|Re: 7 state sites for families w CPS prob. spanking

[Kane]

On 15 Sep 2003 14:50:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>The states are:
>
>FL
>IA
>IL
>KS
>MO
>NC
>OH
>
>Can all be reached thru Website of:
>
>http://www. CPSWatch.com

While you, Pimp, refer the innocent, do remember you also refer the
guilty and those that could have been helped to reform as parents had
they gotten badly needed assistance from the state.

Then there are those children that will go home to the perps tender
mercies because of you...tsk.

You sad little smelly ****.

Kane

[Kane]

On 15 Sep 2003 21:49:54 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

>>You sad little smelly ****.
>>
>>Kane
>
>This is uncalled for SEXUAL HARASSMENT, Kane.

Really? How so?

Are you not engaged in harrassment of your own?

And by supporting abusive parents harassing children sexually who have
been raped by them?

>Stop it immediately.

No.

> This is totally beyond the pale.

No it isn't. It's a very weak accusation. You are far worse than a
smelly little ****. You are a liar that effects others lives
adversely. You are a danger to the truth and humankind.

A Plant is shaken and a Plum falls out.

>The uncouth,

Yah got me there, Sweet Potato.

>foul-mouthed Mouth

Got me again...good for you.

>K-9

Whoops! A name. Are you calling me a dog? Tsk. I expect better from
those that consider themselves genteel ladies, but then you are a
Plant, right?

>insults everyone

Everyone? Hmmm. Not likely. Some perhaps. My apologies folks. This
isn't intended to describe you, only the smelly little ****.

>reading this NG with this
>type of language:

I don't THINK so, Potato. Only those such as your precious little
Twiggy self that think harassment is confined to YOUR use.

And USENET has no restrictions on language of any kind. Even YOUR
treacherous malicious kind.

1st amendment. You do support the Bill of Rights, do you not? I've
seen you and your cronies cite it for your own purposes. You can't
just pick and choose, mix and match the Rights, yah know.

>BTW, you NEED ANGER MANAGEMENT.

I'm not yelling. You are.

And as I mentioned, and I'm sure anyone with half a wit would see, I
don't speak to everyone this way, only the chosen few. Hence, I manage
my anger very nicely thank you very much.

Isn't that same excuse CPS uses to remove another's children and
RIGHTS?

Why would YOU, you paragon of crusading reformers, use their tactics
on me?

>>Subject: |Re: 7 state sites for families w CPS prob. spanking
>>From: (Kane)
>>Date: 9/15/2003 2:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 15 Sep 2003 14:50:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>
>>>The states are:
>>>
>>>FL
>>>IA
>>>IL
>>>KS
>>>MO
>>>NC
>>>OH
>>>
>>>Can all be reached thru Website of:
>>>
>>>http://www. CPSWatch.com
>>
>>While you, Pimp, refer the innocent, do remember you also refer the
>>guilty and those that could have been helped to reform as parents
had
>>they gotten badly needed assistance from the state.
>>
>>Then there are those children that will go home to the perps tender
>>mercies because of you...tsk.
>>
>>You sad little smelly ****.
>>
>>Kane
>>
>>
>
>
>Note K-9 has taken something from aps and fwd it here. Just so he
can mouth
>his OBSCENITIES.

Why then would you post it again, you of the habit of NEVER
attributing others posts, until now...hmmmmmm?

Suddenly you are all attributes. How refreshing for a change.

Whatever to suit YOUR purposes, eh, but would deny others. Nice going.

>I imagine Ric Werme, the founder of this NG would shake his head in
disgust at
>what you just wrote.

Can't say. I don't try to imagine what people say much. I respond to
what they do say and do.

If he was honorable he'd also shake his head at those you defend, the
nonsense you post, the biased news article you cut and paste, but I
don't think he's going to do that, do you?

>Have you no boundaries to your miserable behavior?

Just about the same as you, mostly. But I won't support lies, and you
do. I won't defend those that use CPS to keep a child and mother
apart, but you will.
I won't post, except in response to anothers attempt to decieve,
opposing information and not cite ALL of it so the reader can judge
for themselves.

You do. Screen upon screen of it for miles and miles. Daily.

>Perhaps Paula Werme who DEFENDS JUST SUCH INNOCENT FAMILIES who have
been
>falsely accused by DCYF would be tarred by such an epithet, also.


Perhaps you are pretty frantic, aren't you, DeadNettle?

How would my calling you a smelly little **** reflect on either?

