 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / February 2004Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ...Re: Kane used "smelly-c.nt" and his mother approved!
On 16 Feb 2004 18:38:14 GMT, fern5827@aol.com (Fern5827) wrote: perpetration of lies in the subject line, lies in the body of the post, and lies about her drinking vasengill. R R R R >Doan you are so superior to the foul-mouthed one. I see. Droany's foul mouth is just ducky with you then? How about his refusal to admit that parents do NOT know where the line is between abuse and spanking? That's obscene. To my view, and from the children's if they could articulate from a knowledgable perspective, he would be the more obscene and using MY obscenity as an escape hatch when he's called on his nonsense is more obscene than the obscenity I used. Yew are both liars cheats and viscious child hating monsters. As for my deliberate use of obscenities with Droananator: I even admitted, well "I prodded" would be more accurate, him about supplying him with a convenient escape hatch to see if he would use it instead of argue intelligently, fairly, and honestly. Guess what? He dove again and again into the obscene hole for excape, EVEN WHEN IT WASN'T PRESENT IN THE POST he ducked out of. So much for his claims. He's a dishonest vicious liar just as you are, Ms Potatohead. Anticipating his claim, yet again, (and I personally NEVER "RUN FROM ARGUMENT" BY CLAIMING THE OTHER USED ADHOM... though I will note they did as I continue my whuppass of the fools) I stopped using any obscenity about three days or so ago, to see if he would notice. He claims he simply gives back what he gets. Seems he's lying or way too stupid to attend to the contents of posts. The bolt holes offered by me to hime in the past are closed, and more are closing yet....if you haven't noticed. >He is the worst advertisement for CPS walking. I do not work for CPS. It would be very difficult to advertise for them now wouldn't it? You, on the other hand appear to be taking hit counts payments for the websites you pimp for. And you are pretending that YOU and our cronies are only responding to me, when in fact you are a vicious child abuse supporter, and a sick apologist for infanticide. Want me to post your comments? Happy to remind you. Which is the more obscene.....posting that it's in the "LIBERTY INTERESTS" of parents to be able give church members permission to suspend and beat one's own children with instruments, and responding to MY indignation and anger at a parent feeding a child the parent's prescribed meds and killing the child, an infant, with babble about "in the 1800's parents routinely gave their children opiates to quiet them?" Which is more obscene, Witchhazel, eh? >DFS are imploding throughout the nation because they are have been mis-managed, >intrusive, ineffective, over-zealous and driven by outdated psychological >theories. Lie, They are imploding because they have been and are understaffed, under equipped and underfunded and overworked. And neglect and abuse are, through their efforts and their's alone (certainly not you and your ugly stupid cronies), going down, as even YOU have admitted to. Lie. Because workers who know what is going on cannot respond with the facts....denied that right by the politicians trying to cover up their cowardice and preservation of votes by putting the blame for the lack of funding results on the WORKERS AND THE AGENCIES. The agency heads can't expose them or they are fired. I watched it happen just recently in one state. They fired him for resisting their efforts to throw a LITTLE money at a big problem aiming it at the public relations targets (That you LIARS constantly babble about) instead of at the real problems that have no public exposure but save children AND FAMILIES. Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the media in a couple of years we'll see the old blood bath of children come back. The data will show more deaths, more neglect, more abuse, because NON of you will face the truth of substance abuse and parental failure and viciousness. >http://www.the-facts.com California site for those families intruded upon >for spanking by DSS in CA. More of the lying male-bovine-excrement you criminals propagate to try and escape and to try and feel cozy and righteous with your loser friends. YOU are obscenities. And responsible for families losing their children and for children's injuries and death NOT being stopped. YOU, the lot of you are criminal minded ethically and morally impaired self-aggrandizing twits. Been Guzzling to much "Fresh as a Spring Morning" lately, Fruitbasket? Kane > Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the > media in a couple of years we'll see the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the truth of substance abuse and parental > failure and viciousness. Fern! He's admitting that the tide is turning! What he overlooks is that the "bloodbath" he is describing is just part of his rabid pipedream delusion and the harm done BY CPS far outweighs what little good they stumble onto with their abject incompetence. Around here, deaths in foster/adoptive care outnumber deaths at the hands of blood parents and live-in boyfriends. Non Fatal abuse is epidemic in foster adopter homes. His bitter complaining about our success is a plea to have Sympathy for the Devil. When Kane talks bloodbath, you have to remember that he IS Commander McBragg, and likes to exaggerate where it suits him. He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. Recently when stats revealed a drop in crime here, Police did something laudible when they did not claim they had caused it, and instead cited the natural ebb and flow of such things. They similarly don't want to be blamed when the natural variations go the OTHER way. It was refreshing to see. I suspect Kane would have to exaggerate a few deaths into a "bloodbath" to justify more funds and would take credit for the other side of the natural wave, asking for more funds. > > Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the > > media in a couple of years we'll see the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fern! He's admitting that the tide is turning! Schmuck! He says it's gonna get worse! > > > Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the > > > media in a couple of years we'll see the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He says it's gonna get worse! Well, history is in my corner. What ever is in the Whore's and The Plant's is probably well composted by now and ready to put on the garden. Neither seem able to run down any actual facts to support their contentions. And I'm completely Stumped that with all the time they have to become familiar with google and other search facilities they wouldn't bother to do even a minimal search before they babble. But it could be, just could be, that they know they are lying and that there's no need to research for a lie because the support won't be there...not that can't be easily refuted by me. Kane On 17 Feb 2004 01:50:51 -0800, Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote: No, I think I'll write something first, before the lies and balogna come rollin' down the river. I'll offer some actual resources, data, clarifications of the role of CPS, in other words the truth: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/ You might want to get with the program and actually read something. According to The Plant I NEVER offer any data and It offers tons of it. Oddly all we see from It and you are opinion pieces more often calculated to increase circulation by sensationalizing. Here, on the website above, is the opening page to the resources I've quoted and cited so many times and the more intelligent of you have tried to lie.........BUT ARE NOT AMONG THE MISSING IN THIS NG....the truth beat their butts, as it always does. Before you get too carried away with claims about the perpetrators of child fatalities and abuse you might want to have a quick peek at: http://tinyurl.com/2ft2s This quote seems rather telling about your bogus nonsense: "No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for the care and supervision of their victims. In 2001, one or both parents were involved in 83 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. (The other 17 percent of fatalities were the result of maltreatment by nonparent caretakers.) In almost