|Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

[Kane]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:23:05 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
> wrote:

>
>"Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
>news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
>> "Ray Drouillard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Byron Canfield" > wrote in message
>> > news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
>> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ray Drouillard wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > What you have done is pick and choose portions of the
Old
>> > Testament
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that
you do
>> > not
>> > > like
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > agree with.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You
are
>> > trying to
>> > > > > > justify your practice of not disciplining your children,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting
them.
>> > > >
>> > > > Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is
how
>> > > > is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show
me
>> > > > one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition,
your
>> > > > non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do
is
>> > > > avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How
about
>> > > > it, Dr. LaVonne?
>> > > >
>> > > > Doan
>> > > >
>> > > The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing
acts of
>> > > physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible
goal
>> > when it
>> > > is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is
so
>> > obviously
>> > > harmful..
>> >
>> > Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is
time-honored
>> > and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.
>>
>> "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So,
let's see,
>> the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the
number
>of
>> people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population
makes
>> committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth
"time-honored" and
>> "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?
>>
>>
>Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years,
especially
>since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to
spank a
>child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of
discipline
>in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

This is a myth proven by the ancient's declarations of the same just
because teens going through their angst and separation preparation are
so silly and weird. I engage them all the time, the more dangerous
looking the better. They invariably turn out to be little sweetie pies
trying to look mature...r r r r.

Those that cast them in the role of evil teen would do well to
remember that people will respond as we protray them.

You need to check out the crime rate for teens...it's been going down
for years, along with teen pregnancies.

The media leads a lot of folks astray.

Did you see CBS lead everyone in the country astray about home
schoolers by broadcasting a story of four families (one of which never
WAS a homeschool family) that had the tragedy of murders happen to
them?

It was a complete crock. One family wasn't known to two states child
protective services with drug convictions for the father, and failure
to protect and abuse as well. The state was after them to clean up
their act just before the alleged murder suicide.

Two other cases were clearly mental illness, and the failure was with
other systems, not homeschooling.

We know, if we homeschool and follow it, that children are safer in
those homes than anywhere else. Just in incidence of child sexual
abuse with school teacher and other child caregivers as the perps
shows that....but no story on that.

>There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two
completely
>different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to
combine.

We don't "combine" them. You apologists and spankers make that claim
about us when we have carefully explained that even YOU folks can't
define the two as separate and in the end horrible beatings get
portrayed as just justifiable corporal punishment.

Please don't try this old line on us.

>Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline
and
>not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk.

Since the child cannot determine what is dangerous from one incident
to the next unless conditions and the enviroment are exactly the same
you folks completely miss the point. They aren't afraid of the
danger...they are afraid of YOU, the more present and unpredictible
danger.

So they behave when you are around. They don't when you aren't because
they don't know what you want. You take luck as success. Or the
barrier you put up between them and the danger you discount.

>No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new
theories.

Really? Who made that rule?

I recall similar claims about slavery and chattel holding, as in women
and children as property.

>For
>all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went
bad, there
>are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and
members of
>the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but
are
>intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining
them
>for their own safety and abusing them.

Well, that's a beautiful declaration, but based on nonsense. Those who
suffered spankings of a low enough order and frequency had a much
better chance of surviving it so that the effects weren't all that
apparent, but they are there, nontheless.

Their native capacity to survive helped them out. But many that got no
more than that really didn't do too well. Look around the world. Tell
me you like the way we treat each other.

Now just how low in spanking intensity and frequency must we go to
improve things?

I'd say give a shot to looking at non-punitive
parenting...developmental support and enhancement, with appropriate
redirection. I've posted recently on this.

And we that don't punish are a bit annoyed that you'd assume because
we don't spank we aren't teaching our children and helping them
survive.

Care to explain the Embry study?

It has applications in other areas as well. There is nothing about the
unwanted behavior of street entry that wouldn't cross over to the
unwanted behavior of touching hot stoves, or not handling our cutlery,
or leaving daddy's sharp tools alone.

All without punishing.

I have to assume, though you may wish to deny it, and of course I
could be wrong, after 45 years or so of observation and analysis, that
you believe as you do as a result of being spanked and the certain
effect on your thinking....as in thinking errors.

It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>

Kane

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...

[]
> It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
> respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>

Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the
past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I
have decided to try it.

Jayne

[Greg Hanson]

Jane wrote
> Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never
> spanked my children in the past, but you have
> done such a horrible job of arguing against
> it, that I have decided to try it.

ROFL Rolling On Floor Laughing hysterically!

Jane: I supported you in your choice before,
and if you change that now.

Kane represents the rabid side of anti-spanking.

To me, only half of the issue regarding spanking
is the scientific merits. (Weak or inconclusive)

The other half is rooted in concern about people
(like Kane) militantly pushing their views and
deceiving lawmakers into passing laws removing
parents CHOICE.

As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to,
but I am very leery of people like Kane who
are anti-spanking and zealots about it.

Until there is irrefutable and convincing
evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage)
it all comes down to the parent making their
OWN choice.

Personally I think being against spanking is
fine, but that no parent should ever be told
they must never under any circumstances spank.
In other words, "never say never".

Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of
socialist totalitarianism that would remove
perogative and choice, replacing it with
bureaucratic absolutism.

[LaVonne Carlson]

Greg Hanson wrote:

> As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to,
> but I am very leery of people like Kane who
> are anti-spanking and zealots about it.

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
zealots about it."

> Until there is irrefutable and convincing
> evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage)
> it all comes down to the parent making their
> OWN choice.

Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave
states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making
their OWN choice.

> Personally I think being against spanking is
> fine, but that no parent should ever be told
> they must never under any circumstances spank.
> In other words, "never say never".

Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner
should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be
able to own a slave. In other words, never say never.

> Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of
> socialist totalitarianism that would remove
> perogative and choice, replacing it with
> bureaucratic absolutism.

Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be
physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US
society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for
any reason.

There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal
abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or
vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought
over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal,
spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote.

There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.

LaVonne

[Doan]

Parent/child is the same as owner/slave! Hey, let's give each child 40
acres and a mule! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... ;-)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Greg Hanson wrote:
>
> > As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to,
> > but I am very leery of people like Kane who
> > are anti-spanking and zealots about it.
>
> This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
> slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
> zealots about it."
>
> > Until there is irrefutable and convincing
> > evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage)
> > it all comes down to the parent making their
> > OWN choice.
>
> Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave
> states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making
> their OWN choice.
>
> > Personally I think being against spanking is
> > fine, but that no parent should ever be told
> > they must never under any circumstances spank.
> > In other words, "never say never".
>
> Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner
> should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be
> able to own a slave. In other words, never say never.
>
> > Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of
> > socialist totalitarianism that would remove
> > perogative and choice, replacing it with
> > bureaucratic absolutism.
>
> Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be
> physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US
> society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for
> any reason.
>
And the police still carry batons! ;-)

Doan

> There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
> legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal
> abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or
> vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought
> over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal,
> spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote.
>
> There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.
>
> LaVonne
>
>
>

[Kane]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>...
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> []
> > It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
> > respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>
>
> Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the
> past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I
> have decided to try it.
>
> Jayne

Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
than
I've made so far? I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
professionally
involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
families, a huge
number of homeschooling families.

Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
pointing out how I might improve my argument.

Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
share with
me your reasons for believing that?

And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or
could I
say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?

Thank you,

Kane

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > []
> > > It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
> > > respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>
> >
> > Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in
the
> > past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that
I
> > have decided to try it.
> >
> > Jayne
>
> Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
> than I've made so far?

I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try
spanking.

>I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
> professionally
> involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
> families, a huge
> number of homeschooling families.

Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying
style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority.

> Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
> pointing out how I might improve my argument.
>
> Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
> share with
> me your reasons for believing that?

I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age of
reason. This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and
makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family. Our
toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property, because
I have no way to control him. I am so stressed by trying to watch him every
instant that I can not enjoy being around my family. I am burnt out and
shortchanging everyone. I desperately need a way to put some limits on this
child.

> And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or
> could I
> say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?

I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I can
remember. I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I used
corporal punishment and might really hurt my children. But Mike impressed
me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely to lead
to losing control. Everything he said made sense, while your points were
lost in nastiness and insults.

Jayne

[Kane]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > "Kane" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> >
>> > []
>> > > It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I
can't
>> > > respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>
>> >
>> > Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my
children in
>the
>> > past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against
it, that
>I
>> > have decided to try it.
>> >
>> > Jayne
>>
>> Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
>> than I've made so far?
>
>I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try
>spanking.
>
>>I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
>> professionally
>> involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
>> families, a huge
>> number of homeschooling families.
>
>Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
bullying
>style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
authority.

If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
humiliation. But I could be wrong.

>> Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
>> pointing out how I might improve my argument.
>>
>> Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
>> share with
>> me your reasons for believing that?
>
>I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age
of
>reason.

That could be because you are thinking of "discipline" as punishment
and control, rather than redirection, engagement and support for
exploration.

A child that isn't well engaged with his or her environment (adults
are constantly taking things away and "no" saying, instead of
enriching the environment and saying a lot of "yes")tends to drive
eveyone crazy because are being so driven.

To much TV will produce similar results. Mind rot.

>This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and
>makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family.

What would be your expectations of a "good discipline method?"

>Our
>toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property,
because
>I have no way to control him.

Jayne, lots of folks have tried pulling my chain only to discover I
have hooked my end to a 220 volt line with a switch. Don't play with
me.

>I am so stressed by trying to watch him every
>instant that I can not enjoy being around my family.

Then you obviously have a maladjusted mentally ill child...or you are
among the most hapless of parents. And just to show you that I know
you are pulling my chain again, like I just warned you about:

YOU are a liar.

By toddler age if you had a child that difficult you'd have resorted
to spanking in lieu of learning how to parent without it successfully.

>I am burnt out and
>shortchanging everyone.

Awww....sure, Jayne.

>I desperately

You don't carry off "desterately" very well, Jayne. You are lousy at
lying.

>need a way to put some limits on this
>child.

Anyone that can't figure out the easy task of how to engage a toddler
to keep him busy to the point of HIS exhaustion deserves what they
get.

>> And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did
or
>> could I
>> say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?
>
>I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I
can
>remember.

So had I. It's not like your temper has to run you, is it? If so, that
is if you aren't trying another piece of lying bull****, then you are
in more serious trouble than I can help with.

>I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I used
>corporal punishment and might really hurt my children.

R R R R...

You really think you can carry of this bull?

>But Mike impressed
>me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely
to lead
>to losing control.