Are you positioning yourself with them? Are you claiming that your
efforts, like hers, only defend the innocent? And how do you KNOW she
only defends the innocent. In fact, how does she? I've known perps to
lie. Haven't you?

Hell, even Dan doesn't confine himself to the INNOCENT. He helps the
guilty too, when it's warranted.

But you, you lie. Alot. You help the guilty when it's NOT warranted.

You post things that are of no possible use to the reform of CPS and
in fact throw a great deal in the way of them doing their job
correctly. They have to defend themselves against the results of your
lies.

That time and energy is supposed to be spent on protecting children.

You cripple reform by lying.

You bust'em in the knee then you howl about them not doing their job
while crippled. You ARE a dirty smelly little ****.

>For shame. Apparently you have never learned respectful
communication.

For shame, You fake learned respectful communication while lying
through your teeth....r r r r

There are sweeter conversationalist than conmen. They are ever soooooo
polite, until they get what they want.

>The latecomer to this NG needs to curb his anger and his vitriol:

Read back over your posts. You are full of anger and vitriol. You just
fake that you are nicey nice. You are pathetic dirtly little ****. And
a con.

Isn't it odd, that you, who would rather break a Limb than attibute
another's post you reply to, in this instance, decided to quote me
THREE times.

You really think anyone will take you seriously because you shriek
over being called out for what you are?

Well, a few numbskulls like you might object and think it over the
top, and even a few that I respect, but that in no way detracts from
your response, and its revalation of what a hypocrite you are even in
your manner of posting replies, let alone your media ****.

Continue to post lies and I'll continue to call you a dirtly little
****, what you are.

>>Subject: |Re: 7 state sites for families w CPS prob. spanking
>>From: (Kane)
>>Date: 9/15/2003 2:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 15 Sep 2003 14:50:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>
>>>The states are:
>>>
>>>FL
>>>IA
>>>IL
>>>KS
>>>MO
>>>NC
>>>OH
>>>
>>>Can all be reached thru Website of:
>>>
>>>http://www. CPSWatch.com
>>
>>While you, Pimp, refer the innocent, do remember you also refer the
>>guilty and those that could have been helped to reform as parents
had
>>they gotten badly needed assistance from the state.
>>
>>Then there are those children that will go home to the perps tender
>>mercies because of you...tsk.
>>
>>You sad little smelly ****.
>>
>>Kane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>http://www.syc.org NH site for those who DCYF has accused
unjustly.

And for those who have been justly accused as well.

So sad, a smelly little **** goes off on a rant when It get's labelled
for what it is.

By the way, how is it you don't fall into such a state of indignation
over Gregs revelations or anyone elses name calling but me?

Where is your indignation when a reporter makes a statement but fails
entirely to back it with quotes of rulings, just guesses.

No outcry when a poster carefully avoids data that would show the
entire picture and posts only that which damns fosters or CPS?
Nothing. Not a whimper.

No, Tulips, you are a liar and a cheat and a smelly little ****.

Get honest or simply get called what you are.

Your phony, one-track indignation is duly noted. <chuckle>

Kane

[Kane]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 04:10:16 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:

>
>"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>> "Fern5827" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > >You sad little smelly @^&#.
>> > >
>> > >Kane
>> >
>> > This is uncalled for SEXUAL HARASSMENT, Kane.
>>
>> I wish you'd clean up the vocab, Kane.
>>
>> THIS was especially offensive.
>>
>> > Stop it immediately. This is totally beyond the pale.
>>
>> Stick to the flora references, if you must.
>>
>> But why don't ya just stick to the facts?
>>
>> > The uncouth, foul-mouthed Mouth K-9 insults everyone reading this
NG
>with
>> this
>> > type of language:
>>
>> I could do without it.
>>
>> And you'd be much more effective without it too.
>>
>> I've said this before.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
> I, too, think that was totally uncouth and uncalled for. Certainly you can
>make a point without that type of language, can't you. It makes
whatever
>arguement you make quite meaningless.

That's patient nonsense. The truth withstands any strain it's put to.

But then how would you know that?

The Plant lies constantly, and attacks when it is uncalled for. For no
other reason than harrassment. It serves no reform purpose whatsoever.

It is to titilate and nothing more. If you can read and comprehend you
know that already.

When you beaten a horse to death continuing to savage the body isn't
killing the horse more.

It just shows the sick mind you possess. Why are YOU not admonishing
The Plant to lay off the harrassment?

>
>bobb
>

I'll stop when IT stops. Not before.