one-third (32 percent) of fatalities, the mother alone was found to be responsible. These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years." Poor Plant and Whore, seems they forgot that part of what I do, and have since 1956 through 1960 in the military, and in business since, and since 1976 about child welfare from county to state to national level. Yah never really want to bring up claims you haven't researched when you address me, you bozos. But then if you did you couldn't plant your heads firmly so far up your cloaca's and ignore the truth for your bogus claims. Oh, and by the way, in that 17% of caretakes above? That percentage also includes relative caregivers...kinship care....of about 30% of the 17%....so tell me again about all those non-related foster parents that are killing child compared to the bio production units and relatives that are? And 32% of the total killed by their own mothers? Dear me, I think you just drove a bit deeper into the dark territories and are lost. >> Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the >> media in a couple of years we'll see the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Fern! He's admitting that the tide is turning! It's an "admission" when I point out the facts? Like YOU or The Plant have the least grasp of what is going on? Or would tell the truth if you had the facts? R R R R R R >What he overlooks I overlook nothing. I've researched for years and been the bane of CPS in those instances where they truly screw up. I also note when it is NOT in their purview and do NOT blame them in that case, as both you yahoos do. > is that the "bloodbath" he >is describing I reflect the researched FACTS as they are known. Something you dweebs seem all to unfamiliar with. >is just part of his rabid >pipedream delusion and the harm done BY CPS >far outweighs vapid false propaganda put out mostly by the losers that beat, neglected, and killed their children and are not banned together in denial and friendly loserhood. >what little good they stumble >onto with their abject incompetence. No, I'm not "overlooking" a thing. You are just lying. And there is no solution in what you and your little venomous leeches propose. >Around here, Around where, you block, your neighborhood, your city, your county, your state? Where? > deaths in foster/adoptive care >outnumber deaths at the hands of blood parents >and live-in boyfriends. Well, I should hope that's true, as there are many more blood parents than foster/adoptive parents, and as for boyfriends, it would be interesting to see the actual rates....(which I know and will supply on request). I appreciate the long hours of research and the mountains of data you have produced to support your claims. I guess my newsreader, or usenet lost some more posts....seems I can't find your cited proof. Would you mind resending....after all, all that work lost...what a shame that would be. > Non Fatal abuse >is epidemic in foster adopter homes. I don't see any stats to back that up. I do see nationally, from commonly used sources on national abuse reporting, that you are full of Argentian Folliclarity. . >His bitter complaining The only bitter complaining I do here about you is that you attempt to lead needful parents that come to this ng for help into your snares of misdirected rage...and away from the need to direct their energy at what they CAN do to get their children back. I notice also my bitterness at The Plant and friends being willing to sacrifice these families....INTO LOSING THEIR CHILDREN...for The Cause. What I am even MORE bitter about is YOUR willingness to have them join you as a loser to ease your own guilt or diguise it by you all sitting around and chanting "Gee, Ain't it Awful" when you are lying. You would sacrifice the children of these families just so YOU can appear right. I am bitter you are sick enough to do what you did and what you do. > about our success You would brag about your "success?" I invite anyone reading to google on your name in your addy for browser accessed archives of your "success" and that of the little girl and her mother. >is a plea to have Sympathy for the Devil. R R R R R... What "success" would that be...the right of parents to kill and maim their children that you support? >When Kane talks bloodbath, you have to >remember that he IS Commander McBragg, >and likes to exaggerate where it suits him. When Kane talks bloodbath you have to remember he's been studying this issue for 30 years and more. He's seen the streams of drunks, druggies, insane, and all around vicious parents doing things to their children beyond belief. The recent article about the mother in Texas directing the on camera action with vivid descriptions of the raping molestation of her own daugther by the child's step father was tame compared to the things I've found in child abuse cases. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4045899/ I recall that The Plant posted that the rate of substanciated sexual abuse of children was down. When I protested the methodology a little buddy of It came to the rescue...that buddy has been missing for months now. I proceeded to produce more information that discredited the claim of reduction in sexual abuse of children...as very likely bogus count based on factors other than actual numbers of molestation, and suddenly dead silence around here....NO comeback, nothing...but The Plant from time to time would once again claim there is no need for CPS because sex abuse was declining....(for one thing, ignoring that the population is growing rapidly so all population based incident ratios likely go down for a time until reporting catches up to the census) and here's the info I offered in refutation: http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_1_1/page5.html Am I, and others in this ng, going to be treated to more silence on issues of substance, and more lies? Of course we are....it's an historical truism with you KCPS yahoo whining slobs. >He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, Yes, suspending children to beat with objects, making young women stripe to be beaten in church, as The Plant defends as a Liberty Interest of parents, certainly isn't beating...no sirree, just a little low level spanking. By they way, can YOU define where "low level legal spanking" crosses over into abusive injurious "BEATING," before one has reached the beating stage...not after the fact? Show us the line. So much for "legal." >so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. From a google search on [child fatalities abuse] http://tinyurl.com/2b33p Heres' a list of organizations and folks that seem, like me, to think there might be just a wee problem: http://www.seanet.com/~duff/ire/kidsourc.htm I tend to think of children being killed and maimed as something of a bloodbath. I also think of the parents that come here that you yahoos lead astray as something of a bloodbath. You don't seem to think so though, do you? >Recently when stats revealed a drop in crime here, >Police did something laudible when they did not >claim they had caused it, and instead cited the >natural ebb and flow of such things. Stats you aren't providing. And the natural ebb invariably is followed the natural flow, have you ever noticed? So did the police department cut back? Were they reduced in budget? That would have been smart, eh? >They similarly don't want to be blamed when >the natural variations go the OTHER way. >It was refreshing to see. It would be refreshing to see you apply that to your bogus claims about CPS then. You forgot that, didn't you, little couch growth? >I suspect Kane would have to exaggerate a >few deaths into a "bloodbath" to justify more >funds and would take credit for the other side >of the natural wave, asking for more funds. Well, I do confess, I do not minimze by the use of terms like "a few deaths" and I do understand data and statistics and correlations. And I do understand chronological scope when looking at policy setting. YOU little twits always confine yourself to a blinders on snapshot of a few events over a short period of time. I look at decades and trends, and I'm here to tell you that when that ebb comes it is followed by a flow, time after time over decades. Hence it makes sense to not count on cutbacks as cures, or the level of funding during a downturn (the case for the past 10 years) being sufficient for what is