I'm sure he did. Suckers fall for such lines all the time. "Time
tested and majority approved." I see it all the time. We used to see
it a great deal in treatment centers for mentally ill teens. Their
parents always blamed the problems that resulted on the child, or her
peers, or the disintegration of the family...one of MY all time
favorites.

>Everything he said made sense,

Naw. It just made sense to the hapless or the little twits that
believe in it and want to help promote it.

You don't lie well at all.

>while your points were
>lost in nastiness and insults.

Nice try, Jayne. Won't wash. Go **** up a rope.

Just another fundie attempt to play at being clever. You folks are
lousy at it.

You've been spanking your child since you first were annoyed with him.
Hope he grows up to bludgeon you to death in your sleep with a copy of
one of James Dobson's books. That **** is heavy.

Can't kid an old kidder, Jayne. You are waaaaaay too obvious.

>
>Jayne
>
r r r r
bingo bango bongo

Stoneman

[Dan Sullivan]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > []
> > > > It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
> > > > respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>
> > >
> > > Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in
> the
> > > past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it,
that
> I
> > > have decided to try it.
> > >
> > > Jayne
> >
> > Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
> > than I've made so far?
>
> I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try
> spanking.
>
> >I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
> > professionally
> > involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
> > families, a huge
> > number of homeschooling families.
>
> Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying
> style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
authority.
>
> > Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
> > pointing out how I might improve my argument.
> >
> > Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
> > share with
> > me your reasons for believing that?
>
> I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age of
> reason. This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and
> makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family. Our
> toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property,
because
> I have no way to control him. I am so stressed by trying to watch him
every
> instant that I can not enjoy being around my family. I am burnt out and
> shortchanging everyone. I desperately need a way to put some limits on
this
> child.

"Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman.

An excellent book.

Just what you need.

> > And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or
> > could I
> > say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?
>
> I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I can
> remember. I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I
used
> corporal punishment and might really hurt my children. But Mike impressed
> me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely to
lead
> to losing control. Everything he said made sense, while your points were
> lost in nastiness and insults.

Spanking IS a last resort.

Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while you're
angry.

Best, Dan

[Michael S. Morris]

Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003


Kane:
Jayne, lots of folks have tried pulling my chain
only to discover I have hooked my end to a 220 volt
line with a switch. Don't play with me.

Kane, you are so full of it. You are so thoroughly warped
into some sort of myopic crusade by your own pseudo experiences
with the pathological that you see the same pathology everywhere.
And that feedback should have taught you something---namely that
you are simply bigtime wrong about it. Instead, you assume yourself
capable of pronouncing judgment on a whole culture, even to 90% of
its members (by your own count), and all we have to do is wait
a week or two, and your bull**** claimed "conservatism" turns
out predictably to be Bush-hatred and anti-fundie ranting (no,
make that *paranoic* Bush-hatred---never ceases to amaze me
since I make it that Bush is basically a 1980-1990 Democrat in
sheep's closing, and, no, I did not vote for the man).

You got me so wrong it isn't even close to funny, and Jayne is
a very liberal---left even---Canadian Christian, and I'll
bet money she is utterly sincere about parental frustration
with a misbehaving toddler, and you pull this macho act on her.
You demonstrate thereby only that you are incapable of reading
---words, people, books, or any of the culture you live in. And yet
you have dared to try and lecture us about empathy.

Look, you want to try and get it out of your system, my
name is Michael S. Morris, I live at 2731 Little Hurricane
Rd., Martinsville, IN, 46151 (765)349-2359. My place of
business is Morris Machine Co., Inc., 6480 S. Belmont St.,
Indianapolis, IN, 46217 (317)788-0371, and I have an office
at Butler: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Butler University,
4600 Sunset Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317)940-8318.

I do not hide behind an online pseudonym.

Mike Morris
)

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
om...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > wrote:

[]
> >Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
> bullying
> >style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
> authority.
>
> If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
> are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
> humiliation. But I could be wrong.
[further abuse snipped]

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule. Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
priority for you at all.

Jayne

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
...

[]
> "Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman.
>
> An excellent book.
>
> Just what you need.
[]

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it.

Jayne

[Kanga Mum]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message >...
[ ]
> Spanking IS a last resort.
>
> Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while you're
> angry.
>
> Best, Dan

Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'

In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on circumstances
outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last resort
may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if Dad
is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
totally unrelated to the child's behavior.

The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed by
external factors.

If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own protection
and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
boundaries are.

In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children that
the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how not
to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a child
anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or not
get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
resort method truly is random.

I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results. This
seems to teach the children that what they have no control in whether
or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked for
the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
which they can.


For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors. People
like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry. I
disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
_because_ we are angry.

For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not jump
on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be spanked,
not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether he
is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.

Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank. It
should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should it
be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating a
well-known rule.

I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank that
you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's behavior-
none of these things should be permitted to influence how many swats
on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the child
disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and you
simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.


So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the child's
backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because a
child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
nothing to do with it.

Kanga

[Wooly Baa Lamb]

LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
> legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support
> spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own
> property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars
> were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now
> illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and
> women can vote.
>
> There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.


You'll have to kill me first.

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

[Dan Sullivan]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> []
> > "Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman.
> >
> > An excellent book.
> >
> > Just what you need.
> []
>
> Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it.
>
> Jayne

Be prepared to learn and to laugh out loud (it's pretty funny).

This book helped me tremendously with my kids.

We never went thru the terrible two's with any of them.

And my 14 YO daughter still hold my hand when we walk together.

Best, Dan

[Greg Hanson]

Jayne wrote
> You have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to
> preventing spanking. Whatever your words claim, your
> actions show that this is not a high priority for you at all.

Kane, you ARE your own worst enemy.

[Kane]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message >...
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > > wrote:
>
> []
> > >Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
> bullying
> > >style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
> > authority.
> >
> > If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
> > are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
> > humiliation. But I could be wrong.
> [further abuse snipped]
>
> You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.

Then you have made a judgement by limiting yourself to as little
knowledge about me as possible. I do hope that wasn't so that you
could preserve your mindset. Just open in google and hit that old name
and see what comes up. You'll find I can post many ways.

> Aren't
> you trying to cause me pain and humiliation?

Oh, you have been paying attention then. Doesn't a parent try to cause
pain and humiliation when they spank-hit a child?

> I find it hard to believe that
> preventing these things is really very important to you.

That isn't about me. That's about your attachment to the idea of
spanking.

> I have told you
> about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
> alternative to spanking

There are so many alternatives I cannot believe, unless you are
already a spanking that you have't explored any. What have you been
doing all this time your child was misbehaving? Gritting you teeth?

> you have called me a liar and a bad parent.

I don't recall calling you a bad parent. Ignorant possibly. No crime
in that...unless you continue to hold on to it and grab the first
quick fix that comes along.

> You
> have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking.

Thank you. I knew eventually I would get through to you.

> Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> priority for you at all.

You are about as accurate about that as you are about how to raise a
child without having to resort to hitting.

> Jayne

So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?

Get my drift here?

And you and I are adults...presumably. We can communicate with a
considerable level of understanding and nuance totally beyond the
capacity of a small child.

You even thought I was telling you you were a bad parent...that takes
some abstraction (even if wrong) to come to some conclusion.

Chilren do not have the capacity. Plain and simple. And those that
would claim they do are victims of the fantastic memory capacity and
desire to please that child DO have. But that does not equate with
understanding.

The day you presume the Innocence of the child and start to work from
there your troubles with your son will be over. All you have to do is
figure out what they need and give it to them, repeatedly. It's the
repetition that lodges the desired message in the child's brain for
later use when they can apply their understanding, over six years of
age.

Most successful parenting methods you'll run across, even if they miss
this fact, work because of it. They de-escalate the punishment
routines and increase the support routines. Even the sloppy ones work
to some degree because they are more reactive the the reality of the
child.

There is a drive in every child to learn. And nature gives not a whit
whether YOU know it or not, or act on it. The child WILL do it, either
with your help, or lacking that some other way...the other ways tend
to lead toward criminality or mental illness.

I don't just want to stop spanking. Frankly if you did everything else
right I doubt you could do much harm using no more spanking than the
suggested three swats on the bottom with the open hand.

What is missing, and why spanking and other forms of punishment go
astray is that they do not give the child a chance to learn WHAT to
do, only what not to do.

Were you or any child you know spanked for not learning how to ride
their bikes? No, of course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate that simple fact of
learning to other areas of life.

A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been hearing about
this seriously from folks since 1976. My answer then is the same as
now...two answers actually: If the child is too young to learn,
without being pounded on, not to run in traffic then you are not
supervising adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

The second answer is in the Embry study. Children told what to do have
an out from the behavior you want stopped.

"Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."

Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.

Most abuse of children begins with high minded ideas about punishment
them into compliance. Nature isn't the least interested in compliance.
It WILL make that child explore their environment.

If you really want a hardcore book on child rearing one of the best
I've run across in a long time is Tom Gordon's Parent Effectiveness
Training. But for do it right now without having to learn any special
skills (Tom's book is a skills acquisition book..sadly) try Smart Love
by Pieper and Pieper.

Have a nice day. In fact, have a nice life. I've done all I can do
here.

The fools have exposed themselves. The ones that have any capacity for
empathy have also revealed that. Tell Mike thanks.

Kane

[Michael S. Morris]

Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003

[various snips]

Kane wrote:
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?

I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
same in my direction have been laughable.

Kane:
Get my drift here?

Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
ourselves.

Kane:
And you and I are adults...presumably.

As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

[]

Kane:
Were you or any child you know spanked for
not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.

What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Kane:
A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.

My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
do what the child wants to do.

Kane:
The second answer is in the Embry study.

The Embry study is so much bull****. My children were trained by
spanking not to run out in the street. My children habitually reached
(and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
in a parking lot. They stop at the edge of the street when walking
along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
the
sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
self-discipline,
and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
supervise them in the way you are suggesting.

Kane:
Children told what to do have
an out from the behavior you want stopped.

"Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."

Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.

This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
seen. A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
is small and is jumping on a bed. My daughter Helen injured herself
quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
teeth
all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
room
and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.

You can break a neck on a trampoline.
And I think permitting children to jump on one before
those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
taking a big risk. Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.

And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
the risks.

Mike Morris
)

[Greg Hanson]

Kane wrote
> If you aren't smart enough to see through my
> style then I doubt you are smart enough to
> figure out ways to parent without pain and
> humiliation. But I could be wrong.

This is a guy who clearly has no impulse control
telling other people to resist impulses.
He preaches against humiliation but practices the opposite.

Next he'll probably have sex to preach virginity. :)

[Doug]

Jayne Kulikauskas writes:

> > >Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
> > bullying
> > >style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
> > authority.