I'm perfectly fine with posting the faults and failures of CPS. I am
also perfectly fine with being honest about their daily and hourly
successes that save children pain and death.

When IT posts one of each to a single screen, consistently, watch me
back off. Hell, watch me congratulate Fern for finally growing up and
getting honest, and reforming herself.

`Til then it is A Plant with no rights to expect any kind of mercy or
consideration of any kind and certainly not polite discourse.

And you barely pass the mark yourself, much of the time. You are one
of the stupidest individuals I've run across here. If you were not I'd
put up with more of your nonsense and ignorance that hurts children.

When YOU grow up and learn something I might be polite to even YOU.

You are, until then, in my estimation, a menace to children.

Go **** up a rope 'til you read a few child development books. You are
ignorant as a stump and stubbornly wedded to your own dangerous
ignorance.

You are lucky I reply to you at all, and especially to your apologist
defense of a Plant.

Is that the company you want to keep?

Kane

[Doan]

On 15 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

> On 15 Sep 2003 14:50:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>
> >The states are:
> >
> >FL
> >IA
> >IL
> >KS
> >MO
> >NC
> >OH
> >
> >Can all be reached thru Website of:
> >
> >http://www. CPSWatch.com
>
> While you, Pimp, refer the innocent, do remember you also refer the
> guilty and those that could have been helped to reform as parents had
> they gotten badly needed assistance from the state.
>
> Then there are those children that will go home to the perps tender
> mercies because of you...tsk.
>
> You sad little smelly ****.
>
> Kane
>
Sad! This is a perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy like Kane9
turned into. Hey, Kane9! Remember that you once crawled out of a
"smelly ****"! ;-)

Doan

[Fern5827]

His profane language reveals just how desperate he is.

Very sad when dementia sets in.

>Sad! This is a perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy like Kane9
>turned into. Hey, Kane9! Remember that you once crawled out of a
>"smelly ****"! ;-)

However, we have some discrepancies in K-9's story. One story shows his mother
giving him up to FOSTER CARE, guess not even FAMILY wanted him.

Doan wrote:

>Subject: Re: |Re: 7 state sites for families w CPS prob. spanking
>From: Doan
>Date: 9/17/2003 10:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 15 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2003 14:50:39 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>>
>> >The states are:
>> >
>> >FL
>> >IA
>> >IL
>> >KS
>> >MO
>> >NC
>> >OH
>> >
>> >Can all be reached thru Website of:
>> >
>> >http://www. CPSWatch.com
>>
>> While you, Pimp, refer the innocent, do remember you also refer the
>> guilty and those that could have been helped to reform as parents had
>> they gotten badly needed assistance from the state.
>>
>> Then there are those children that will go home to the perps tender
>> mercies because of you...tsk.
>>
>> You sad little smelly ****.
>>
>> Kane
>>
>Sad! This is a perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy like Kane9
>turned into. Hey, Kane9! Remember that you once crawled out of a
>"smelly ****"! ;-)
>
>Doan
>
>

Really his language violates TOS, and constitutes sexual harassment.

http://www.CPSWatch.com Can you imagine his being associated with *child
protection* his verbal abuse is on the level of a retarded 8yo.

[Greg Hanson]

Yes, Doan, in case you missed it, Kane gradually
revealed that he was "saved" by foster care, and
he seems to be livid at his bio parents.

This would explain why he seems to hate all bio-parents.

But there is a problem with that story, and that is
as Fern mentioned:

1. Why wasn't he adopted by any relatives?

2. His purported age is over 50, so he would have
been terminated from his parents back before 1970.
(Before Mondale wrote CAPTA! and started CPS agencies)
(And they started out with MUCH less power and
authority, it took about ten years before they
began developing God complexes.)
(Back before 1970 kids were generally only taken
from parents who went to prison for murder.)
(And almost ALWAYS went to relatives!)

3. He uses his own experience from 30 years ago to
describe the system of today, which is NOTHING
like the system he ostensibly went through.

4. Kane says he served on an oversight panel over one
state's CPS agency. How could somebody who seems
to rely on obscenity to ""win"" discussions/arguments
function in such a capacity? Not very civil, much
less professional. Downright abnormal behavior for
somebody over 50 years of age.

5. Consider this also: His rash comments seem to
indicate he lacks impulse control. This is the
sort of thing that CPS caseworkers would
blackball a bio-parent for. Would they tolerate
supervision/oversight by somebody with such poor
impulse control?