obviously coming. But talking "sense" to the senseless is rather naive of me, don't you think? However <sigh>, I'm endlessly optimistic and I HAVE actually seen fools such as you and The Plant wake up and smell the coffee instead of each others hindquarters. Kane > On 17 Feb 2004 01:50:51 -0800, Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > level. Yah never really want to bring up claims you haven't researched > when you address me, you bozos. Hmmm... I think anyone with a bit of common sense could've drawn the same conclusions... and those conclusion are available from a number of other sources as well but the site you post has a built in bias. They are in the adoption business. Except for a few valid stand-alone statistics.. they offer nothing more than to promote a child fatality review process to help identify risk factors that may assist prevention professionals, such as those engaged in home visiting and parenting education, to prevent future deaths. A committee of monday morning quarter-backs being well paid to do report what many others have already done... and prbably better paid, too. Their conclusion are self-serving, inflamatory, and obviously biased. It lumps parents tgether with primary care-givers and uses undefinable, or at the very least, subjective terms such as 'maltreatment' to bolster their cause. Then there are acts of commission as well as ommission and says nothing about intent. > But then if you did you couldn't plant your heads firmly so far up > your cloaca's and ignore the truth for your bogus claims. [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > > http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_1_1/page5.html This article does a good job of explaining why sexual abuse has been on the decline. For example... "One possibility is that reporting behaviors have changed. For example, there could be an increased reluctance to report child sexual abuse because of a so-called child abuse backlash. Some researchers who have analyzed media coverage of child sexual abuse have found a more skeptical attitude toward the topic in the 1990's (Beckett, 1996; Myers, 1994). According to these researchers, the dominant message of recent publicity about child sexual abuse has been that false allegations are frequent, that many innocent people are being unfairly stigmatized, and that professionals are being overly zealous in reporting possible cases of sexual abuse." This stuff we've been saying for years.... and then this... "Additional explanations for the decline in substantiated cases of child sexual abuse include events that could be occurring after a report is made to a CPS agency. It may be that fewer reports of sexual abuse are being investigated or that fewer investigations are being substantiated. A reduction in the number of investigations of alleged sexual abuse could be due to changes in the type of cases CPS agencies accept as falling within their jurisdiction. More and more of these agencies may be excluding certain types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual abuse or abuse that involves adolescent victims or offenders. CPS agencies may also be requiring that more or better quality information be available before a report is investigated." Please note.. and I quote, "More and more of these agencies may be excluding certain types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual abuse or abuse that involves adolescent victims or offenders." Another point many rant about... and CPS is finally begining to recognize. And lastly, "For example, many CPS agencies have added a structured decisionmaking component to their investigation procedures (English and Pecora, 1994). It is possible that with greater structure, fewer cases meet the criteria for substantiation than would have if the investigator had used his or her clinical judgment. More cases in which sexual abuse did not in fact occur may be getting screened out." Seems that subjective interpretation has been limited and the critera for substantiation radiacally changed resulting in a more positive screening process. What is demonstrated in your article.. was the earlier existance of vast inconsistanices, improper screening, subjective interpretation, and recognization that peer sex and even extrafamilial child sex is viewed differently. The public fought back... back-lash is it called. Even those charged with mandatory reporting saw the injustices that resulted. Your article give me hope that the tides are changing.. for the better. CPS is being tamed. bobb > Am I, and others in this ng, going to be treated to more silence on > issues of substance, and more lies? Of course we are....it's an [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Kane >> On 17 Feb 2004 01:50:51 -0800, Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >sources as well but the site you post has a built in bias. They are in the >adoption business. Not their numbers. Those are from the feds. >Except for a few valid stand-alone statistics.. they offer nothing more >than to promote a child fatality review process to help identify risk >factors that may assist prevention professionals, such as those engaged in >home visiting and parenting education, to prevent future deaths. A committee >of monday morning quarter-backs being well paid to do report what many >others have already done... and prbably better paid, too. Probably. I tend to want experts doing the work of tracking events and causes. Funny about that. >Their conclusion are self-serving, inflamatory, and obviously biased. One man's somewhat colored opinion. >It >lumps parents tgether with primary care-givers and uses undefinable, or at >the very least, subjective terms such as 'maltreatment' to bolster their >cause. Then there are acts of commission as well as ommission and says >nothing about intent. The breakouts are available. I've posted other data from time to time and recently that shows who abuses and kills who, and it's consistently heavy way over in the parent kids own child, or relative kills child columns. >> But then if you did you couldn't plant your heads firmly so far up >> your cloaca's and ignore the truth for your bogus claims. [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > >This stuff we've been saying for years.... and then this... Cherry picking. It said a good deal more than that. And it has no bias bone to pick. >"Additional explanations for the decline in substantiated cases of child >sexual abuse include events that could be occurring after a report is made [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >excluding certain types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual abuse >or abuse that involves adolescent victims or offenders." And you consider this a good thing? Right? They aren't counting sex abuse of children any more that over a certain age, or even little tiny children that are sexually abused by someone else...and that is a significant reason to celebrate a supposed drop in the numbers? I see. >Another point many rant about... and CPS is finally begining to recognize. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >his or her clinical judgment. More cases in which sexual abuse did not in >fact occur may be getting screened out." bobb, you are sometimes stupid, but outside of being woefully misinformed I don't think I ever really felt you were dishonest publically. Cherry picking and leaving off the next sentence, is very very dishonest: "On the other hand, if valid cases of sexual abuse are now being screened out to a greater degree as a result of changes in investigative procedures, it could mean that more children are remaining in dangerous situations." And page is full of other similar considerations. If I must I guess I could go back and lift the whole page and highlight what you left out. Do you insist I do, or would you rather folks, the lazy ones, didn't have too easy a shot at the content...ALL OF IT. >Seems that subjective interpretation has been limited >and the critera for substantiation radiacally changed resulting in a more >positive screening process. Yes, like leaving out older kids and those abused by extrafamilial perps. THAT has to be an improvement, right? >What is demonstrated in your article.. was the earlier existance of vast >inconsistanices, improper screening, subjective interpretation, and >recognization that peer sex and even extrafamilial child