. Heck, I'll bet he would mind if you changed names to protect the innocent...all except his name of course. Aren't your tickled that Doan has taught you how to be persistently a weasel, dodging this way and that, never answering the questions and challenges set out for you? > > And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you > > are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are. So, I am going to assume, and urge others to as well, that if you cannot, with Dan's permission, post his "bad advice" here in the very next reply to me (watch him run folks), that you are in fact lying, Greg. Now we can't have people believing that about you, can we, "family rights advocate?" 0:-> Kane wrote > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization. Kane wrote > Nope. Yup! see below. Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link? Greg wrote > OH WAIT! > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site! > How intelligent is that? > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of. > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule. Does this say "because of bad advice"? I clearly see another explanation! Greg wrote > Ironically you have been caught giving people > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of > parents and Family Rights people concluded > you are working AGAINST families. This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he was booted out. Ironic isn't it? Greg wrote > Your reposting of messages from a private > SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and posted them in a public newsgroup > would certainly prove your intentions. Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? > Kane wrote > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Does this say "because of bad advice"? > I clearly see another explanation! Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice? > Greg wrote > > Ironically you have been caught giving people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ironic isn't it? You did say "Bad advice," Greg. If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted that they felt I was working against families. And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that claim over and over in his posts. > Greg wrote > > Your reposting of messages from a private [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? > > Kane wrote > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice? Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times? > > Greg wrote > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You did say "Bad advice," Greg. Yes, as an ironic aside. Not a cause and effect relationship. But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you were kicked out both times! Why don't you fess up and stop trying to goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?! > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted > that they felt I was working against families. > > And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner > of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that > claim over and over in his posts. At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks. > > Greg wrote > > > Your reposting of messages from a private [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? > > > Kane wrote > > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times? Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg. > > > Greg wrote > > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes, as an ironic aside. No, as a fact. > Not a cause and effect relationship. > > But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you > were kicked out both times! Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg. > Why don't you fess up and stop trying to > goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?! Whose privacy? Mine? Be my guest. You have my permission. > > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted > > that they felt I was working against families. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks. Prove your claim, Greg. > > > > Kane wrote > > > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg. The part you already posted yourself is enough. > > > > Greg wrote > > > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You have my permission. Who is your attorney? > > > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted > > > that they felt I was working against families. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Prove your claim, Greg. You already did. Kane wrote > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization. Greg wrote > And Dan complains that I and my SO's documents are too aggressive. > Ironically, Dan's OWN posting history is aggressive and verbally assaultive. > And THAT is a crucial part of why Dan has been ejected from Family Rights groups. > If Dan can't "finesse" Bob then what hope would he have with a malicious caseworker? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/ thread/35086d5205566273/# Tread Title: DanKane My Family and Bragging Rights 1 From: Greegor - Date: Thurs, Nov 9 2006 3:36 am Kane the rabid system suck and Dan, acted as personal ""references"" for each other. Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups. Dan claimed his strength was to finesse (my word) caseworkers into submission. Yet he can't even "finesse" enough just to get along in these Family Rights groups? And Dan complains that I and my SO's documents are too aggressive. Ironically, Dan's OWN posting history is aggressive and verbally assaultive. And THAT is a crucial part of why Dan has been ejected from Family Rights groups. If Dan can't "finesse" Bob then what hope would he have with a malicious caseworker? How much "finesse" or smooth talking does that reveal? Or more to the point, how could Dan advise FAMILY how to "finesse" their caseworker? Was Dan aggressive about the caseworker he claims he got fired? Or did Dan "finesse" the caseworker out of her job? Oh yeah! Did I mention Dan got CAUGHT using a fraudulent name and IP address trickery that made him appear to be all over the globe? Oliver Sutton? To poke back into a private web site he was kicked out of? GOSH, It's sure tough to figure out why when somebody named Jennifer Buckley appears posting glowing comments about our ""smooth talking"" (sic) Dan, they would be presumed to