6. He claims to be politically conservative.
This does NOT fit his ersatz role of defending
the fine work of our many CPS bureaucrats.
Early on he mentioned that he has a relative
who works in Child Protection, then much later
he revealed his alleged role on an oversight group.
He has shown no other sign of being conservative
other than self-affixing the label.
But he also tried pinning NAZI onto right wingers,
forgetting that the Z was for Zocialist.

As Fern said, there are inconsistencies in his story.

Again I must revive the idea that he is just
somebody's sock puppet, an internet cartoon.

Aside from their pack bahaviors, Dan and Kane seem
to share some subtle similarities in behavior
just as sock puppets often reflect mannerisms of
the puppeteer, while assuming a different character.

Defending each other is to be taken for granted.

The character of Dan goes to the brink of swearing
often, and sometimes swears.
Kane swears profusely.

They both use an abrupt style, much like school
ground bullies, complete with taunting, repetition,
distortion and twisting to insult, and a huge need
to control and be big shots. Real bullies, by the
way, are often liked by many other kids, or else.
Perceived weaklings are shunned and even attacked.

Then consider that this thread was intended to help
families in LEGAL trouble for spanking, which is LEGAL,
yet Kane seeks to shout that down as EVIL and
accuses Fern of helping child abusers.
(By law it's not abuse!)

Sometimes it just seems to me that Kane Dan just
want to be their own cultic leaders and react like
most cultic leaders do when their cult shuns them.

You are right, Doan, Kane's swearing is the sign
of a feeble mind. Even a dimwit like me can see that.

[Kane]

On 20 Sep 2003 03:04:04 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Yes, Doan, in case you missed it, Kane gradually
>revealed that he was "saved" by foster care, and
>he seems to be livid at his bio parents.

I am? Where have I said that?

And I was "saved" by a sweet older couple my parents trusted to look
after me while they sorted out WWII and their relative youth.

The couple weren't my relatives and so I was "fostered." I've
explained this a few times already.

You seem to be as much a victim of careful selection in your reading
as you are in your understanding of children and child development,
and parenting.

>This would explain why he seems to hate all bio-parents.

It doesn't because I don't.

You ever help anyone deal with and defeat CPS? I thought so.

I have. Many times since 1976.

In fact I am far MORE respectful and caring about bio-parents than you
are. Look what you did to one.

I've never done that to anyone. Nor would I.

>But there is a problem with that story, and that is
>as Fern mentioned:
>
>1. Why wasn't he adopted by any relatives?

I was lovingly cared for by many people who informally adopted me. In
fact I've said it before...that I have many names because I have had
many people care enough for me to want me to be part of them.

>2. His purported age is over 50, so he would have
> been terminated from his parents back before 1970.

When did I say I was "terminated" from my parents?

You'll of course be able to produce my statements that support that
claim, right?

> (Before Mondale wrote CAPTA! and started CPS agencies)
> (And they started out with MUCH less power and
> authority, it took about ten years before they
> began developing God complexes.)
> (Back before 1970 kids were generally only taken
> from parents who went to prison for murder.)
> (And almost ALWAYS went to relatives!)

Are you assuming fostering started after CAPTA and there was none
before?

Are you assuming as well that fostering meant termination of parental
rights was a common or required event for it to be fostering?

Are you also assuming that adoption requires any state involvement at
all, or did back then?

Then you are three times an ass, assuming.

>3. He uses his own experience from 30 years ago to
> describe the system of today, which is NOTHING
> like the system he ostensibly went through.

Oh, now you get it. I didn't go through a system yet we were not
discussing a system, we were discussing an experience of being
fostered, that is parented by someone not one's natural parents.

But let's visit the system back then, even before my time.

My paternal grandmother was an orphan train child. The saga of all
those thousands of children resettled out of the cities to the
countryside was not some idylic fairytale. It had good outcomes and it
had horrible outcomes, events as gruesome as the worst you could post
about failed foster parents today.

Of course those times also had more than their share of horrible child
abuse by natural parents...it simply wasn't uncovered as often.

>4. Kane says he served on an oversight panel over one
> state's CPS agency.

The panel consisted, as I've said, of an advisory board to the board
of commissioners of a county. And that did result in many areas of
oversight. Practice, planning, funding, etc.

> How could somebody who seems
> to rely on obscenity to ""win"" discussions/arguments
> function in such a capacity?

First, I don't rely on obscenity alone for anything. I am much more
creative and with a richer mind that relies on many things to make my
argument. Is my argument somehow diminished because obscenity is one
of that things? I don't think so.

> Not very civil, much
> less professional.

