> Kane once tried to say that CPS agencies didn't have PR people.
> > The agency nitwits were preoccupied with the press??
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> If not why not?
How would the public see both sides of the case?
> Maintenance of your ignorance to ease your conscience as you lie lie
> lie?
You are Donald L. Fisher and you were employed by Oregon Child
Protection.
> > Risk Management Office? (Official Damage Control re Law Suits?)
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> for you and as easy as a recipe. Your idea of managing your government
> is simply to piss in the pot, and call it bad soup.
I am glad that I could cheer you up so!
> > Kane once tried to say that CPS agencies didn't have PR people.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> agency. YOU want any and all workers and staff to answer the entire
> public stream of questions wihtout any cohesion and sense to it?
Certainly Not! The truth get loose by accident! LOL!
> Of course you do, because you can jump on different renditions and
> claim THEY ARE LYING THEY CAN'T EVEN KEEP THEIR STORY STRIAGHT.
You are talking about government agents who go into court
and testify as to ""facts"". The above complaint is very logical!
> This is the same pissant, YOU, that claims that psychiatry is flawed
> because shrinks don't all agree on the details of diagnosis.
No problem except for testifying under oath to a Judge
about how certain they are about something.
> Two docs can look at a pic of a broken bone, you stupid slobbering
> whining pig, and disagree on the best proceedure for setting it. Big
> [f]in' deal.
Also of considerably more concern when they go into
court and push their version as ""truth"" in court.
Or if the patient dies from the minority (or majority) opinion.
> As for PR people; now if they have come back, or some states didnt'
> lose them, that fits within the perameters of my statement as
> factual.
Roger Munns.
> Do you have a problem with this?
How is a PR person not a PIMP for the political agenda of the agency?
> > Posting several news stories where an ""agency spokesman said""
> > quickly brought that to a close.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Just like all liars you will NOT provide proof when asked.
You played that out, Kane.
An anonymous internet geek constantly asking for proof
of everything? It's described on the internet as a pathology.
> So I'll not bother. But know this marks you again, as a liar.
Hitler hates me. Yippee! Ptptptptpt!
> You have a habit, as surely as someone with a drug habit, Greg.
Oreos and Milk.
> If your only tool for pursuing your biased agenda is to lie <snip>
It isn't.
> Apparently in all things pertaining to CPS.
Can I buy a verb?
> Now I have to wonder: do you carry this into your personal life as
> well?
The missing verb?
> Do you lie to Lisa as a matter of course?
What Lisa? You said she kicked me out!
> And is that why she's never appeared her on her own when we've asked
> you to invite her to tell her own story....or is she too fragile to
> take questions of a sensitive nature?
She hates system sucks more than I do.
How is Ann doing?
> Since YOU proposed to respond (I'm going to one up you for fun on the
> misappropriated adverb from time to time you illiterate stupid little
> man) by AD HOM ONLY to this posting of fx, which I found one of his
> more useful, it's now time for the question.
Flipping out? Run on sentence beyond comprehension.
> Exactly what in the article do you have a problem with, and why?
I think the article is GREAT!
It echos what I already know about the workings
behind the scenes at the CPS agencies.
> Nice talkin' whitcha.
> > > CPS e-mails raise new questions in handling of 2 young siblings
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> > > Arizona Daily Star
0:-] - 25 Jul 2007 03:59 GMT
>> > The agency nitwits were preoccupied with the press??
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>How would the public see both sides of the case?
The press, like now?
You mean that if CPS released information that would silence other
sources, opposition sources?
And the press would ignore them and not ask for their view?
>> Maintenance of your ignorance to ease your conscience as you lie lie
>> lie?
>
>You are Donald L. Fisher and you were employed by Oregon Child
>Protection.
Your point?
If I'm lying in what way does that excuse you?
>> > Risk Management Office? (Official Damage Control re Law Suits?)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>I am glad that I could cheer you up so!
Taking you down does.
>> > Kane once tried to say that CPS agencies didn't have PR people.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Certainly Not! The truth get loose by accident! LOL!
And this is outside the norm how?
You know any large organization that does NOT have a control system
for the public release of information, private sector, or public
government sector?
>> Of course you do, because you can jump on different renditions and
>> claim THEY ARE LYING THEY CAN'T EVEN KEEP THEIR STORY STRIAGHT.
>
>You are talking about government agents who go into court
>and testify as to ""facts"". The above complaint is very logical!
NO it isn't. It's easy to get lots of different stories from lots of
different people until you can find one you can use as "the truth."
In fact, you could gain information by threat, and simply be lying.
No, the above complaint is not very logical. It's criminal think.
The "I'll con until I get what I want, not the truth, and I'll use it
and claim it is."
Why do you think lawyers will so often recommend the accused no take
the stand? Because he's guilty, or because he can be MADE to look
guilty more easily than others might?
You can't really tell, but the principle is sound. Don't run out long
long strings of information and not expect to have some of it used
against you.
>> This is the same pissant, YOU, that claims that psychiatry is flawed
>> because shrinks don't all agree on the details of diagnosis.
>
>No problem except for testifying under oath to a Judge
>about how certain they are about something.