Hi, Jayne!

Professionals using a family-systems approach may have an explanation for
Kane's choice of the moral low road. Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood. He said that
he was a small kid and other children picked on him. Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
broke.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

In another post, Kane tells us the age at which he decided not to hit
children. But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood. Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

> You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
Aren't
> you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe
that
> preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
> about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
> alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
> have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
spanking.
> Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> priority for you at all.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome. Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver. Others would say he is a
self-made man. But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

He speaks volumes about himself.

[Kane]

"Michael S. Morris" > wrote in message >...
> Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003
>
> [various snips]
>
> Kane wrote:
> So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
> someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?
>
> I don't know how she takes it.

I can see how you do. I'm waiting for her answer. I presume she has
some capacity for empathy and could transfer the reaction she had to
me on to children that receive pain and humiliation from their trusted
caregiver, their parent.

Apparently you aren't ready to think about that.

> I've been a fan of Jayne
> for years now,

I'm not interested your adoration situation.

> so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
> by your attempts to do that.

Your "suspect/wish/hope" has a great deal more to do, I would suspect,
with your desire to preserve your particular sick world view.

> I know your attempts to do the
> same in my direction have been laughable.

You are inconsistent. Your defense of Jayne and your responses to me
show clearly that for you I and my views on parenting are no laughing
matter. Do you always lie to yourself when you don't like what you see
presented to you about yourself?

>
> Kane:
> Get my drift here?
>
> Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
> power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
> attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
> is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
> ourselves.

Now you've made me laugh. You just demonstrated to me you GOT my point
at some level even as you pathetically flop about trying to avoid the
knowledge.

Adults, and especially at the remove of this virtual medium, can pick
and choose. You or Jayne or anyone else here can reject me and any
abuse you think you are suffering at my hands or my attempts to abuse
you.

I haven't laid a hand on either of you. And according to you Jayne is
unlikely ("I suspect") to and you have not been effected by my
attempts..(of course...r r r r). But what choice does a child have
when a parent choses humiliation and pain?

Even if they could leave, as they tend to in their teen years...more
and more progressively until they are out the door for good, the loss
is often to much for them to bare so they stay and develop masking
behaviors so both you and they will not know the pain you are causing
them. Or the systemic injuries to their development.

> Kane:
> And you and I are adults...presumably.
>
> As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
> pain and humiliation. Which is true.

Well, I guess. I did so state, did I not? It's not like I'm trying to
fool anyone. I'm pointed out the similarity, though miniscule by
comparision, what YOU do to children when you use cp or other
punishments.

> As I saw it also, however,
> Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

My real purpose isn't to cause her pain and humiliation but to take
into account what a child feels. In other words I was appealing to her
capacity, if she has any, for empathy. That cannot be an intellectual
exercies. There has to be actual experience. I graciously offered it
to her. She can do with it what she wants or is capable of.

> []
>
> Kane:
> Were you or any child you know spanked for
> not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
> course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
> better than that.
>
> What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
> that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.
>
> What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
> of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Who says I deny it in the other direction. I have not said children
don't learn from being spanked. I have said that pain interfers with
the desired lesson and can have serious unwanted other effects.

> Kane:
> A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
> hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.
>
> My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
> If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
> on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
> adequately and that includes not letting them play near
> the street.
>
> This is simple nonsense.

Please write Dennis Embry and tell him that. This study was a very
small one not even about "spanking" when it began. He is a traffic
engineering investigator, not a child development specialist. He was a
stunned by his results as you are resistent to the outcomes he found.

I can teach a child to stay out of traffic by the use of pain. I was a
treatment specialist in adolescent mental health facilities. They
relied heavily on just such methods. Penalties, punishments, etc. and
I was one of those that discovered the power of relationship over dog
trainer pain applications..

Hell, in recent years the dog and other animal trainers are using the
methods, highly successfully, that I helped develope. They probably
never heard of me because I didn't do much writing during that time.
Kindness, gentleness, redirection to desired behaviors and recognition
of the child's wanted behaviors pay off big time, have no unwanted
side effedts.

> We aren't talking "letting the child
> play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
> child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
> can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
> every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
> child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
> all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
> disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
> do what the child wants to do.

And you called the Embry study "nonsense."

First of all there are no 1,000 times a week such things happen. If so
then you are unecessarily exposing the child to danger .. for what
purpose I can't imagine. I can't imagine that a mother or father take
children out shopping or on other trips more than 10 or 15 times tops
per week. It's really more like four or five.

And your description of the child strongly suggests you have had to
overcome some very bad side effects from the very things I warn about.
If a child is that willing to struggle against you holding their hand
there is something very wrong going on.

I've pointed out the need for children to experience their
environment. Toddlers should either be carried, carted, or hooked up
for safety. When you cannot because of their size then they are likely
getting old enough to teach more.

A discussion of traffic and safety is never out of line.

So, you've read the Embry study and you can show that it was nonsense
how?

>
> Kane:
> The second answer is in the Embry study.
>
> The Embry study is so much bull****.

I'll write Dennis and ask how he managed to, in the middle of a long
busy research profession working with traffic engineering, how he
managed to slip up and produce "bull****."

> My children were trained by
> spanking not to run out in the street.

Your children were trained by their complete dependence on you to be
terrified of you, and one day you will pay for it. Or rather they will
and if you have a conscience you'll suffer at what you see happening
to them.

> My children habitually reached
> (and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
> in a parking lot.

Terror can cause them to make errors that could be injurious or fatal.
Change the circumstances just a tad and they can easily become
confused. If my child has my trust he or she will be far less likely
to screw up under pressure.

> They stop at the edge of the street when walking
> along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
> That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
> the
> sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
> self-discipline,
> and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
> supervise them in the way you are suggesting.

How can a child not have greater freedoms if they learned from the
beginning the desired behavior without pain and humiliation? In this
case they do it because they want to, not because someone threatens
them. A spanked child isn't more safe, just more locked into a
response. It's easy to distract someone that has learned a behavior
from fear than it is someone that learned eagerly and willingly.

> Kane:
> Children told what to do have
> an out from the behavior you want stopped.
>
> "Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
> trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."
>
> Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.
>
> This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
> seen.

It's most appalling that you would resort to this ignorant response.
It's a metaphore if the child is too small to use a trampoline, silly
boy. Put some cusions on the floor for the child to jump on.

This is so typical of "spank freeks." The small amount of modification
of the environment to allow the child to do what child are driven by
nature to do, jump, run, exercise, and the instant reversion to
"spanking works" with little or no concern for it's side effect is
what is appalling.

> A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
> is small and is jumping on a bed.

If the child is too small to use one safely. Does that then reclude
the child jumping somewhere ELSE? Or are children to be spanked into
non-jumping behavior while developing a hardy terror of the parent?

> My daughter Helen injured herself
> quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
> face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
> teeth
> all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
> mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
> room
> and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.

Failure to supervise adequately...not that that is a crime...it's
happened to every parent. Do you think you'd have kept her from
jumping somewhere she might have hurt herself if you had spanked her
for jumping?

You'd have had a busy life...let me see, the chair !SPANK!, the edge
of the porch !SPANK!, the the back porch, the front porch, grandmas
porch, the couch, the loveseat, the doghouse roof....are you getting
my drift here?

> You can break a neck on a trampoline.

You can break your neck leaning too far out a window. That's why we
don't let small children have physical access to unbarred open windows
if we are a good parent. And spanking a small child for going by one
window seldom works for all windows, or other openings they can fall
through. They simply do not connect the spanking with the opening the
same way you do, but rather with the treacherous vicious untrustworthy
adult that has to be watched like a hawk to keep from being hurt and
humiliated.

All the while they are busy with THAT little survival requirement they
are neglecting other developmental tasks. Children with hitting
parents, even when they play, tend not to play with the freedom of
unhit children. The former lack the capacity to concentrate as similar
levels, as they are distracted by the always dangerous possibility
their parent will flip out again (that's how the child sees it).

> And I think permitting children to jump on one before
> those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
> keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
> taking a big risk.

Now you are going to lecture me by parroting me. How neat.

> Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
> to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
> act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
> them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.

And the only alternantive that you think is going to work is spanking
before that magic age of reason?

> And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
> certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
> the risks.

I love to see the very thing I've said and been preaching reframed and
fed back to me as the wisdom of the poster.

Can you really not see any alternatives you could trust but spanking?

Listening to Public Radio this morning I heard a interview with a guy
talking about learning from a dog training coach and all the trouble
he had with using punishment on his dog until the coach helped him
learn to not yell, not hit, not throw things, not to use shock collars
(a common dog training paradigm until recent years).

He turned his dog around in time.

Then he said a few weeks back a brand new puppy came into the
household and starting with the new training he'd learned, the gentle
directive approach this puppy learned in a couple of weeks to come,
laydown, stay, and was housebroken, and was loving and trusting in a
way his pain taught dog was not.

Made me think of you Mike. I almost forgot to stop for my morning
paper just contemplating if this would make any sense at all to you
and the millions just like you that are stuck in your bias.

> Mike Morris
> )

I've used the methods I'm telling you with severely disturbed violent
socially malajusted youth. It's a tougher go, but I could do it so
remarkably fast observers (and those were specialists of various
kinds...special ed teachers, child psychologists, early childhood
development people) that at first they thought it was a fluke.

So they started calling me to come to their venues, where I couldn't
possibly know the children, and they threw everything at me, from the
most agressive children (one hit me in the crotch with a chair the
first time he met me...three hours later when it was time for me to
leave he cried and held on to me wanting me to stay) to the most
passive child that wouldn't even react to their name...and a gentle
approach based on child development needs worked.

The only ones I ever failed on ... those weren't really complete
failures, I simply could not continue working with them.. not my
clients.. and once again subjected to punative methods.

As you may have noticed I didn't come here to win a popularity
contest, and you are going to see major attempts to attack me.

That tell you anything? Or are you just going to be another stuck with
yourself ninny?

Kane

[Kane]

"Doug" > wrote in message t>...
> Jayne Kulikauskas writes:
>
> > > >Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
> bullying
> > > >style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
> > > authority.
>
> Hi, Jayne!
>
> Professionals using a family-systems approach may have an explanation for
> Kane's choice of the moral low road.

But you wouldn't try a little amateur psychologizing now would you
Doug...r r r r.

> Kane has shared with us that he
> perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Your ethics are hangin' out again, Dung.

> He said that
> he was a small kid and other children picked on him.

I'm sure I'm the only child that ever happened to. I did have other
things going on my life as well.

> Kane set upon a
> mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

I love the reframing. Do you really think people are so dim as to not
notice that.