Odd. How is it that I am seen by many, and given accolades by some as
being not only civil but highly professional? Could it be that I am
professional enough to treat with one kind of person one way and
another another?

Asshole?.

> Downright abnormal behavior for
> somebody over 50 years of age.

Really? What is "abnormal" about cursing the running dogs that move in
on children and displace them, or that give adviced to families in
trouble with the state that endangers them?

I find it, in fact I insist, that is healthy to express fully one's
disgust openly and fervently. It's you Dougs that operate in a
constipated manner that to me are the one with questionable normalcy.

>5. Consider this also: His rash comments seem to
> indicate he lacks impulse control.

On the contrary. I do not have to suppress my impulses. It is much
more psychologically healthy to recognize them, identify clearly the
appropriate targets for my "impulses' and direct my responses to them,
instead to little girls in the shower who I am not related to.

And to needy women that will put up with me and even sacrifice their
children for my comfort.

Want to guess how is the one that truly lacks the ability to control
his impulses in an unhealthy way, between you and I?

> This is the
> sort of thing that CPS caseworkers would
> blackball a bio-parent for.

Actually the workers frequently record that a particular parent is
assertive, does NOT suffer from thinking errors, (you and Doug both
being classic examples of some of the worst I've ever seen) and
recommends even more steps be take to return the child to them.

Judges, some of whom can be less aware of these issues, get into
conflicts with these workers...on the other hand many judges can sort
out the difference of an assertive parent from a defiant hostile
dangerous one.

That ability to see the difference is not a rare talent, except among
those that are sick as you are.

> Would they tolerate
> supervision/oversight by somebody with such poor
> impulse control?

Since I don't have poor impulse control as you wish to claim the
question is moot.

I have repeatedly been asked to come to work by CPS supervisors that
value my clarity and appropriately healthy assertive responses to
people. I simply choose to use that ability in other ways than they
would like me to. I wouldn't do casework on a bet.

>6. He claims to be politically conservative.

I claim to be fiscally conservative, and socially more liberal, with a
strong belief in the ability of parents to parent. It's only where
there is clear evidence that a parent hasn't that ability and
endangers or injures their child that you'll see me curse anyone.

**** you.

> This does NOT fit his ersatz role of defending
> the fine work of our many CPS bureaucrats.

I have a "cheap substitute" role of defending "CPS bureaucrats."

Sorry. Don't get the reference and it's arcane logic. You'll have to
explain.

Hookah suckin' again aint'scha?

I don't defend. I point out. If they **** up I point that out as well.
But then you folks don't need much help. Even if they can't do a damn
thing about a situation you'll blame them anyway, so there's plenty of
criticism of CPS and a bit left over. I'll take care of the bit, and
I'll point out WHY they do what they do.

That isn't a defense of them. It's a plea for dumping your emotion
laden self serving bull**** so that more and more families won't be
hurt by buying into your slimey lies and act against their own best
interests.

Why do you think I respect and recommend Dan?

Despite his very different view of CPS than mine he does not LIE. Nor
is he a psychological basket case, as you ARE.

He has value TO families.

You endanger families. Even he can't keep up with you jackasses.

You can shoot them down faster than he can help them out of the hole
they are in. S'pity.

Though I notice latel their are fewer of you nitwits to distract
families from what they badly need to succeed in getting their
children back.

> Early on he mentioned that he has a relative
> who works in Child Protection,

Nope. They worked for the US Attorney General's office, rather high
up.

I did have one that was a foster parent...odd, it was the same
person...r r r

> then much later
> he revealed his alleged role on an oversight group.
> He has shown no other sign of being conservative
> other than self-affixing the label.

Wrong. Anyone thinking about what I have writen about the dangers of
centralized control of families wouldn't have, unless they were sick
little ****s like you, any doubts about my conservative position on
this issue.

> But he also tried pinning NAZI onto right wingers,
> forgetting that the Z was for Zocialist.

Are you going to pretend that socialists have to be left wing?
Puuleeze.

The opposite of socialism isn't rightism. It's representative
government, such as ours.

In fact the definitions of socialism and fascism are extremely close:

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by
a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism
and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully
achieved.

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a
system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Notice the many points of agreement between the two. So when I say
NAZI I am not saying right or left, I am saying social control by a
top down menthod of governance...the major characteristic shared by
them

YOU brought in right or left and it matters not. Both share the same
oppressive characteristics of extremists.

You are one. You obviosly laid your politics on the little girl.

>As Fern said, there are inconsistencies in his story.

None at all.