be a sock, a fake.... Why, Oliver Sutton himself has to ask if he did something wrong! Duh? Apparently I am some worthless piece of stuff, but Dan and Kane sure seem to belly ache and complain about me OBSESSIVELY and in every unrelated thread. In one thread I posted links to photos of the subject matter and Dan tried bitching about me and his perceptions of my issues yet again. Would they really do that if I was so inneffectual? Like hate mail from HITLER, Dan and Kane et alia pay me the highest compliments every time they try to insult or demean me. Dan and Kane posed for ages as Family Rights advocates, but gradually as they gave advice and complained, their true motives were revealed. Dan's recent IP fakery, identity fraud, intrusion and message privacy violations have certainly clarified that personal attacks are a priority for Dan Sullivan. Kane hopes to pretend what Dan did was "moral or ethical" undoubtedly. My family has had various ups and downs as have the caseworkers and even the court system. My wee voice as part of various Family Rights groups has advised many families, with varying results I would attribute MOSTLY to the point in their case in which they asked for help. Many wait too long before realizing that the caseworker is dragging their family straight down to hell. Getting to parents EARLY in their cases, or getting the word out to families before it's even an issue is the single most important deciding factor about whether advice will help them. It's a self help thing, people help themselves. Give them information, validation and comeraderie and it's AMAZING what people can do to CPS! It's not about ego, personal references or a scorecard for me. I do not "claim" anybody whom I have helped. > > > Kane wrote > > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > > > > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? > Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups. Greg, Post the names of the 4 Family Rights goups. Post the proof with appropriate links that I was kicked out. Post the reasons with appropriate links that I was kicked out. I'll be waiting for your inadequate response. Greegor wrote: > Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups. Dan wrote > Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'll be waiting for your inadequate response. Present your stipulations first, and I'll fill in what I can. You are being honest aren't you? Or is this "hide the salami" tactic one you advise people to use? Do you think it plays well to force the opponent to prove even the obvious? > Greegor wrote: > > Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Present your stipulations first, and I'll fill in what I can. No stipulations. > You are being honest aren't you? Far more than you are, Greg. > Or is this "hide the salami" tactic one you advise people to use? I don't know what a "hide the salami" tactic is. > Do you think it plays well to force the opponent to prove even the > obvious? Well, Greg, if you claim the answers to those questions are obvious, and then you fail to post those obvious answers, then obviously you are a liar. >>> Kane wrote >>>> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times? Let's clear up this accusation of yours against me, first, Greg. This is not the only thing you said, you happy little context snipper. You asked if I was going to make up quotes again. And I've quoted YOU, nothing made up. Got anything to say now that you have been caught lying <sigh> yet again? You want to carry on a discussion with me when you lie like that? You expect to have your questions answered when in instances where they have been you come back in denial just like this lie? And your question is a dodge. I asked YOU to prove your claim he was kicked off for cause. Get with the program, stupid. >>> Greg wrote >>>> Ironically you have been caught giving people [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, as an ironic aside. > Not a cause and effect relationship. You do understand that is using sophistry, dodging, to lie, don't you Greg? I asked you to prove that he gives bad advice, now you wish to change it to, "the reason he was kicked off," which I really don't care about, knowing the kind of nut cases like YOU that hang out there and his lack of patience with people that endanger families. I can make a fair guess as to why we was barred. Now, get back to the "bad advice" you claim he has given. Let's see it. > But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you > were kicked out both times! I have a surprise for you. Dan may know, but he may not. Unlike you, Dan is not psychic. There may have been reasons by those in control that none of us can know, and Dan least of all..outside of making an educated guess. > Why don't you fess up and stop trying to > goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?! Fess up to what? You don't have to violate privacy. Post DAN'S words. He's not concerned about keeping private his advice. Feel free to block out any names of others. Let's see his "bad advice," liar. >> If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted >> that they felt I was working against families. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks. I hope he gave the f.cking advice to destroy families giving bullshit artist a real eyeful. You are a pack of dangerous twits. Bob almost reaches your level. Apologized for the "admit to a crime in court" bullshit yet, have you, Greg? >>> Greg wrote >>>> Your reposting of messages from a private [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>> would certainly prove your intentions. >>> Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? You tell us, then stop dodging and show us the Bad Advice you claim Dan gave to families. We are waiting. 0:-> > Kane wrote > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Does this say "because of bad advice"? > I clearly see another explanation! Who cares what you can see, Greg. FYI I've recently been contacted by three families from the FightCPS forums who emailed me pictures of the (6) children I helped get out of foster care and two other families who simply wanted to thank me again (I would like pictures!!!)