sex is viewed >differently. Do you understand the meaning of "extrafamilial?" It means from OUTSIDE...they are refusing to count when a child is abused outside the family....all that really means is they are making INCEST the only sexual abuse they are counting. Do you find that HONEST? Do you in light of the heat CPS takes when they do NOT investigate and turn these over to the police? Man, you people are something else. Do you realize that all children above about 13 are not being counted and that would include a large contingent of mentally ill and developlmentally diasabled, who are frequent targets of molesters? Do you like that? . Do you really intend to defend the bogus drop in numbers by these means of drastically changed counting and redifinition of victims....who are STILL BEING VICTIMIZED BY NOT COUNTED? >The public fought back... back-lash is it called. Even those charged with >mandatory reporting saw the injustices that resulted. The perps fought back. The public would be outraged if they read just this exchange between you and I. CUT THE NUMBER BY REFUSING TO COUNT VICTIMS is the name of the game. And this article is making that clear, in polite language of course, but if one can read and comprehend at 8th grade level it isn't to hard to see the process has become corrupted. And the silent body of sexually abused children increases again toward what it was in prior to the 60's. >Your article give me hope that the tides are changing.. for the better. CPS >is being tamed. You are a sick little man. Please position yourself to float out with the tide. Yooohoooo...FOLKS! If you are honest please go and read the entire article and provide some feed back. This is part of the trend, as symptom if you will, of what I have been predicting. Politicos are going to let more and more children be killed, raped, injured, so there will be enough fodder for the next wave of CPS excesses....FUNDING WILL ROLE IN in about two to three years, a voting cycle plus. YOU, the public, are being prepped for it and it's going to cost lives between now and then. It's the old, "don't install a flashing light and cross arm barriers at the RR xing until X number of motorists are killed in train auto collisions" number. I keep forgetting now ignorant and naive the public is. My first eye-opener was when I was about 24...what IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE OLDER THAN THAT? Are you brains rotted out from the 60's excesses? Political pawns, and willing, and some even jumping on the band wagon and offering the throats to the vampires. YOU think it's a win, bobb. What a stupid stupid man you are. And viciously uncaring of children despite our self congratulation for the few you help. What is it, your ticket punched for being a fool about all the dead kids your stupidity helps create? >bobb Kane >> Am I, and others in this ng, going to be treated to more silence on >> issues of substance, and more lies? Of course we are....it's an [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> >> Kane <snip> Bobb wrote > >Please note.. and I quote, "More and more of these agencies may be > >excluding certain types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual > abuse > >or abuse that involves adolescent victims or offenders." > > And you consider this a good thing? Right? Yes. Many of these incidents have no business within the grasp of CPS. Their only solution, it seems, is to remove kids from the home. These incidents, at least for the moment, are being seen as ciminal cases which remove the offender from the home or take the offender off the street. > They aren't counting sex abuse of children any more that over a > certain age, or even little tiny children that are sexually abused by > someone else...and that is a significant reason to celebrate a > supposed drop in the numbers? > > I see. You probably don't see. The majority of sex abuse cases were alledged against children under the age of six (6) (particualrly boys) which involved nothing more than touching...not penetration. Parents, baby-sitters, day-care providers, and even relatives had to defend themselves merely for giving a child a bath. > >Seems that subjective interpretation has been limited > >and the critera for substantiation radiacally changed resulting in a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the family....all that really means is they are making INCEST the only > sexual abuse they are counting. Actually, extrafamilial includes teachers, day-care, baby-sitters and the like. Of course, in your mind, you see nothing other than a suspected perp down the street or accross town. Once again, I say those incidents should not fall within the graps of CPS... those are criminal offenses. > Do you find that HONEST? Do you in light of the heat CPS takes when > they do NOT investigate and turn these over to the police? Actually, CPS should refer any such report to the report to the police or refer the reporting person to the police. > Man, you people are something else. > > Do you realize that all children above about 13 are not being counted > and that would include a large contingent of mentally ill and > developlmentally diasabled, who are frequent targets of molesters? Hmm... could it be that the age of consent is being seen as less of a problem? The law provides for those who are developmentally disabled or mentally ill. There seems to be an attitude suggesting kids may legally give consent... at least among peers. Regardless... these are matters for the legal system... not CPS. bobb ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Yes. Many of these incidents have no business within the grasp of CPS. >Their only solution, it seems, is to remove kids from the home. Nonsense. Their FIRST response is to ask that the alledged perp be removed, and the return the child to the non-offending parent. The child is only removed for the time it takes for the family to work out what is up. >These >incidents, at least for the moment, are being seen as ciminal cases which >remove the offender from the home or take the offender off the street. Yep...so removing the criminal count from the total is a pretense that there is LESS sex abuse happening. I don't care who presecutes the case....just that people don't lie about the frequency and nature of the abuse by manipulation of stats. And the police do NOT instigate the investigations of child sexual abuse very often that CPS hasn't been the source of the initial contact...and always will be. It is often uncovered while responding to a call about other things than sexual abuse. >> They aren't counting sex abuse of children any more that over a >> certain age, or even little tiny children that are sexually abused by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You probably don't see. No, bobb. I DO SEE all too much. And I see that you are misinformed by your OWN biases. >The majority of sex abuse cases were alledged >against children under the age of six (6) (particualrly boys) which >involved nothing more than touching...not penetration. You found that in the pages I referred? Or somewhere else? Please point to that for me? > Parents, >baby-sitters, day-care providers, and even relatives had to defend >themselves merely for giving a child a bath. What utter nonsense. These are rare but loudly trumpted cases. They are NOTHING in number compared to genuine damaging sexual abuse. You are trumpeting the cry of the detected perp. "Look over there, over theres, and pay not attention to the man behind the curtain." >> >Seems that subjective interpretation has been limited >> >and the critera for substantiation radiacally changed resulting in a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Actually, extrafamilial includes teachers, day-care, baby-sitters and the >like. Bet yah had to look it up. We are counting numbers here, NOT WHO is alledged to have done it. The arguement by you and The Plant is that sex abuse is down, not sex abuse that is discovered and prosecuted by CPS alone... > Of course, in your mind, you see nothing other than a suspected perp >down the street or accross town. Male bovine excrement. I am aware that perps are rare. The problem is that the raw numbers of children hurt by such perps is too many for me to stomach and far more than the current count that is divided now and shaved of the older kids and missing the extrafamilial attacks. > Once again, I