Defend myself, becomes a mission to assault children...oh, very good.

You kind of left out my age, apparent from my referances to
highschool.

> He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
> broke.

Try quoting in context.

> Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting. A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

> In another post, Kane tells us the age at which he decided not to hit
> children.

Other than defending myself I didn't before then either. And my age
was 19.

> But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
> violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.

> Family-system theorists may hold that he
> bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
a medium where we can't even see each other?

Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?

> > You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
> Aren't
> > you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe
> that
> > preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
> > about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
> > alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
> > have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
> spanking.
> > Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> > priority for you at all.
>
> The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
> involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?

> Family-systems folks would lay the
> blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.

> Others would say he is a
> self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
or her detrement.

> But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
> reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?

> He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?

Kane

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane wrote
> > If you aren't smart enough to see through my
> > style then I doubt you are smart enough to
> > figure out ways to parent without pain and
> > humiliation. But I could be wrong.
>
> This is a guy who clearly has no impulse control
> telling other people to resist impulses.

If I had no impulse control I'd take up displacing little girls from
their mothers and homes while giving them showers and spanking them.

> He preaches against humiliation but practices the opposite.

You have proof that I humiliate people in the non virtual world?
Please post what you know about me outside of these ngs, and while you
are at it include those sources supplying you such information.

And you have never ONCE seen me preach against posters posting any
damn thing in any damn style they wish. In fact I encourage them to
let it all hang out.

But then we aren't really talking about what people do here, are we
then. We are talking about the vicious treatment of children that some
do...such as you did and continue by displacing that child, sitting on
your lazy out of work by choice ass, and sucking off the mother what
belongs to the child.

> Next he'll probably have sex to preach virginity. :)

Kinda stuck on that subject aren't you? Tell us, just what DID go
through your mind when you made that sixyear old little girl of your
fiance strip and shower in front of you? "Discipline"?

Yeah, sure.

I love being chastised by someone Greg's caliber. Those of you that
use google, let me suggest, before you give a moment's credibility to
this little **** you do a search on

[greg "cold shower" group:alt.support.child-protective-services]

An admonishment from Greg about my desire to have people stop using CP
on children is, in its own perverse way, a benediction.

Kane

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> > Kane has shared with us that he
> > perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.
>
> "Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
> sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Hi, Kane!

Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes. Who
else's would it be?

> > Kane set upon a
> > mission to physically assault the children.
>
> I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the kids and
broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in fear. You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your mild
manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that you could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Here is what you said exactly:

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good deal
of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
broke.

"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight of
me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that other
bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
my school years were easy.

"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't violence, are
you?"

> > He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
> > broke.
>
> Try quoting in context.

I have included the actual quotes in this post.

> > Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.
>
> Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.

They were children.

A 15 year old 180
> pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
> ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not mention the
age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I wouldn't know
how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

> It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
> the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking isn't
hitting?"
> > But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
> > violent, abusive childhood.
>
> Really? Compared to who?


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

> So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.


I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in an
upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

> > Family-system theorists may hold that he
> > bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.
>
> Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
> a medium where we can't even see each other?


Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV label
would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

> Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?


Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members who have
received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child, either.

> > > You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
> > Aren't
> > > you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to
believe
> > that
> > > preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told
you
> > > about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me
an
> > > alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent.
You
> > > have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
> > spanking.
> > > Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> > > priority for you at all.
> >
> > The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
> > involving children -- is troublesome.
>
> Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
> fascinating.


Thank you.

You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of exacting
descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have occurred
once. For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their legs
and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description is
applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.
First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way; in
fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second, the
majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or neglected in
any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment. Of
those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which account for
around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much less
severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries represent
less than 1% of substantiated cases.

> And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
> morals police?


No.

> > Family-systems folks would lay the
> > blame on his parents or foster caregiver.
>
> Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
> of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
> foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.


I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic flaws in CPS
practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the fruit of
parental wrongdoing.

You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are more
likely to be violent.

> > Others would say he is a
> > self-made man.
>
> We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
> conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
> or her detrement.


I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government agencies
inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or "acting
out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of families.

> > But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
> > reflective of them.
>
> You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?


Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these newsgroups.
Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly implies
that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize for the
transgression.

> > He speaks volumes about himself.
>
> You speak for me now?


No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

> I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
> what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
> interesting things about you.
>
> One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
> are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
> vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.


I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me of, I
would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever preempted
folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked children, you
are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which methods
of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of reasons.

But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different. Parents
are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or not to
spank is up to the parent's descreation.

It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in making,
as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

> Ready to come clean yet, Dung?


About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us one of
your guesses. You were wrong.

Ready to guess again?

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Kane" > wrote in message
m...

[]
> So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
> pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old. After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I had
tried this sooner.

Jayne

[Dan Sullivan]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> []
> > So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
> > pain and humiliate you?
> []
>
> Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.
>
> BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old. After
> just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I
had
> tried this sooner.

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

What was he touching?

Best, Dan

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> > []
> > > So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
> > > pain and humiliate you?
> > []
> >
> > Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.
> >
> > BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
After
> > just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I
> had
> > tried this sooner.
>
> Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
being calm and consistent.

> What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

Jayne

[Dan Sullivan]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?
>
> Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
> would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
> being calm and consistent.

Good for you!

Just use spanking when all else fails.

> > What was he touching?
>
> The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
> things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

I didn't allow my kids into the kitchen for anything but meals.

If they weren't sitting at the table they weren't in the kitchen.

Get your son his own computer... a Vtech laptop for kids.

Best, Dan

[ZhaZhaGabor]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?
> >
> > Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
> > would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed
on
> > being calm and consistent.
>
> Good for you!
>
> Just use spanking when all else fails.
>
> > > What was he touching?
> >
> > The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
> child-proof
> > things there are always some things that need to be off limits.
>
> I didn't allow my kids into the kitchen for anything but meals.
>
> If they weren't sitting at the table they weren't in the kitchen.

Darlink, you are much too restrictive. Much to the point of being abusive
to your children. I hope you are just a troll and not really do have any
children. Or that they have been safely taken away from you? Kitchens,
children, are love darlink, and not to be confused with nuclear reactor.

>
> Get your son his own computer... a Vtech laptop for > kids.

Oh, thank you so much ~Abigale~ I turn blue waiting for your next book.

ZZ

[LaVonne Carlson]

Julie Pascal wrote:

> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> >
> > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
> > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
> > zealots about it."
>
> Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
over the age of 18.

And the facts are clearly outlined in the research, should anyone care to
investigate. Spanking is a risk factor that positively correlates with both
short and long term negative outcomes. So, spanking zealots have neither
logic or fact on their side, Julie.

> Without logic or fact why should it *not* be left up to individuals?

If logic or fact were absent in the case of spanking, you would have a
point. Since neither logic nor fact can support spanking, it's time for
outside intervention.

LaVonne

[Julie Pascal]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Julie Pascal wrote:
>
> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
> > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery
and
> > > zealots about it."
> >
> > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.
>
> My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
> and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
> not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
> over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie

[Kane]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal" >
wrote:

>
>"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Julie Pascal wrote:
>>
>> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
to own
>> > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
anti-slavery
>and
>> > > zealots about it."
>> >
>> > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
side.
>>
>> My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
>> and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
>considered
>> not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
>> over the age of 18.
>
>Yeah.
>
>And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
>of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
>infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
>if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
>Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
>infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
>there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
>punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
>swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
>TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
>
>Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
>is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
>manipulation and guilt.
>
>--Julie
>

I think you are just one step away from the answer:

>Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
>is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
>manipulation and guilt.

Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
children that requires punishment?

Kane

[Doan]

On 23 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Julie Pascal wrote:
> >>
> >> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> >> > >
> >> > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
> to own
> >> > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
> anti-slavery
> >and
> >> > > zealots about it."
> >> >
> >> > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
> side.
> >>
> >> My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
> youngest
> >> and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
> >considered
> >> not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
> anyone
> >> over the age of 18.
> >
> >Yeah.
> >
> >And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
> >of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
> >infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
> >if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
> >Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
> >infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
> >there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
> >punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
> >swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
> >TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
> >
> >Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> >is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> >manipulation and guilt.
> >
> >--Julie
> >
>
> I think you are just one step away from the answer:
>
> >Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> >is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> >manipulation and guilt.
>
> Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
> children that requires punishment?
>
> Kane
>
Why have juvenile halls? Let's abolish them now! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On 23 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:01:05 -0500, "Julie Pascal" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Julie Pascal wrote:
> >>
> >> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> >> > >
> >> > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not
> to own
> >> > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are
> anti-slavery
> >and
> >> > > zealots about it."
> >> >
> >> > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their
> side.
> >>
> >> My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
> youngest
> >> and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
> >considered
> >> not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
> anyone
> >> over the age of 18.
> >
> >Yeah.
> >
> >And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
> >of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
> >infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
> >if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
> >Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
> >infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
> >there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
> >punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
> >swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
> >TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
> >
> >Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> >is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> >manipulation and guilt.
> >
> >--Julie
> >
>
> I think you are just one step away from the answer:
>
> >Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> >is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> >manipulation and guilt.
>
> Yes, why punish at all? Why not simply teach? What is it about little
> children that requires punishment?
>
> Kane
>

"Effective discipline requires three essential components: 1) a positive,
supportive, loving relationship between the parent(s) and child, 2) use of
positive reinforcement strategies to increase desired behaviors, and 3) rem=
oving
reinforcement or applying punishment to reduce or eliminate undesired
behaviors. All components must be functioning well for discipline to be
successful."

From=20AAP Statement
Doan
A *plagiarist*, according to Dr. LaVonne

[Kane]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:33:03 GMT, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Kane writes:
>
>> > Kane has shared with us that he
>> > perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.
>>
>> "Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
>> sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?
>
>Hi, Kane!
>
>Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes.

I didn't "perceive" it. I experienced it. YOu do go off on your word
games, don't you, Dung?

>Who
>else's would it be?

Did I suggest it was someone else's?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

My answer to your question, "Who else's would it be?" is, I didn't
percieve being hit.

>> > Kane set upon a
>> > mission to physically assault the children.
>>
>> I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word
twister?
>
>My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the
kids and
>broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up.

That is correct. I didn't seek them out as you might notice. I
defended myself. And no, it wasn't a mission. Point out were I made a
mission of it.

>I understood
>you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
fear. You
>spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
mild
>manner made you an easy target.

"A lot of time?" Where did I mention how much time it took? Usual an
encounter with a bully, if you don't back down, takes just a couple of
seconds.

>Once other children learned that you could
>hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Funny about that.