... it must be the Holidays and the fact that their children are with them to celebrate. It must gall you to no end to see family after family get their children back in so short a time with my assistance... both here and on FightCPS. But now that I think about it, you aren't bright enough to let it bother you. > Kane wrote >> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice? The claim by you, Greg, was that Dan gave bad advice. Outcomes are irrelevant. Did he in fact give bad advice? Are you saying he wasn't kicked out them for advice but for something else? What would that something else have been? Now you have two claims to support. You going to dodge some more or answer to them? Where is this bad advice, and where is the evidence of why Dan was kicked out? I KNOW why he was kicked out, and it had nothing to do with advice and everything to do with challenging nutsos that give advice that puts people at risk of losing their children permanently. There are posters from there HERE saying so, stupid. Are they laying and YOU the only honest contributor to those support pages? No, Gagg, you have lied about Dan and you are simply dodging now, bringing up the superfluous to use to distract from the main point. You said he gave bad advice. Let's see it. You said he was kicked out for bad behavior. Let's see it. Post your proof, liar. 0:-> > Kane wrote > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups. > > Severely flawed characterization. Nope. > Got an exact citation and a link? Oh, yes, that bad memory problem I forgot...so .... Sure, up this very thread from your post I'm replying to where it says: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/dadaaeeaa832aacc?hl=en& From: "Greegor" <Greegor47@gmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents Subject: Re: other researchers professional groups academic Date: 25 Oct 2006 16:17:34 -0700 Dan Sullivan wrote: > > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence? Why don't you give her YOUR expertise? OH WAIT! You were KICKED OUT of that support group site! How intelligent is that? It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of. You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule. Ironically you have been caught giving people such BAD advice that quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded you are working AGAINST families. Your reposting of messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public newsgroup would likely get you expelled from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights group that exists or will exist. The fact that you or one of your minions lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF and posted them in a public newsgroup would certainly prove your intentions. How smart is that? ----------end of your post, just 3 days old..what a memory, Greg, what a memory----- > Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations? Does that above look fabricated to you? If so then speak to Greg. The words are copied from a post just few back up the thread from here, and posted here in full, every word. I guess I forget your poor memory, Greg. Sorry. Let's pull some quotes and see if indeed you did claim he gave bad advice and got kicked off news groups for it. Why shucks, there's one now: "Ironically you have been caught giving people such BAD advice that quite a bunch of parents and Family Rights people concluded you are working AGAINST families." By the way, Greg, you've not dealt with a poster from one of those support groups showing where YOU posted from this group to that one, OUR comments without permission. Now what was it I was supposed to have done, Greg? Oh yeah, you asked: "Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations?" > > I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please. > > I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might > > make against you.. 0:-] > > It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private > support group to a public newsgroup. Sure it would. You've done it before. And it's not a private group, Greg. You are lying. > > Why won't you prove your claim? > > Don't you mean your characterization of my claim? Nope. Exact words, Greg. Doan's weasel games are old and tired. He's just getting YOU to be the lab rat to try them in a new setting, and he's watching with his beady little monkeyboy eyes as he gathers intelligence on just how you get caught, trounced, and butt kicked trying out new angles on old weaseling tricks. You claimed Dan gave bad advice, Greg..your own words: "you have been caught giving people such BAD advice " That's what I claimed you said. I'm sure Dan would give you permisson to quote him...in fact I believe he has done so already, by asking for you to do so...quote him, please. Thank you. I know we can count on your honesty, integrity, and general all around good name and character. > > Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch > > hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice: > > haven't you noticed? > > Put up, Greg. Put up. > > Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice? Uh...as far as I know he hasn't accused himself of giving BAD advice, so he might just have a bit of trouble finding that "...such BAD advice.." you mention. Surely you don't expect him to post all of his advice for all the years he's posted, do you Greg? Or could that be just another weasel tactic? R R R R R R Help the man out, Greg . I mean be fair. If you are going to destroy Dan Sullivan, don't ask him to help you do it, eh? Be a man. Do it on your own. Stand behind your claim, your words: "you have been caught giving people such BAD advice ..." > He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own? He didn't "lift" (as in Feloniously) anyone's text. He quoted. Sourced it too. And all you have to do is post his bad advice, Greg. Heck, I'll bet he would not mind if you changed names to protect the innocent...all except his name of course. In fact, I'll bet he WOULD post the advice he gave then, if you'd just give him a hint as to the circumstances and a few words he used so he can find what you are referring to. Aren't your tickled that Doan has taught you how to be persistently a weasel, dodging this way and that, never answering the questions and challenges set out for you? Fits right in with your sterling character, eh. > > And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you > > are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are. So, I am going to assume, and urge others to as well, that if you cannot, with Dan's permission, post his "bad advice" here in the very next reply to me (watch him run folks), that you are in fact lying, Greg. Now we can't have people believing that about you, can we, "family rights advocate?" 