say those incidents should >not fall within the graps of CPS... those are criminal offenses. And once again I'll remind you I NEVER MADE THE CLAIM OF IT BEING OR SHOULD BEING OTHERWISE....the excuse that The Plant, and apparently you, for cutting CPS and blaming CPS and generally pretending the problem is gone....is that the numbers are down. If you actually read and understood you'd know that is considerable question...given the shaving and transfering jurisdiction...the count might even be, as one of the authors state, GREATER than is being accounted for. And police investigation numbers grow out of CPS contacts on OTHER issues being investigated by them...and CPS cannot count those as sex abuse because they are NOT investigating the extrafamilial. >> Do you find that HONEST? Do you in light of the heat CPS takes when >> they do NOT investigate and turn these over to the police? > >Actually, CPS should refer any such report to the report to the police or >refer the reporting person to the police. I don't have any trouble with that...I am talking about the PUBLIC, the numskulls, boneheaded biased, fools such as you, that think CPS should be doing the investigations of extrafamilial sexual abuse. I AGREE WITH YOU YAH FLAMIN' NITWIT. But police TAKE THEIR CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES FROM CPS and the point of the thread is that the undercount is being used as an excuse to under fund and understaff CPS....do you see ANY CONNECTION HERE AT ALL, YOU FLANING NITWIT? I just do not see the valid defense of lowered numbers of actual incidences of sexual abuse happening in anything you've offered outside of guesses and opinions and defiance of the comments in the article I cited. >> Man, you people are something else. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hmm... could it be that the age of consent is being seen as less of a >problem? You think that is good? Where's the cut of, 8? We are talking abuse, not consensual sex. Most of the teen sex that happens is already covered by laws about proximity of age between the parties.....IT'S SEXUAL ABUSE COUNT THAT IS THE ISSUE YOU FLAMING NITWIT. Am I getting through to you at all yet? >The law provides for those who are developmentally disabled or >mentally ill. Oh sh.t. Have you ever lost the point. That does nothing to prove that the count is DOWN....IT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THE COUNT, except that they won't BE counted because of their age.....even if the cops are prosecuting because the people that count....the DOJ, no long count that age group. I feel like taking your stupid head and pounding it into the floor with each word to see if any of it can get through your thick biased, bigotted, egotistical bonehead.... But...being the gentle soul I am, I'll continue to reason, sweet reason, with you. >There seems to be an attitude suggesting kids may legally >give consent... at least among peers. Regardless... these are matters for >the legal system... not CPS. Not in the least connected to the issue of this discussion....the dropping count as a justification for CPS being downsized and defunded. Or don't you EVER follow the thread? Why should I even ask.....? >bobb You sure are. Kane Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation... "It is also important to keep in mind that although changes in CPS attitudes and policy may at least partially account for the decline in substantiated cases, these changes alone clearly do not represent the entire picture. The parallel decline in reports of child sexual abuse suggests that other factors, occurring before a case even reaches a child protective agency, must also be affecting the overall decline." Please note the free admission that there have been changes in CPS attitude and policy. I asked the question in earlier posts.. why has the population of foster kids dropped by as much as 50 percent in recent years? I now have by answer. Thanks, Kane. If anyone needs to wonder why groups like this exist this single citation provides a lot of answers. CPS, under recently, was out-of-control. Hyped by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of public support they were seen as an agency that could do no wrong. Too bad for all the families they helped to destroy along the way. bobb > Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation... You should have, to be honest, posted the entire page. > "It is also important to keep in mind that although changes in CPS attitudes > and policy may at least partially account for the decline in substantiated [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Please note the free admission that there have been changes in CPS attitude > and policy. "free admission?" When has this information not been available and when has CPS proceeded for more than a few years without changes in policy and attitude? Making a point by NOT making a point? Brilliant. > I asked the question in earlier posts.. why has the population > of foster kids dropped by as much as 50 percent in recent years? I now have > by answer. Thanks, Kane. You're welcome....did you forget the article also says, a great deal of it is coming from underreporting that could very likely be leaving children unprotected....and YOU WEINERS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT CPS MISSING CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING KILLED? Yah can't have it both ways unless you are an immoral brick, bobb. > If anyone needs to wonder why groups like this exist this single citation > provides a lot of answers. Yeah. You are a pack of immoral stupid mindless twits that don't see the significance of, and use by politicos, the swing of the pendulum. At both ends it costs...families at one extreme and children at the other and YOU, bobberino, are celebrating the swing into the end zone for children. And count on it, it will come back WAAAAY past ASFA this next rebound, as ASFA did CAPTA...and I'd bet with a slightly shorter time lag. > CPS, under recently, was out-of-control. You bought the media hype and and now the anti CPS folks hype, and your own garbaged filled mind, full of misinformation and predjudice. > Hyped > by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of > public support they were seen as an agency that could do no wrong. They were no such thing. This current viewpoint you think is a biggie was around in 76 when I first had a confrontation with CPS and has continued unabaited with NO time CPS was considered a good thing by the general public. It has been the convenient whipping boy (while trying to do a nearly impossible terrifying job) the entire time. IT's used by everyone with their own little ax to grind and hide the sparks from since my first encounter, and probably long before. > Too bad > for all the families they helped to destroy along the way. Playing to the gallery. You have really become one of the makers of the problem. > bobb Congrats bobb, you get to have company in your happy little mudpuddle with the other ignorant pigs. Give us another shot of your smug mug. Kane > > Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > children unprotected....and YOU WEINERS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT CPS > MISSING CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING KILLED? The sentence was a bit ambigious. Under reporting refers to reports never made..... not investigating, or giving little little attention to reports of minor allegations changes the picture. It's the people who are fed up fighting off the authorities and calling for change. It's the people who are willing to accept any inherent risk... or, better put, able to see there is no risk involved. Either way, your citiation sums up, very nicely, the error of CPS. Either way, it's unfair to through in the idea that the subject child would be at risk of becoming missing or killed. Absent strong indicators, that I'm sure would not be ignored, the probability is almost non-existant. bobb > Yah can't have it both ways unless you are an immoral brick, bobb. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You bought the media hype and and now the anti CPS folks hype, and > your own garbaged filled mind, full of misinformation and predjudice. Acutally, not so. Any such conclusions come from CPS data.... court records.... government investigations... and citiations you provide.. which I'm sure you'll say are accurate and without predjudice. bobb > > Hyped > > by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Kane >> > Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the >> > media in a couple of years we'll see the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >He says it's gonna get worse! Gee Dan, hate to argue with you in public like we do in private from time to time, but you miss the point here completely. What does a whining looser want more than anything in life (besides access to little girls to shower)? Why they want tons of misery for company. Of course La Puta thinks the tide is turning in the favor of the blood dancers. I'd like to make them wrong. I'd like to see more honesty about the funding issues, and the actual data on child abuse, and the issues of substance abuse, caseloads, time and money for worker training, and a huge whack taken at politicians who use this issue of maimed and dead children as a political tool for reelection. (Actually a small minority..most politicos actually know what's going on but are drowned out by the KILL CPS crowd). Maybe I'm overdue at the statehouse. Kane >On 18 Feb 2004, Chris wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as "a >> beating witha flat object." >> >So this newsgroup is alt.parenting.beating-with-a-flat-object. :-) Among other things, that being the legal and "reasonable" definition of spanking. And that has been defended by spankers in this ng, even the use of a leather strap until blood was drawn from the victim repeatedly. So yes, this is alt.parenting.spanking-paddling-switching-swatting-caning-whalloping-slapping-lickin'-and from the thesaurus: "belt, blip, box, buffet, cane, chastise, clobber, clout, cuff, flax, flog, hide, larrup, lash, lather, leather, lick, paddle, punch, punish, smack, sock, tan, thrash, trim, wallop, welt, whale, whip, whup" And from various clustered dictionary sources where what we commonly call paddling and you described in your humorous (thanks for taking spanking seriously...children everywhere will love you) at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spank All of which, given that thesauri and dictionaries are "reasonable" and "standard" resources for aquiring a definition, are "spanking" in the sense it it used for this ng...and in the ways YOU have used it, as in "CP" in your defensive arguments of and for compulsive spanking of children. Frankly I think adding the words "hitting" and "assault" to the end of the URL would be quite appropriate as in some places it IS assault to hit a child for any reason...including the disingenuous label of "discipline." The name of the group is not intended to narrow the scope of argument but to explore and debate the entirety of assaulting and trying to justify assaulting children. Your attempts to narrow the debate to something you think you can successfully argue are duly noted and routinely smashed on your little pointy head. R R R R R Any questions? >Doan Kane >In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as "a >beating witha flat object." As does: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. And Roget's has a much more extensive list. All standard useage. Many things equate with spanking that our little Droany would like to avoid if at all possible. And he should avoid the use of the word CP and the comparisons of the RIGHT of cops to hit people, that they do NOT have. It's an abomination that adults cannot be legally hit as punishment or just in anger or even accidently without repercussions even if there is NO physical injury, but children can. >Chris Kane In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] : He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, : so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as "a beating witha flat object." Chris > In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as "a > beating witha flat object." So this newsgroup is alt.parenting.beating-with-a-flat-object. :-) Doan Spanking involves many forms of hitting children. Calling this ng "alt.parenting.beating-with-a-flat-object" would limit the disciplinary hitting to beating with a flat object. One can hit children with hands, with fists, with belts, with hairbrushes, with whips, or with anything a parent can imagine. Spanking doesn't always involve a "bloodbath" but it certainly can and has. What spanking does always involve is an adult raising his/her hand, with or without an implement, and hitting a little child a fourth, a third, or half his/her size in the name of discipline. Why would anyone do that? How could anyone justify looking in the eyes of a little child and hitting the child? How could anyone ignore that fact that adults should have better strategies for behavior than little children? Are these people just stupid, Doan? Is this the only way they know to parent? LaVonne >>In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [snip] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doan a123sdg321 > In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris And Straus, in his studies, defined it as: "the use of physical force with the intention of causing physical pain, but not injury, for purposes of correction and control." Is Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-) Doan >a123sdg321 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >but not injury, for purposes of correction and control." >Is Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-) "Spanking?" Really. I would have thought he said CP. Oh well. yah learn something new everyday. Given that Chris, believe it or not, knows there are other dictionaries, my bet is he also knows there are many words and definition for "spanking"the point being he listed the one in question. I gave you dozens yesterday. And another dictionary agreeing with Odam's. How does that equate with Chris not also agreeing with Straus? You'll clarify for us, or be known for a rotten lying scoundrel...right...you aren't are you? Day 6 to February 25th 8AM >Doan I'm just a twitter with anticipation. Excited you'll actually follow through...<yawn> and you'll debate instead of play, finally, like that's going to happen. 6 {:-> Kane Greg wrote > > : He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, > > : so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. Chris wrote > > Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines > > "spanking" as <snip> How does it define BLOODBATH? > And Straus, in his studies, defined it as: > "the use of physical force with the intention > of causing physical pain, but not injury, > for purposes of correction and control." > [Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-) Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss). Way to go, Doan. >Greg wrote >> > : He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, >> > : so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. Lie. The line between each is unknowable, hence any part can be called a bloodbath, as in injuries to many....in this case children. And it IS a bloodbath when one looks at the stats of parents claiming they were just "disciplining by spanking." >Chris wrote >> > Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines >> > "spanking" as <snip> > >How does it define BLOODBATH? It doesn't, liar. Mixing subjects to confuse issues is frequently the tactic of moral cretins. It's what YOU do constantly. Doanerator runs a close second. You run a subject off to yourself to whine, he's just a noisy child seeking attention by diversion and noise. >> And Straus, in his studies, defined it as: >> "the use of physical force with the intention >> of causing physical pain, but not injury, >> for purposes of correction and control." >> [Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-) See, what did I say? A typical diversionary lie. Posting one definition does not mean the poster is denying any or all others. How sickly immoral of you two bratty children to pretend it does as an argument against someone as honest and moral as Chris. >Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss). Strauss may have mispoke. I haven't gone to the source in a long time, but he either said, or obviously meant, corporal punishment. And the statement would be correct if he was defining what happens when one uses spanking....it is the use of "a" physical force in precisely that way. To pretend that either definition negates