You got a problem with it?

>Here is what you said exactly:
>
>"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good
deal
>of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
>mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
>broke.

A good deal of time can be a lot or not, according the point one is
trying to make.

>"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight
of
>me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that
other
>bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
>my school years were easy.
>
>"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
>having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
>silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

No, I didn't live in fear later. Only during the years I was a victim
of bullies. I have a feeling you knew that and searched hard for
something you pretend I meant that I didn't.

Now why would you do that, Dung?

>You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't
violence, are
>you?"

Of course not. So you can readily see that hitting children is
violence. You aren't going to try and claim that spanking does not
require the action of hitting, are you?

>> > He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's
noses he
>> > broke.
>>
>> Try quoting in context.
>
>I have included the actual quotes in this post.

With a few added little pieces of Dung to try to make it look like I
was the aggressor.

>> > Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.
>>
>> Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.
>
>They were children.

As was I.

> A 15 year old 180
>> pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and
attacked
>> ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."
>
>If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not
mention the
>age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I
wouldn't know
>how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

All in their teens. Why would you attempt to portray me as a villian?

>> It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading
of
>> the readers. You never seem to tire of it.
>
>Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking
isn't
>hitting?"

Why yes, it does seem to fall in the same thinking error category.
Demonstrate how to spank without any hitting action involved.

>> > But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
>> > violent, abusive childhood.
>>
>> Really? Compared to who?
>
>
>As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
>commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

Funny how it tapers off quickly. I note a lot of families that have
children that are bullied take them off to a martial arts training.
Usually one of the striking disciplines such as Tae Kwan Do.

>> So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.
>
>
>I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
>adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in
an
>upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

That's nice. I happen to attend a school and live in a neighborhood
where a lot of corporal punishment went on. Later when we moved I
found myself in a somewhat more genteel situation. Quite a surprize
and much more suited to my mild personality. I flourishe, but then I
probably would where I was before...as I tend to mix well with the
natives and their customs wherever I've gone on this planet.

>> > Family-system theorists may hold that he
>> > bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a
victim.
>>
>> Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words
on
>> a medium where we can't even see each other?
>
>
>Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV
label
>would be foolish.

Well, you just called me a bully, no?

>I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
>written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

That's odd. I consider many that you either don't engage and correct
as bullies of members of this group. Why is it you pick and choose
just as you do?

>
>> Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?
>
>
>Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members
who have
>received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child,
either.

Then you probably didn't have the same experience I did.

>> > > You appear unable to converse with me without insults and
ridicule.
>> > Aren't
>> > > you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to
>believe
>> > that
>> > > preventing these things is really very important to you. I
have told
>you
>> > > about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than
giving me
>an
>> > > alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad
parent.
>You
>> > > have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to
preventing
>> > spanking.
>> > > Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a
high
>> > > priority for you at all.
>> >
>> > The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
pseudo-events
>> > involving children -- is troublesome.
>>
>> Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
>> fascinating.
>
>
>Thank you.

You are welcome.

>
>You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
exacting
>descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have
occurred
>once.

You have a habit of generalizing the actions of child protective
services in much the same way.

>For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
>"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their
legs
>and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description
is
>applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.

Why is it you address me on this and not others here who do the same
but happen to agree with you?

>First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way;
in
>fact, they are not filled with children in any condition.

I beg your pardon. I am responding to YOUR claim that there are
thousands of children taken into state custody through CPS. Have you
decided to start telling the truth now?

>Second, the
>majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or
neglected in
>any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment.

You lie.

> Of
>those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which
account for
>around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much
less
>severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries
represent
>less than 1% of substantiated cases.

You seem quite happy to gloss over the numbers and the children and
the events. Very few children that enter CPS out of home care are free
of injury.

>> And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
>> morals police?
>
>
>No.

Good. One would think you are by your posting selectively about me and
leaving others, liars mostly, not only alone but defending them.

>> > Family-systems folks would lay the
>> > blame on his parents or foster caregiver.
>>
>> Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most
kids
>> of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
>> foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.
>
>
>I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
>applying family systems theory would.

Why then should I or the poster you mentioned it to be concerned?

>This is one of the basic flaws in CPS
>practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the
fruit of
>parental wrongdoing.

What would be the cause then, according to Dung?

>You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are
more
>likely to be violent.

Yes. I have witnessed it for years. The treatment centers seem to be
overcrowded with them. They suffer from many related disorders.

>> > Others would say he is a
>> > self-made man.
>>
>> We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
>> conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to
his
>> or her detrement.
>
>
>I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
agencies
>inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
"acting
>out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of
families.

You may "submit" anything you like. What is your experience that
supports this submission?

By the way, social services agencies of all kinds, including police,
are paid by the public to do exactly what you want to pretend they
aren't supposed to do. They are all, to one degree or another, agents
of societal control.

>> > But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
>> > reflective of them.
>>
>> You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?
>
>
>Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these
newsgroups.

Thank you for clearing that up. Notice you said "few readers, if any"
an extremely inclusive statement.

>Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly
implies
>that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize
for the
>transgression.

Glad to be of service. You "transgress" a great deal where you do not
apologize.

>> > He speaks volumes about himself.
>>
>> You speak for me now?
>
>
>No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

I think you pretend you don't speak for me, when you go out of your
way to try and change the meaning of my statements.

>> I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who
and
>> what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover
some
>> interesting things about you.
>>
>> One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that
you
>> are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
>> vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.
>
>
>I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me
of, I
>would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
preempted
>folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Greg.

>Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
>construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

Your statement is a hollow declaration.

>If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked
children, you
>are wrong.

What would lead you to that conclusion? I've made no such claim or
even hinted at it. I'm not like you.

>I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
>spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
methods
>of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of
reasons.

I believe that those that turn their back on abuse by the statement
you just made are conspirators of abuse.

>But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different.
Parents
>are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or
not to
>spank is up to the parent's descreation.

There are more than enough parenting strategies to cover all
contingencies you point out, the differences, and situations, that do
not include spanking. Many of the challenges children present, if not
organic dysfunction ( and who would punish a broken person? ) are
created by the parents who operate on a punishment mindset instead of
a teaching minset.

>It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
making,
>as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

At least 7 countries have made such a decision, and over thirty states
in their education departments. So claiming the rightness of an act by
calling on majority is starting to wear kind of thin.
>
> > Ready to come clean yet, Dung?
>
>
>About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
>mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us
one of
>your guesses. You were wrong.

You just tried to make out that I claimed you were a spanker, not you
follow it up with the claim that it was one of my guesses. You don't
know what I might think about you.

>Ready to guess again?

I don't guess. I extrapolate from evidence observed.

You, on the other hand, seem to do quite a bit of guessing or out and
out lying. Misleading.

You are a slimy little snake with an agenda. I've offered you the
chance to come clean and you pretend nicely that you are what you
appear to be.

I don't believe what you claim about yourself, Dung.

Kane

[Kane]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:15:44 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> wrote:

>
>"Kane" > wrote in message
m...
>
>[]
>> So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause
you
>> pain and humiliate you?
>[]
>
>Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.
>
>BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
After
>just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I
wish I had
>tried this sooner.

It is interesting to see the beginning of a child controlling an
adult. By ten or so he will have you responsible for all his
undesirable behavior, one way or another.

And fascinating to see yet another adult that didn't have the
intelligence to child proof a home with a two year old in it and
choose bullying instead.

It's also very obvious that you are lying for effect, Jayne.

>Jayne

Kane

[Doug]

Kane writes:

> My answer to your question, "Who else's would it be?" is, I didn't
> percieve being hit.

Hi, Kane!

Those who have resorted to violence against children have many
explanations -- some plausable, some not. Younger people's explanations
are usually along the lines of, "he started it," or "I had to make a point
so no one else would bother me," or "he hit me first."

If you, as you say, did not perceive yourself being hit, you may have
justified your use of violence as making a point or in another way.

School officials and other authorities you call social controllers are
accustomed to the excuses and generally respond by punishing both of the
combatants.

We were both lucky that we grew up in a different age. Today, a child who
repeatedly injured other children would find himself subject to
"interventions" by assorted species of bureaucrats convinced that the
"problem must be in the home." If a given child repeatedly breaks the noses
of his peers, the do-gooders would want to know where the child learned his
violent ways. They would project into the future and find the child "at
risk" of horrendous, evil deeds associated with increasing violence. The
violent presenting behavior of the 11-year-old would trip a lot of
"indicators" on the inevitable "risk assessment tools" the bureaucrats would
use in assessing the child's family.

Can you imagine how many little boxes a CPS worker would check off if, in
the process of "assessing" the family, she learned that one of the parents
actually enrolled the violent "offender" in a martial arts class?

Can you imagine the "risk" the CPS worker would assess if a parent became
angry during her "assessment" of the home?

"Why the hell are you checking the contents of my fridge when the complaint
here is that my kid broke the nose of a bully who was older and bigger than
he was?" dad asks in frustration. "Why are you asking me how much my uncle
on my mother's side drank and whether my parents spanked me as a child," mom
demands.

"Ah, haaaa!" writes the caseworker. "So, that's where the child's 'anger'
comes from!"

How would you have fared, at 11 years old, in a "psychological evaluation"
ordered by the CPS worker. Would the social worker across from you with the
clipboard understand your validation of why you broke all of those noses of
all of those children? Would she accept your explanation that the victims
were bullies? That they hit you first? That you had to make a point so
other bullies wouldn't hurt you? That they "started it."

In the process of her assessment, the CPS worker should talk to the multiple
victims involved. We are all sure, of course, that those kids (teenagers or
younger) are going to be truthful and explain that the altercations were all
their fault, right? They are all going to say that they started it. That
they hit first. That they were bullies. Right? Or are they, in the
parlance of children the world over, going to say that, "he started it," "he
hit first," "he was a bully." They will be talking to CPS, afterall.

Imagine how your parents or foster caregivers would have fared after all of
the "risk assessments" and investigative paperwork was completed. In the
words of Martina McBride, "where would you be."

Under current CPS policy and procedure, using current risk assessment tools,
the violent child would be a clear candidate for "protective custody." CPS
would determine he would need to be taken out of the home environment that
contributed to his "acting out" and placed into foster care to give the
parents time to get their act together.