0:-> > Kane wrote > > and quietly and secretly snip my question [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I am NOT required to quote your text I am not responding to. That's correct. I made no such requirement. > Your belief in excessive requoting is NOT universal. I do not have such a belief. I too snip, WITH CLEAR NOTICE OF HAVING DONE SO, as a practice to remove what has been discussed and concluded, and is not relevant to the remainder I wish to discuss. If you think I've removed critical information that changes your intent I want you to feel free to speak up and demand that include passages that clarify your intent. > Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts > are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge. I actually post very few original posts. Almost all of mine are replies. And I am outnumbered by you twits, so naturally I am going to post more than any individual among you. So what would be, to you, a sign of intelligence and true knowledge, Greg? > You argue to justify an industry that paid you. Nope. > Pat yourself on your back and put yourself up for sainthood. That seems more the style of you twits in the vengence field of debate. > Clearly your identity is wrapped around the CPS INDUSTRY. You could say that, but it would not be true. > I suspect that an unspoken implication of your > arguing here is about squelching your own self doubt > about CPS and your connection to it. Nope. How could I, unlike you, have more than one note to post. I post both criticisms and explanations of CPS operations and practices as I understand them. YOU cast that as 'agency suck' but do not bother to check and see if my explanation is correct or not. YOU, on the other hand, post nothing but diatribe, and mostly lies at that, or studied ignorance of the subject. > I also suspect you were a victim of child abuse > and that you have lied about it to this newsgroup > and perhaps even to yourself. Nope. > Perhaps you tell yourself it is a moral or ethical lie. Nope. I've told you my position and it does not extend to argument, but simply protection of others. This of course, makes YOU a liar to insinuate otherwise. > Perhaps you just thought it was tactically advantageous to you. Perhaps, perhaps not. Do you argue with words and comments that are not tactically adventageous to you? Let me explain. In war, or business, there are two exercises one must learn to be good at. One is tactics, the other strategy. Strategy, roughly, is taking information from as many persectives as one can master, and applying them to the picking of appropriate attainable goals. Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as it should be the exercise of planning. Now comes the hard part, Greg. What is my strategy? In other words ... What is my goal, or goals? So far you've missed it. Try again. 0:-> Kane wrote > Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as > it should be the exercise of planning. Got a dictionary definition for those? > Kane wrote >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as >> it should be the exercise of planning. > > Got a dictionary definition for those? Sure. You can't use a dictionary? Try it you'll like it. But be careful. Only the first toke is free. You could get hooked and be going back for more word meanings, and your life would crumble around you, Greg. Oliver Sutton learning what your words really mean, and all. Like, "show up in court with the evidence you have committed a crime, and use it to challenge the law and the court, and they'll have to deliver your kids to you," isn't that about what you said, Greg? If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact quote, would you? I just love figuring out what words mean. 0:-> I just love watching you twist everything up like caseworkers do. > > Kane wrote > >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > 0:-> > I just love watching you twist everything up like caseworkers do. How long will I have to wait for your answer to my question: "If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact quote, would you? " Will you provide your exact words proving Dan misrepresented what you said? Please dodge again. It's so much fun watching weasels at play. 0:-> > > > Kane wrote > > >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > 0:-> > > Kane wrote > >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I just love figuring out what words mean. Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back. He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that state. And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars. > Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back. > > He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that > state. > > And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars. But not in the same case. Typical half truth and innuendo. > > Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Typical half truth and innuendo. Yes it was the same case, Greg. Just ask lostintranslation. It was her case. >> Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Typical half truth and innuendo. Well, Greg. It's your words. If Dan has misrepresented, why don't YOU go feloniously quote yourself and just show him what for, eh? Prove Dan is telling a half truth by innuendo. Should be easy. Or I could have Oliver Sutton change nyms and go fetch. Take your pick. > > > Kane wrote > > >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back. Dang! Wrong again! Now that's twice since 1999. 0:-> > He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that > state. Yeah, right. That'll work. Can I safely assume he kind of forget what her trial, where she was to show up and do this "challenging the recording laws," was actually about and that her "evidence" of worker malfeasance would be tainted and thrown out? Naw....Greg wouldn't miss those things. > And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars. That's the ticket. Do you suppose...........naw, he wouldn't do that, now would he? 12 MILLION YOU SAY? 0:-] |
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.