the other, Odam or Straus is a blazingly obvious example of the moral disability you and Doan labor under. It's twisting Straus out of context to twist Chris's simple dictionary citation out of context. Way to go Baad Boyz. >Way to go, Doan. Sure is. Expose yourself yet again, Droany, and you too, circle jerker. Little boys in the bushes, making noises, and exposing themselves because they think that the people looking at them are doing anything but laughing and shaking their heads in derision. Does it excite you, Greegor? Kane Greg wrote (about Kane) > He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, > so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion. > Lie. OK, your "bloodbath" is a lie. > The line between each is unknowable, One requires BLOOD to have a bloodbath! > hence any part can be called a > bloodbath, as in injuries to many In other words, you LIED. > ....in this case children. And it IS > a bloodbath when one looks at the > stats of parents claiming they were > just "disciplining by spanking." Even black and blue is no "bloodbath". To call it that is a LIE and demagoguery. Face it, Dude, you're getting caught up in the zeal of your radical CAUSE! Your ideology is not bound by facts. Chris wrote > Odham's Dictionary of the English > Language defines "spanking" as <snip> Greg wrote > >How does it define BLOODBATH? > It doesn't, liar. Some more thinking error? How did my question in general terms LIE? Why does this dictionary not define BLOODBATH? Are you SURE that it doesn't? > Mixing subjects to confuse issues is > frequently the tactic of moral > cretins. It's what YOU do constantly. I did all that with my question? Man that question must have hit the mark. > Doanerator runs a close second. > You run a subject off to yourself Without YOUR permission? :) Kane, you've got ISSUES, man. > to whine, he's just a noisy > child seeking attention by > diversion and noise. Are you gonna spank him in the grocery store? What if somebody calls the Gestapo? > >> And Straus, in his studies, defined it as: > >> "the use of physical force with the intention [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See, what did I say? Did you wet yourself with your mature excitement? All I heard was: blah blah Strauss blah blah. > A typical diversionary lie. I much prefer your variety of lies. You are the expert liar. > Posting one definition does not mean > the poster is denying any or all others. Is this like the sound of one hand clapping? > How sickly immoral of you two bratty > children to pretend it does as an > argument against someone as honest > and moral as Chris. As opposed to your atheist MORALITY? You are a paragon of morality indeed! How can we but aspire to your moral greatness? > >Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss). > > Strauss may have mispoke. He did that a lot I think. > I haven't gone to the source in > a long time, but he either said, > or obviously meant, corporal punishment. Could we have it in the original Straussian? Interpretations vary. > And the statement would be correct if <snip!> IF? About Strauss' intent? Reaching for STRAWS! > he was defining what happens when one uses > spanking....it is the use of "a" physical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > twist Chris's simple dictionary > citation out of context. Way to go Baad Boyz. Yes, it's a conspiracy, Kane. We have perverted all dictionaries. I feel ever so much put in MY place. How about you, Doan? Are you all broken up? :) How EVER did anybody get along before we had you to lead us out of the wilderness? > >Way to go, Doan. > > Sure is. Expose yourself yet again, > Droany, and you too, circle jerker. Your maturity has me just all busted up. > Little boys in the bushes, making > noises, and exposing themselves To take a whiz on your shoes? > because they think that the people > looking at them are doing anything > but laughing and shaking their > heads in derision. Yeah, yeah, Bad humor can be as liberating as flying without a net, but why are we talking about this? > Does it excite you, Greegor? I enjoyed messing your shoes. > Kane >Go for the PATHOS, Kane. Go for the whining, Whore >LaVonne is lost. The Plant is inspecting It's cloaca yet again. Kane >Greg wrote (about Kane) >> He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >OK, your "bloodbath" is a lie. Only if three parent caused deaths per day on average is not a bloodbath by your estimation. I'd say parents killing their kids at the rate of 3 per day qualities...actually it runs higher but I rounded down. >> The line between each is unknowable, > >One requires BLOOD to have a bloodbath! Last I checked, unless they were drained, those three kids every day, week in and week out, year in and year out had blood. I haven't even got to parent cause injuries by abuse and neglect. As I said, it's a blood bath...as in children are bleeding, both physically and psychologically (as the little girl was) and dying sufficient to my measure of a "blood bath" and you help it go on with your partially ignorant lies and your knowing lies. . >> hence any part can be called a >> bloodbath, as in injuries to many > >In other words, you LIED. I beg your pardon? How could I be lying if children are dying? How could I be lying if children are being injured by their parents? That IS a blood bath and YOUR booties are red with it. >> ....in this case children. And it IS >> a bloodbath when one looks at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Even black and blue is no "bloodbath". >To call it that is a LIE and demagoguery. Dimwit, black and blue means bruised. What substance makes bruised the color they are and where is that substance supposed to be contained but no longer is...given the clearn sign by virtue of the bruise? I'm not lyin, you're just minizin, and i'm signafyin' on yo lazy a.s butt. >Face it, Dude, you're getting caught >up in the zeal of your radical CAUSE! Not hardly pilgrim. I'm caught up in stopping it. YOU are caught up in denying so you have an excuse consider yourself a victim. >Your ideology is not bound by facts. Would you like to dispute with me that three children a day in the US, on average year in and year out die at the hands of their parents....substantiated and tallied by a US crime reporting agency? And that there are even more abuses caused by parents that cause the children to bleed both internally and externally? Or would you prefer to play minimize and deny on the scale of The Plant? How bad does it have to get for YOU to label it a bloodbath for children at the hands of their own parents? Let's take three a day. You expand that number until you'll accept it's a blood bath. Me, one a year is, and it only takes the blood of one child for it to be a "bath" for them. Possibly you are unfamiliar with the "bath" concept and would prefer, as you know the medium better, a "blood shower?" >Chris wrote >> Odham's Dictionary of the English >> Language defines "spanking" as <snip> You snipped the actual quote thus removing any chance fo the reader to determine if "bloodbath" was a claim of the poster. >Greg wrote >> >How does it define BLOODBATH? Why would you ask a question on an issue the poster hasn't postulated? In formal debate this would be known as the logical fallacy, False Analogy. Assuming because on thing resembles another, conclusions drawn from one also apply to the other. Spanking isn't a bloodbath. It's a sad world of pain, fear, and humiliation for children to endure because they can't escape without losing big time. I'm reminded of a little girl that no long has her mother an....well, never mind. >Kane wrote >> It doesn't, liar. > >Some more thinking error? >How did my question in general terms LIE? Why lie by throwing in "general terms?" A lie, according to some sources, is any attempt to deceive by commission or omission. Not a falsehood, but a misdirection. You just a Doany. >Why does this dictionary not define BLOODBATH? I don't know that is doesn't. Do you? If not then you are lying and claiming something you cannot know. Go, look in the dictionary. See it defines blood bath or if it doesn't and get back to us. It will help you at least fake honesty for a time. >Are you SURE that it doesn't? No. And I didn't claim that it did, so as a Doaner, you are batting Oh for Zero, tiny couch croucher. Let me give you a real example of a "thinking error." It would be to assume