It is important to keep in mind that the majority of children forcibly
removed from their homes and placed into foster care by CPS were not abused!
The vast majority of "substantiated" cases are for RISK of abuse or neglect.
And a whopping 103,144 children removed in 2001 were UNSUBSTANTIATED for
either risk of or actual abuse/neglect (around 25% of the children placed in
foster care). http://tinyurl.com/9psd

Once the nose-breaking, violent child was in foster care, the parents would
have accept "services" to get the child back. These cookie-cutter services
would likely include psychotherapy, beginning with a psychological
evaluation by one of CPS's stable of contracted therapists, parenting
classes, and anger control classes/counseling.
These will be scheduled during the day, so the parents will have to ask
their employers for some "adjustments" of their work schedule. The parents
will, no doubt, try to explain the "illogical" reasons why the government
has ordered them to undergo therapy, but the boss assumes he knows what CPS
does (they deal with child abusers, right?) so he figures "where there's
smoke there's fire."

But, wait...there's still more.

After the classes, the psych evals, the therapy, the anger management
counseling (remember when dad and mom were upset over the family history and
food reserve part of the assessments), the parents will now have to prove
that little Kane will no longer break the noses of other children if he
comes home. The parents will have to prove that they have learned by
jumping through the hoops how to better supervise little Kane.

CPS and now the court will want to know if the parents have "got their act
together" before they are willing to sacrifice the federal flow of funding
they are receiving for little Kane's stay in foster care and return him to
his parents. The "team" (GAL's, caseworkers, CPS supervisor, Juvenile
Officer, assorted consultants and other species of jacklegs) will have to
agree that the parents are fit for reunification.

Meanwhile, under concurrent planning, the foster caregivers of little Kane
have grown fond of his gentle nature. Since they have no additional
children of their own, the risk of broken noses is not of importance to
them. They let their caseworker know they would like to adopt.

Now, its a close call for the "team." They have to weigh what is in Kane's
best interests. Which "home" would be best for the 11-year-old? Not an
easy decision. It is difficult to get the GAL, CPS caseworkers, foster
caregivers, consultants, supervisors, lawyers, child advocates, CPS
supervisors, foster care workers and other team members to agree. It will
take time.

And...well, since the last hearing, things have come up. One of the parents
have lost their job (the "appointments" with therapists and the stigma of
being a child abuser have taken their toll). There is less income for the
family -- something that members of the "team" have "concerns" about. And,
despite all that anger management counseling, the parents seem to be getting
more upset the longer this whole thing drags out. The foster caregiver, who
is now effectively an adversary in a custody battle over little Kane,
reported to the team that little Kane is "acting out" after visits with his
parents. He throws tandrums when the visits are over...."violent" tandrums.
Oh, oh. So much to consider. A lot of concerns. The team will need time
to sort it all out.

The average stay in foster care currently is around 2 years.

ASFA mandates that adoption be considered after the child has been in state
custody for 15 of the last 22 months.

> >I understood
> >you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in
> fear. You
> >spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your
> mild
> >manner made you an easy target.
>
> "A lot of time?" Where did I mention how much time it took? Usual an
> encounter with a bully, if you don't back down, takes just a couple of
> seconds.

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF
TIME dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild mannered
one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I broke." (Your
quote, emphasis mine).

> >Once other children learned that you could
> >hit after age 11, they left you alone.
>
> Funny about that.
>
> You got a problem with it?
>

No. In another era, like today, a lot of social service bureaucrats would
have "concerns" about it.

> Of course not. So you can readily see that hitting children is
> violence. You aren't going to try and claim that spanking does not
> require the action of hitting, are you?

Yes, I can see that hitting children is violence. I don't know any form of
spanking that does not involve hitting. But spanking is entirely different
that hitting children in the face with one's fist and breaking their noses.
Both involve hitting. But it is clearly a different kind of hitting.

> >
> >As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
> >commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.
>
> Funny how it tapers off quickly. I note a lot of families that have
> children that are bullied take them off to a martial arts training.
> Usually one of the striking disciplines such as Tae Kwan Do.

Oh.

>>I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
>>written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

>That's odd. I consider many that you either don't engage and >correct
>as bullies of members of this group. Why is it you pick and choose
>just as you do?

I am not picking on you, Kane. Really.

My point is that the system currently in place is likely to respond
incorrectly to the set of facts you have shared and that system needs to be
reformed.

You and I were lucky to have grown up in a different time. We were able to
flourish, as you described, being raised by our families.

[Michael S. Morris]

Friday, the 24th of October, 2003

Doug writes:
It is important to keep in mind that the majority of children forcibly
removed from their homes and placed into foster care by CPS were not
abused!
The vast majority of "substantiated" cases are for RISK of abuse or
neglect.
And a whopping 103,144 children removed in 2001 were UNSUBSTANTIATED
for
either risk of or actual abuse/neglect (around 25% of the children
placed in
foster care). http://tinyurl.com/9psd

If this is true, then every CPS caseworker having removed a single
one of these 103,144 children should be doing life in prison
for violation of Section 241 or 242 of the United States Code.

No child should ever be removed from any home without conviction
of the parents in a jury trial for abuse or neglect of that
child, and prior prescription by law of removal of that child from
the home as part of the punishment. Short of that, the CPS worker
is committing kidnap to take a child away from a parent.

Consider the law, taken from
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html>:

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because
of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway,
or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent
or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right
or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both; and if death results
from the acts committed in violation of this section
or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any
term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death

Oh, I guess maybe that should be the death penalty for kidnap.
And what if it's just a single caseworker, and not conspiracy, you
say? Well, then we have Section 242:

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html>
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person
in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments,
pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an
alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this
title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So, why not skip over this "go-to-a sequence-of-hearings-to-plead
-with-them-to-get-my-kids-back" stuff and simply file criminal
charges? Prosecute the hell out of any CPS caseworker removing
children from homes where the parents have not been convicted
by a jury of criminal abuse or neglect. Put those CPS caseworkers
in prison, where they belong. Cut them precisely zero slack.

Mike Morris
)

[LaVonne Carlson]

Julie,

Julie Pascal wrote: (to me)

> And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
> of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
> infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
> if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
> Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
> infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
> there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
> punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
> swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
> TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

I understand that you are, or were, in the Air Force. Having never been a
member of the military, I cannot comment on your experiences. I do know that
children are not members of the military. And what we are talking about on
alt.parenting.spanking is the practice of physically hitting children in the
name of discipline.

> Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> manipulation and guilt.

Well, guess what? I'm an advocate for raising children within punishment. I
advocate raising children with firm guidance and appropriate limits. This can
be accomplished without punishment. I don't advocate parenting with physical
discomfort, nor I advocate parenting with emotional and psychological
discomfort, manipulation, or guilt. And when this happens, I recommend parents
apologize to their children, for none of is perfect.

LaVonne

>
>
> --Julie

[Doan]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

>
>
> Julie Pascal wrote:
>
> > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
> > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
> > > zealots about it."
> >
> > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.
>
> My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
> and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is considered
> not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
> over the age of 18.
>
Take it up with the Supreme Court, LaVonne. What's next? Are you reading
Miranda's rights to you kids too, LaVonne? ;-)

> And the facts are clearly outlined in the research, should anyone care to
> investigate. Spanking is a risk factor that positively correlates with both
> short and long term negative outcomes. So, spanking zealots have neither
> logic or fact on their side, Julie.
>
Who are the spanking zealots? IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS NEWSGROUP THAT
MANDATE THAT YOU MUST SPANK YOUR KIDS???

> > Without logic or fact why should it *not* be left up to individuals?
>
> If logic or fact were absent in the case of spanking, you would have a
> point. Since neither logic nor fact can support spanking, it's time for
> outside intervention.
>
Oops! LaVonne attempting to be an emperor again. Do you I need to point
out that you have no clothes on! ;-)

Doan

[Dennis Hancock]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
> Greg Hanson wrote:
>
> > As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to,
> > but I am very leery of people like Kane who
> > are anti-spanking and zealots about it.
>
> This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
> slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
> zealots about it."

I knew the race issue would come in. How about saying as a citizen, I
respect your choice not to imprison murderers, but I am very leery of people
like Greg who are anti imprisonment zealots about it.

Kinda comparing apples and oranges. One can use whatever wild comparisons
they might make, but it doesn't make their case valid.

>
> > Until there is irrefutable and convincing
> > evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage)
> > it all comes down to the parent making their
> > OWN choice.
>
> Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave
> states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making
> their OWN choice.
>
> > Personally I think being against spanking is
> > fine, but that no parent should ever be told
> > they must never under any circumstances spank.
> > In other words, "never say never".
>
> Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner
> should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be
> able to own a slave. In other words, never say never.
>
> > Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of
> > socialist totalitarianism that would remove
> > perogative and choice, replacing it with
> > bureaucratic absolutism.
>
> Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be
> physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US
> society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for
> any reason.
>

The same faulty logic that Kane attempts to portray that any physical
discipline MUST be a physical assault. And the same faulty logic that
claims that pain and humiliation is not put forth on adults almost on a
daily basis.

> There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
> legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal
> abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or
> vote.

What arguments has he used which had been used to support slavery, spousal
abuse, and the postition that women could not own property or vote?

A parent has a RESPONSIBILITY to teach their child right from wrong, to keep
them from harm, and to teach them discipline in order that they can survive
in the adult world. One has never argued that responsibility esists.
towards slavery or spousal abuse, or women's rights.

These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought
> over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal,
> spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote.

What does that have to do with a parent's responsibilities to their
children?

>
> There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.
>
> LaVonne

Children are already protected in the US, and abusers are punished when they
are found. A quirk in US law which states that one is innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law predicates that someone else dictate how parents
rear their children.

I notice that the anti spanking zealots do not even begin to address the
damage that emotional abuse causes millions of children every year. And
that is much more difficult and less defined legally, but then taking on
that challenge wouldn't be quite as easy now would it?

No, far too easy to simply portray spankers as abusers and keep re
definining the limits in an attempt to take away any control a parent has
over a child's development.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Julie Pascal" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Julie Pascal wrote:
> >
> > > "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to
own
> > > > slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery
> and
> > > > zealots about it."
> > >
> > > Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.
> >
> > My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
> > and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
> considered
> > not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
> > over the age of 18.
>
> Yeah.
>
> And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
> of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
> infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
> if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
> Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
> infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
> there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
> punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
> swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
> TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
>
> Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> manipulation and guilt.
>
> --Julie

Absolutely Julie. These anti spanking zealots who attempt to push their
theories and practices on everyone else simply ignore the emotional damage
that they tend to do to children and refuse to accept that that is usually
much more damaging and much more lasting than a swat on the butt.

[Dennis Hancock]

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
> Julie,
>
> Julie Pascal wrote: (to me)
>
> > And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
> > of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
> > infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
> > if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
> > Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
> > infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
> > there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
> > punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
> > swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
> > TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.
>
> I understand that you are, or were, in the Air Force. Having never been a
> member of the military, I cannot comment on your experiences. I do know
that
> children are not members of the military. And what we are talking about
on
> alt.parenting.spanking is the practice of physically hitting children in
the
> name of discipline.