So you'll go fishing at CPS until you find what you want from some
one, have them testify in court....that makes it more legitimate?
You might find it blow up in you face, when that hand goes up and the
other is on the Bible, and the words, "contempt," and "false
testimony" wander around in their heads as they say the oath.
>> Two docs can look at a pic of a broken bone, you stupid slobbering
>> whining pig, and disagree on the best proceedure for setting it. Big
>> [f]in' deal.
>
>Also of considerably more concern when they go into
>court and push their version as ""truth"" in court.
Yep. And your way is better...find someone that will lie for you --
mabye?
>Or if the patient dies from the minority (or majority) opinion.
sh.t happens. But you wish to pick from the majority, your own special
version to support your bias, and take the same chance.
With you, it's with people you wish to lab rat...not yourself, but
others.
I'd say go for the truth even if it hurts, and hope for an admiring
reduction by way of appreciating being given the truth. It's so damn
rare. At least you can feel better about yourself.
>> As for PR people; now if they have come back, or some states didnt'
>> lose them, that fits within the perameters of my statement as
>> factual.
>
>Roger Munns.
Now there he goes, with his playground, "nyah nyah nyah, I know
something YOU don't."
>> Do you have a problem with this?
>
>How is a PR person not a PIMP for the political agenda of the agency?
Because he's not selling someone else's pussy?
>> > Posting several news stories where an ""agency spokesman said""
>> > quickly brought that to a close.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>You played that out, Kane.
Mmm...you mean asked for proof that I said something? We are supposed
to take your word for it when I believe I said no such thing?
>An anonymous internet geek constantly asking for proof
>of everything?
Let me see now, that would work out to, logically, that all those that
post anonymously are nuts if they ask for proof, right?
> It's described on the internet as a pathology.
Proof please. R R RR R R R R R R R ...R.R.R..R.R.R.RR.
A....R..ER.AFDA.SDF..AD....Crazy enough for yah, buddy.
>> So I'll not bother. But know this marks you again, as a liar.
>
>Hitler hates me. Yippee! Ptptptptpt!
Bingo, you lost. First mention of Hitler.
I don't hate liars, unless their lies hurt others. Your do and have
great potential do. Like trying to con people into believing that most
of what CPS does is unconstitutional and they should force the state
to take them to court to use the constitution as their defense.
Yeah, Greg. I hate that.
>> You have a habit, as surely as someone with a drug habit, Greg.
>
>Oreos and Milk.
...and lying. And not standing up for his beliefs. And refusing to
answer when he's revealed what may be a very dangerous criminal
mindset about the use of lethal force.
>> If your only tool for pursuing your biased agenda is to lie <snip>
>
>It isn't.
Sure it is. You can't handle the truth.
>> Apparently in all things pertaining to CPS.
>
>Can I buy a verb?
Sure, then use a few to explain, and ask for more if you need them,
how the legal aspects of a removal case by the state is a factor in
whether or not you'd support the use of lethal force to take the child
from the state.
>> Now I have to wonder: do you carry this into your personal life as
>> well?
>
>The missing verb?
The missing answer?
>> Do you lie to Lisa as a matter of course?
>
>What Lisa? You said she kicked me out!
And changed her name? Well, given now badly you've treated her, no
damn wonder.
You can't speak to her either?
>> And is that why she's never appeared her on her own when we've asked
>> you to invite her to tell her own story....or is she too fragile to
>> take questions of a sensitive nature?
>
>She hates system sucks more than I do.
Then let her come her and confront them.
>How is Ann doing?
I don't know. My own wife's name is Kate.
>> Since YOU proposed to respond (I'm going to one up you for fun on the
>> misappropriated adverb from time to time you illiterate stupid little
>> man) by AD HOM ONLY to this posting of fx, which I found one of his
>> more useful, it's now time for the question.
>
>Flipping out? Run on sentence beyond comprehension.
Since YOU proposed to respond by AD HOM ONLY to this posting of fx,
which I found one of his more useful, it's now time for the question.
That help a little? Sorry about your comprehension problems. I forgot
again, my bad.
>> Exactly what in the article do you have a problem with, and why?
>
>I think the article is GREAT!
>It echos what I already know about the workings
>behind the scenes at the CPS agencies.
Then why not say so at the beginning instead of using it to fog from
the central question facing you these days?
>> Nice talkin' whitcha.
Nice watching you dodge about.
0:]
>> > > CPS e-mails raise new questions in handling of 2 young siblings
>>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>>
>> > > Arizona Daily Star
bodie - 25 Jul 2007 13:23 GMT
Don't spend any time responding to this idiot. Anyone with an IQ over 70
understands that he's not rational. He whiles away his days spamming every
forum he can find to spew his hate against CPS for doing their jobs and
ensuring the safety of his children. It's already been shown in previous
threads that he's been taken to court by the state for abuse/neglect, and
he's just pissed that he got caught.
Go crawl into a hole, Greegor-you're taking up good air!
>>> > The agency nitwits were preoccupied with the press??
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 229 lines]
>>>
>>> > > Arizona Daily Star