that the poster was saying "spanking" was a blood bath. Did the poster so state? If not then you are thinking in error. Now if the poster child abuse of children is a blood bath in this country.....well, you get the point, don't you? The thinking error in this instance can also be expanded to assuming you wouldn't be caught at such simply minded diversionary tactics. Plainly then: you are a liar. >> Mixing subjects to confuse issues is >> frequently the tactic of moral >> cretins. It's what YOU do constantly. > >I did all that with my question? All what? My claim in that paragraph is that you mixed the subjects, one was spanking, but coming from left field with another...."bloodbath" that had no connection in the posters statement. >Man that question must have hit the mark. Yes, right in the center of the manure pile. You never miss. It's all the crouching couch time. >> Doanerator runs a close second. > >> You run a subject off to yourself > >Without YOUR permission? :) I don't give or refuse permission. You are free to do as you wish, and you do, except that you are a prisoner of yourself, and your damaged and flabby ego. You spend all your time trying to shore it up. >Kane, you've got ISSUES, man. Yes. I not only dislike, but intend to neutralize, those that torture children and call it discipline....naked forced cold showers of little gilrs by strangers qualifies in my book. Or were you her step father? >> to whine, he's just a noisy >> child seeking attention by >> diversion and noise. > >Are you gonna spank him in the grocery store? As you know I'm not a physical spanker. Verbal and psychological? You'll have to watch and guess. >What if somebody calls the Gestapo? Can't. It went out in '45. >> >Doan wrote >> >> And Straus, in his studies, defined it as: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Did you wet yourself with your mature excitement? >All I heard was: blah blah Strauss blah blah. I didn't refer to Strauss. You are confusing me with Droany. HE brought up Straus and those are his words....that you incorrectly assinged to me by your statement that all you "heard was." All I said was, "See, what did I say?" which you have thoroughly isolated by inappropriate snippage so it makes no syntactic sense. Yet another example of "thinking error." You trip yourself up constantly in this and similar ways. The classic Droany. >> A typical diversionary lie. > >I much prefer your variety of lies. >You are the expert liar. Please point to my lies? I don't. >> Posting one definition does not mean >> the poster is denying any or all others. > >Is this like the sound of one hand clapping? You find the logic inscrutible? Here: If I say you are carrying an apple that does not prove in any way you are not carry more or other fruit as well. And if you have an armload and I say you are carrying "an" apple, that would be kind of stupid of me...accurate, but pointless. This is exactly what happened when Droany tried to pretend that Chris, but quoting Odam, was denying Straus. Pointless and in fact not even accurate. Does that help a little? Lay down. Apply a cool washcloth to your brow. I know the hard work is heating up your brain. >> How sickly immoral of you two bratty >> children to pretend it does as an >> argument against someone as honest >> and moral as Chris. > >As opposed to your atheist MORALITY? Interestingly in the very few times I've encountered other athiests I have found them exceedingly ethical by current standards. They tend not to fool themselves with things such as situational ethics. They do DISAGREE with some moral concepts others might hold but they do that even with each other...as it is the human condition. As for myself, I have had devote religious friends who are not only astounded at the moral and ethical standards I hold to (I won't, for instance, take a dime more than my stated fee for anything I do, and I will not pad expenses or overcharge...and my word is my bond...as Droany is learning, much to his irritation). >You are a paragon of morality indeed! Absolutely . It is no mean feat in this day and age. Trying to compete with people that will lie for any and all reasons puts a decided handicap in the way of the moral person. >How can we but aspire to your moral greatness? Don't bother. It's not learned from others very well. It's an inner thing that grows out of having a change to develop empathy and the accompanying conscience. We can see by your posted evidence and the three years we've urged you to see what you have done, and rectify it, that you lack both. That said, when both are missing moral "greatness" is unlikely ...unless a lightening strike or other shock to the system is applied. I think in your case it's most likely you wouldn't wake up with any less than castration. >> >Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss). >> >> Strauss may have mispoke. > >He did that a lot I think. You have no familiarity with Straus. You do not understand his studies and reports. You are a social misfit and pariah as a gigolo. Thinking isn't your venue. Whining your faux victimhood is your speciality an reason for living. >> I haven't gone to the source in >> a long time, but he either said, >> or obviously meant, corporal punishment. > >Could we have it in the original Straussian? >Interpretations vary. Sure. Look it up and read it to us. I don't do research on order without a check, hammered, up front. On demand this one would be $288.45, tax and shipping included. Can I expect the check any time soon or has the cold weather put a crimp in the refunding "business?" >> And the statement would be correct if <snip!> "Snip!?" >IF? About Strauss' intent? Reaching for STRAWS! No, reaching for the portion you snipped so my meaning would be lost to any reader. Was I just showered then? >> he was defining what happens when one uses >> spanking....it is the use of "a" physical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Yes, it's a conspiracy, Kane. >We have perverted all dictionaries. By golly, couldn't have said any better myself. Congrats. And a conspiracy of two, is still a conspiracy of fools. You two get very confused when you backchannel to combine forces for what YOU think is this big battle. Frankly, I'm falling asleep it's so boringing dull and unchallenging. I miss the old days when intelligent folks went up against me. Why did the run I wonder. >I feel ever so much put in MY place. My bet is you do not. My bet is that you are still on that couch, in that mobile home, taking keep from a women who has lost her child...the one you were supposed to provide child care to for the last three years. If I actually did put you in your place you wouldn't even be posting to me. >How about you, Doan? Are you all broken up? :) Droan is sleeping and having bad dreams about next Wednesday morning. He's working up a really resounding, "I don't care" and "You ran." We've all seen it before. >How EVER did anybody get along before we >had you to lead us out of the wilderness? Famously, I'm sure. NOt too long back folks could kill their children out of hand with work, and beatings and no one would even blink. Same with slaves, and very close to it...no, actually exactly that for women. Folks like me helped lead humanity up from that. Folks like you decided to stay behind. Your time is over....you just haven't fallen over yet. >> >Way to go, Doan. >> >> Sure is. Expose yourself yet again, >> Droany, and you too, circle jerker. > >Your maturity has me just all busted up. I try to amuse when it won't be insulting to the children and families you and Droaner hurt by your biases and their expression here, and the things you did to that family. >> Little boys in the bushes, making >> noises, and exposing themselves > >To take a whiz on your shoes? With the electric fence in between us? Sure, go ahead. >> because they think that the people >> looking at them are doing anything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >liberating as flying without a net, >but why are we talking about this? Laughter and derison is "bad humor?" Oh, YOUR bad joke...yes, it does take the edge off a long day of work to come home and observe you doing what you two do best. >> Does it excite you, Greegor? > >I enjoyed messing your shoes. I'm disgusted by the blood on yours. >> Kane ...again. Go for the PATHOS, Kane. LaVonne is lost. |
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.