I thought you tried to link spanking with slave owning, or spousal abuse and
woman's sufferage? Now you want to make a distinction, when you were the
one who brought up that we don't allow physical punishment for adults?

You have to be consistant for your position to have much merit.

>
> > Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
> > is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
> > manipulation and guilt.
>
> Well, guess what? I'm an advocate for raising children within punishment.
I
> advocate raising children with firm guidance and appropriate limits. This
can
> be accomplished without punishment. I don't advocate parenting with
physical
> discomfort, nor I advocate parenting with emotional and psychological
> discomfort, manipulation, or guilt. And when this happens, I recommend
parents
> apologize to their children, for none of is perfect.

And guess what, most studies over the past decades have shown that children
WANT and need guidance and discipline,and without it, have a great
resentment for their parents.

And I wonder how you enforce firm limits without outlining a consequence for
exceeding those limits? Suppose the child tells you where to go when you
tell him to go to his room? Or denying cartoons doens't work?

Children are different and each have different needs. that's the problem
with pushing a completely linear policy because you do not account for the
various needs of each individual child.

>
> LaVonne
>
> >
> >
> > --Julie
>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Wooly Baa Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> > There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against
> > legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support
> > spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own
> > property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars
> > were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now
> > illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and
> > women can vote.
> >
> > There will come a time in the US that children are also protected.
>
>
> You'll have to kill me first.
>

Careful. that's next on their agenda.

>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
> Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
>
>

[Dennis Hancock]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > []
> > > > It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
> > > > respond any other way but to chuckle. <chuckle>
> > >
> > > Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in
> the
> > > past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it,
that
> I
> > > have decided to try it.
> > >
> > > Jayne
> >
> > Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument
> > than I've made so far?
>
> I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try
> spanking.
>
> >I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those
> > professionally
> > involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary
> > families, a huge
> > number of homeschooling families.
>
> Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying
> style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
authority.
>
> > Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by
> > pointing out how I might improve my argument.
> >
> > Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you
> > share with
> > me your reasons for believing that?
>
> I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age of
> reason. This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and
> makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family. Our
> toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property,
because
> I have no way to control him. I am so stressed by trying to watch him
every
> instant that I can not enjoy being around my family. I am burnt out and
> shortchanging everyone. I desperately need a way to put some limits on
this
> child.
>
> > And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or
> > could I
> > say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank?
>
> I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I can
> remember. I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I
used
> corporal punishment and might really hurt my children. But Mike impressed
> me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely to
lead
> to losing control. Everything he said made sense, while your points were
> lost in nastiness and insults.
>
> Jayne

Jayne, what people like Kane and others refuse to accept is that the
majority of reasonable people DO indeed concern themselves with losing
control and winding up abusing their children. Their entire argument is
hinged upon their being able to convince everyone that anyone who uses
physical punishment, be it to teach a young toddler consequences for harmful
behavior, or to discipline an older child is somehow a monster who willfully
abuses children on a regular basis.

Their argument loses all merit when they try so hard to gain high moral
ground in this way, or attempt wild comparisons to slavery and other things
in an effort to make a point.

All methods work equally well when tempered and administered in a fair and
even handed manner, such as positive reinforcement for good behavior. But
they cannot see this, and it makes one quite suspect in their true reasons
to impose their sanctity on others.

Emotional damage can be much worse than a little physical pain, and much
more difficult to prove, but they will not even begin to challenge that
because they consider it much easier to villify anyone who disagrees with
their position as some sort of abusive monster.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Kanga Mum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
>...
> [ ]
> > Spanking IS a last resort.
> >
> > Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while
you're
> > angry.
> >
> > Best, Dan
>
> Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'
>
> In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
> elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on circumstances
> outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last resort
> may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if Dad
> is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
> totally unrelated to the child's behavior.
>
> The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
> repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed by
> external factors.
>
> If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own protection
> and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
> doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
> boundaries are.
>
> In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children that
> the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
> protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how not
> to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
> through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
> leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a child
> anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or not
> get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
> resort method truly is random.
>
> I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
> behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
> breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results. This
> seems to teach the children that what they have no control in whether
> or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked for
> the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
> which they can.
>
>
> For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
> that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors. People
> like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry. I
> disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
> _because_ we are angry.
>
> For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not jump
> on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be spanked,
> not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
> disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
> child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether he
> is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
> made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
> knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.
>
> Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank. It
> should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should it
> be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
> determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating a
> well-known rule.
>
> I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank that
> you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
> are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's behavior-
> none of these things should be permitted to influence how many swats
> on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the child
> disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
> consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
> determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and you
> simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.
>
>
> So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the child's
> backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because a
> child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
> safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
> nothing to do with it.
>
> Kanga

I agree with much of what you wrote Kanga, that it should be a natural
consequence of inappropriate behavior when used as discipline. However, the
level of one's anger can and should be a determining factor indeed.

I think the difference is decided upon the age of a child. A toddler should
be disciplined immediately, else they will not understand the connection
between the swat and the action which caused the reaction.

However, in an older child, and some can be quite rebellious indeed, I would
wait until I cooled down before administering any punishment out of concern
for any excessiveness.

The point is the level at which the child can understand that the spanking
is a direct result of his/her actions, and that the child fully understand
that limits are there and will be enforced. All children will push the
limits and test them, and the earlier they are enforced, the earlier your
children learn that all actions have consequences and they choose the ones
which they prefer.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Michael S. Morris" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003
>
>
> Kane:
> Jayne, lots of folks have tried pulling my chain
> only to discover I have hooked my end to a 220 volt
> line with a switch. Don't play with me.
>
> Kane, you are so full of it. You are so thoroughly warped
> into some sort of myopic crusade by your own pseudo experiences
> with the pathological that you see the same pathology everywhere.
> And that feedback should have taught you something---namely that
> you are simply bigtime wrong about it. Instead, you assume yourself
> capable of pronouncing judgment on a whole culture, even to 90% of
> its members (by your own count), and all we have to do is wait
> a week or two, and your bull**** claimed "conservatism" turns
> out predictably to be Bush-hatred and anti-fundie ranting (no,
> make that *paranoic* Bush-hatred---never ceases to amaze me
> since I make it that Bush is basically a 1980-1990 Democrat in
> sheep's closing, and, no, I did not vote for the man).
>
> You got me so wrong it isn't even close to funny, and Jayne is
> a very liberal---left even---Canadian Christian, and I'll
> bet money she is utterly sincere about parental frustration
> with a misbehaving toddler, and you pull this macho act on her.
> You demonstrate thereby only that you are incapable of reading
> ---words, people, books, or any of the culture you live in. And yet
> you have dared to try and lecture us about empathy.
>
> Look, you want to try and get it out of your system, my
> name is Michael S. Morris, I live at 2731 Little Hurricane
> Rd., Martinsville, IN, 46151 (765)349-2359. My place of
> business is Morris Machine Co., Inc., 6480 S. Belmont St.,
> Indianapolis, IN, 46217 (317)788-0371, and I have an office
> at Butler: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Butler University,
> 4600 Sunset Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317)940-8318.
>
> I do not hide behind an online pseudonym.
>
> Mike Morris
> )

Mike, has he accused you of being some unnamed, fictional nemisis that has
trolled him in the past? I have him filtered out so as to alleviate much
nonsense and repetition. But it seems to be a favored trick of his that if
he cannot gain the upper hand by attempting to villify someone as abusive,
then they must certainly be a troll stalking him.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kane" > wrote in message
> om...
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
> > > wrote:
>
> []
> > >Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
> > bullying
> > >style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
> > authority.
> >
> > If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
> > are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
> > humiliation. But I could be wrong.
> [further abuse snipped]
>
> You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
Aren't
> you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe
that
> preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
> about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
> alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
> have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
spanking.
> Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> priority for you at all.
>
> Jayne

His entire style is to vilify or attack those who choose to disagree with
him Jayne. I wouldn't take it personal.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Michael S. Morris" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003
>
> [various snips]
>
> Kane wrote:
> So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
> someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?
>
> I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
> for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
> by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
> same in my direction have been laughable.
>
> Kane:
> Get my drift here?
>
> Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
> power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
> attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
> is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
> ourselves.
>
> Kane:
> And you and I are adults...presumably.
>
> As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
> pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
> Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.
>
> []
>
> Kane:
> Were you or any child you know spanked for
> not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
> course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
> better than that.
>
> What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
> that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.
>
> What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
> of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.
>
> Kane:
> A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
> hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.
>
> My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
> If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
> on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
> adequately and that includes not letting them play near
> the street.
>
> This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
> play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
> child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
> can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
> every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
> child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
> all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
> disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
> do what the child wants to do.

Mike, you apparently didn't read his nonsense in the other thread whereby
somehow, in his own twisted mind, he attempted to portray how he calmly sat
by while his three year old daughter climbed up on a fence where an agitated
bul was eyeing her intently.

I don't know what this was intended to prove, except that he was calm and
waited until after the danger was past to 'talk' to his daughter about how
bad a situation it was. To me, he has done nothing but show that he either
is a negligent parent or his nonsense about close supervision is just
another ploy to attempt to portray others as negligent.

Unless of course, that 'other' Kane is the person he claims is posting under
his name, the same nonsense somehow in order to discredit him..

>
> Kane:
> The second answer is in the Embry study.
>
> The Embry study is so much bull****. My children were trained by
> spanking not to run out in the street. My children habitually reached
> (and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
> in a parking lot. They stop at the edge of the street when walking
> along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
> That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
> the
> sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
> self-discipline,
> and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
> supervise them in the way you are suggesting.
>
> Kane:
> Children told what to do have
> an out from the behavior you want stopped.
>
> "Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
> trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."
>
> Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.
>
> This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
> seen. A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
> is small and is jumping on a bed. My daughter Helen injured herself
> quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
> face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
> teeth
> all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
> mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
> room
> and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.
>
> You can break a neck on a trampoline.
> And I think permitting children to jump on one before
> those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
> keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
> taking a big risk. Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
> to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
> act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
> them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.
>
> And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
> certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
> the risks.
>
> Mike Morris
> )

[Dennis Hancock]

"Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "Jayne Kulikauskas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kane" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > >
> > > []
> > > > So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
> > > > pain and humiliate you?
> > > []
> > >
> > > Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.
> > >
> > > BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
> After
> > > just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish
I
> > had
> > > tried this sooner.
> >
> > Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?
>
> Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
> would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
> being calm and consistent.
>
> > What was he touching?
>
> The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
> things there are always some things that need to be off limits.
>
> Jayne

There you go girl. You've just put forth another example of kane's nonsense
that all spanking must surely be 'pain and humiliation', a phrase he's used
dozens of times over and over.