Only those that happen after you deliberately miscontrue, lying about
what I said, and applying your own sick assumptions to my statements
and claims.

>Again I must revive the idea that he is just
>somebody's sock puppet, an internet cartoon.

Must you? Why? I answer to no one over the long haul. I will treat
some with the respect they deserves and I will direct others to
consider what they offer.

I'll direct folks to consider what you offer: a curriculum of how to
train cats to do dog tricks; how to promote getting mother out of the
house so one can be alone in the showerroom with the little daughter;
how to replace meaningful work with bottle and can humping in the ball
park as a profession.

>Aside from their pack bahaviors, Dan and Kane seem
>to share some subtle similarities in behavior
>just as sock puppets often reflect mannerisms of
>the puppeteer, while assuming a different character.

Great minds. You know how it goes.

Come to think of it, lessor minds tend to run in the same channels as
each other as well. Look at who you hang with, and who hangs with you.

>Defending each other is to be taken for granted.

I point out his character. It's obvious he has some. I don't need to
defend him. That would be extremely redundant.

I defend your character. It's obvious you have little to none, and the
right to that condition. Yours has to have some defense or you'll melt
into the slimepit you came out of.

>The character of Dan goes to the brink of swearing
>often, and sometimes swears.

You are a walking talking blasphemy, Greegor the Whore. Ask the child,
and in later years when the mother wakes up and realizes she has lost
her own child's childhood forever.

Low life scumbag blood suckin' whore is what you are. Or at least your
own words say so.

Don't compare ourself to Dan, ever.

>Kane swears profusely.

Who the **** would make such a ****ass, mother ****ing lying suckass
claim?

>They both use an abrupt style, much like school
>ground bullies,

Naw, I babble on and on. Dan is short and direct and very clear in his
prose. I'd like to be better at that, but you inspire more words from
me. My bad.

>complete with taunting,

Yep. You deserve a lot more than taunting.

>repetition,

One of the most important tools in learning is repetition. Consider me
your teacher.

>distortion and twisting to insult,

Show me what I distorted or twisted. You are not working, and haven't
for nearly three years. You set up barriers to the return of the child
that anyone with half a brain can see the state will not give into.

And you still refuse to marry the mother unless the little girl can be
there. It's pretty obvious you don't intend to marry the mother
because you know the state will never return the child with you there.

And insulting such as you is an honorable and desirable exercise.
Would that more people knew about you, but I don't really need any
competition to inspire me to greater depths of disgust at you and your
behavior.

>and a huge need
>to control and be big shots.

I guess I'm a failure then. You haven't moved off your ass. The girl
isn't home. The women you **** and use you haven't married.

Do you feel pride that I couldn't move you to be an honorable man and
do the right thing?

>Real bullies, by the
>way, are often liked by many other kids, or else.

"Liked"? No feared maybe. Fear is what you used on the child to get
her out of the house.

>Perceived weaklings are shunned and even attacked.

You got any blood on you?

Consider yourself lucky I don't live down the block and am not a
friend of grandpa's.

>Then consider that this thread was intended to help
>families in LEGAL trouble for spanking, which is LEGAL,
>yet Kane seeks to shout that down as EVIL and
>accuses Fern of helping child abusers.
>(By law it's not abuse!)

Ever?

Your reliance on absolutes is duly noted <chuckle>.

This "thread" (I think you meant ng) isn't just for that purpose. And
people aren't in trouble for just spanking and nothing else. They come
here and lie about that, as do you.
>
>Sometimes it just seems to me that Kane Dan just
>want to be their own cultic leaders and react like
>most cultic leaders do when their cult shuns them.

Call to clarity.

>You are right, Doan, Kane's swearing is the sign
>of a feeble mind. Even a dimwit like me can see that.

My IQ is exceptionally high, my street smarts have saved my life in
many situations, my social and psychological health are attested to by
both my lifestyle and the testing I've had to undergo professionally.

I'm married. I never had to use pain or humiliation on my children to
raise them or on any other children to help them heal and learn social
skills from the "spankings" they recieved at the hands of their
parents and relatives, and I do not give little girls showers and make
up stupid rationalizations for such things.

I was just out in the yard this morning. I was teaching two cats cat
tricks. One of them is a poorly socialised cat (to cat standards) the
other her mentor. I facilitated them as one learned from the other by
example.

And when I taught children it was to be human beings, not animals.

The methods had to differ from my cat "work."

You apparently are a one trick pony in many areas of your life, and
impose that limitation on others.

Kane