He cannot comprehend that more often than not, on a toddler, they are more
affected by the fact that you DID punish them than any physical pain, and
the lesson sticks.

He gives human toddlers much less credit for learning ability by reaction
and consequence to an action then dogs or even rats which studies show react
to the situation, not the person administering the tests...

[Dennis Hancock]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Kane writes:
>
> > > Kane has shared with us that he
> > > perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.
> >
> > "Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
> > sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?
>
> Hi, Kane!
>
> Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes. Who
> else's would it be?
>
> > > Kane set upon a
> > > mission to physically assault the children.
> >
> > I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?
>
> My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the kids
and
> broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I
understood
> you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in fear.
You
> spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your mild
> manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that you
could
> hit after age 11, they left you alone.
>
> Here is what you said exactly:
>
> "I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good deal
> of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
> mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
> broke.
>
> "When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight of
> me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that other
> bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
> my school years were easy.
>
> "But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
> having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
> silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."
>
> You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't violence,
are
> you?"
>
> > > He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
> > > broke.
> >
> > Try quoting in context.
>
> I have included the actual quotes in this post.
>
> > > Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.
> >
> > Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.
>
> They were children.
>
> A 15 year old 180
> > pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
> > ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."
>
> If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not mention
the
> age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I wouldn't
know
> how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.
>
> > It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
> > the readers. You never seem to tire of it.
>
> Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking isn't
> hitting?"
> > > But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
> > > violent, abusive childhood.
> >
> > Really? Compared to who?
>
>
> As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
> commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.
>
> > So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.
>
>
> I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
> adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in an
> upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.
>
> > > Family-system theorists may hold that he
> > > bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.
> >
> > Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
> > a medium where we can't even see each other?
>
>
> Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV label
> would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
> written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.
>
> > Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?
>
>
> Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members who
have
> received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child, either.
>
> > > > You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
> > > Aren't
> > > > you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to
> believe
> > > that
> > > > preventing these things is really very important to you. I have
told
> you
> > > > about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving
me
> an
> > > > alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent.
> You
> > > > have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
> > > spanking.
> > > > Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
> > > > priority for you at all.
> > >
> > > The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
pseudo-events
> > > involving children -- is troublesome.
> >
> > Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
> > fascinating.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
exacting
> descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have occurred
> once. For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
> "CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their legs
> and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description is
> applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.
> First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way; in
> fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second, the
> majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or neglected
in
> any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment. Of
> those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which account for
> around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much less
> severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries represent
> less than 1% of substantiated cases.
>
> > And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
> > morals police?
>
>
> No.
>
> > > Family-systems folks would lay the
> > > blame on his parents or foster caregiver.
> >
> > Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
> > of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
> > foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.
>
>
> I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
> applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic flaws in
CPS
> practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the fruit of
> parental wrongdoing.
>
> You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are more
> likely to be violent.
>
> > > Others would say he is a
> > > self-made man.
> >
> > We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
> > conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
> > or her detrement.
>
>
> I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
agencies
> inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
"acting
> out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of families.
>
> > > But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
> > > reflective of them.
> >
> > You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?
>
>
> Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these newsgroups.
> Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly
implies
> that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize for
the
> transgression.
>
> > > He speaks volumes about himself.
> >
> > You speak for me now?
>
>
> No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.
>
> > I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
> > what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
> > interesting things about you.
> >
> > One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
> > are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
> > vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.
>
>
> I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me of, I
> would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
preempted
> folks I perceive to be vulnerable.
>
> Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
> construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.
>
> If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked children, you
> are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
> spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
methods
> of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of reasons.
>
> But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different. Parents
> are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or not to
> spank is up to the parent's descreation.
>
> It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
making,
> as current law in all fifty states makes clear.
>
> > Ready to come clean yet, Dung?
>
>
> About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
> mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us one
of
> your guesses. You were wrong.
>
> Ready to guess again?

Gee, and I got accused of just being a fictional troll of kane's in another
thread, glad to see I'm not the only delusion he's been suffering.

Since I filtered him out of my scan, it's amazing to see the same, tired old
tactics being used against anyone who even slightly disagrees with his wild
fantasy world.

[Greg Hanson]

Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
where a guy had sex with his daughters to
continue the line? Lott I think.
Something to do with no other women on earth?
Does this story feature prominently in
Child Protection literature?

Because I once read a textbook case where
a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
because of that story. Child removals and all.

Do you have a monograph on that?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
> where a guy had sex with his daughters to
> continue the line? Lott I think.
> Something to do with no other women on earth?
> Does this story feature prominently in
> Child Protection literature?

Google it, Greg.

Let us know what you find.

> Because I once read a textbook case where
> a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
> because of that story.

What book was that, Greg?

> Child removals and all.
>
> Do you have a monograph on that?

How 'bout yerself, Greg?

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
> where a guy had sex with his daughters to
> continue the line?

That is not the strict truth. He did not willingly have sex with his
daughters.

> Lott I think.

You don't think: you babble.

His name, assuming others reading this have read of him, is Lot. I
suppose the spelling doesn't matter as I believe the first rendering
of this story outside of Judeaism is in the Greek. I don't know who to
render his name in Greek in this forum.

> Something to do with no other women on earth?

Your knowledge on this issue YOU brought up shows exactly how much you
usually know about anything you discuss....very damn little.

The truly dispicable thing Lot did, from the viewpoint of some, is,
that when the crowd in Sodom beat upon his door seeking women to
ravage he considered, and may have, offered up his daughters. They did
however escape with Lot from the city before it's destruction.

They found themselves living in a cave for some time and believing the
entire world was destroyed except for themselves felt they were the
salvation of humankind and they got their father drunk and lay with
him thinking they would become pregnant and thereby repeople the
earth.

> Does this story feature prominently in
> Child Protection literature?

Any CP literature I've happened to read, and I've not read that much,
hasn't mentioned the story.

> Because I once read a textbook case

Where did you read this? I'd like to see if you are lying as usual.

> where
> a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
> because of that story. Child removals and all.

Did the man of family offer up his children for others to use
sexually? It's not unknown as one of the things druggies do with their
kids to get money for drugs or the drugs themselves. Or, like Lot's
daughters, did the daughters seduce the father?

> Do you have a monograph on that?

What an odd question. Are you drinking your bong water again?

Why would you use a religious story in a post to me? By know you know
I'm an athiest. Did you think because I am one I wouldn't know the
answer to your question and that you were, as usual, full of ****?

Now and again you'll meet athiests that while not very accepting on
'religiosity' (using religion as an excuse for bad behavior and
blaming god for things that men **** up on on their own very nicely
indeedy) are respectful of and knowledgable about religions.

My college minor was anthropology. I did considerable study in
comparative religions. Go away you worthless piece of child abusing
****.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

> > Do you have a monograph on that?

> How 'bout yerself, Greg?

I'm fine, thanks.

[Greg Hanson]

> Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup thread called "Ray attempts Biblical justification"?

Because like you the caseworker was a rabid Atheist,
and they projected their anti-Christian belief into
their work. I don't know where I read it, but I
read either the caseworker report or the court case,
and certainly rememember the rediculous logic.

They could remove the kids of ANY religious family that way.

Dan and Kane: Please deny it in much stronger tones.
Then I get to watch you eat crow if I prove it.
What have you got to lose?

[Greg Hanson]

> Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup called
Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?

Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
a rabid Atheist, and this is how their negative
views towards Christianity manifest itself.

I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.

I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
the caseworker logic is hard to forget.

I might be able to come up with it next week.

Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
than that. Show some real conviction in your belief.
If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

<<<snip>>>

> Dan and Kane: Please deny it in much stronger tones.

Deny what?

> Then I get to watch you eat crow if I prove it.

Prove what?

> What have you got to lose?

I know where you read it.

Why don't you remember?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?
>
> In a newsgroup called
> Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?
>
> Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
> a rabid Atheist, and this is how their negative
> views towards Christianity manifest itself.
>
> I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
> interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
> family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.
>
> I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
> the caseworker logic is hard to forget.
>
> I might be able to come up with it next week.

Don't bother.

It's part of a case I worked on.

> Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
> than that.

Denial of what?

> Show some real conviction in your belief.

Beluef of what?

> If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

45 minutes later and all you come up with this?

[Kane]

On 13 Nov 2003 01:01:17 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?
>
>In a newsgroup called
>Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?

There is no connection between the thread and your post to ME. I
didn't start the thread, nor did I pursue a biblical arguement or
biblical counter arguement, though that's not a bad idea.

>Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
>a rabid Atheist,

But I just posted my position on religion. Why would you call an
athiest, myself, who defines himself as being tolerant and respectful
of religion as "rabid?"

I have the luxury, being a respectful athiest, of accepting that I
could be wrong...most athiests would be advised to do the same. It's
something the religionists are usually not capable of. Some will chop
your head off at the suggestion.

Now apologize for mistakenly calling me "rabid" and I'll apologize for
thinking you don't have the guts and manhood to admit you are wrong.

>and this is how their negative
>views towards Christianity manifest itself.

The issues wasn't a CPS issue. YOU brought that in.

This was entirely a matter of a spanking debate, though certainly some
CPS issues might relate. Your introduction of this matter of an
athiest CPS worker doesn't quite make the cut.

I do find it odd that I know so many religious child welfare workers
though.

In fact I've felt somewhat annoyed at a bit too much of the religious
mentality injected into casework. But then I'm more tolerant than you,
I guess.

Nevertheless, you are going off topic again, and apparently trying to
coyly make this about you....I'll just betcha.

>I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
>interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
>family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.

But this is a spanking subject thread? Why would you bring up a
religious connection to CPS, open up sexual abuse issues by the story
of Lot and his daughters (which wasn't actually a sex abuse story at
all) and go wandering off....oh wait...Bong Water....I forgot.

>I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
>the caseworker logic is hard to forget.

Of course. Such things are certainly NOT an acceptable rationale for
child protection workers to be using to make a case. But then neither
would it be acceptable if a worker used a religion based bias to
prosecute a case.

I wonder if the worker's atheism was the ONLY bias issue involved?

If it was the ONLY issue involved then the case should have failed on
that alone. So tell us, oh one of weak memory, what WAS the entire
case about...or are you actually NOT privy to that information?

>I might be able to come up with it next week.

Uh huh. Yep. That's it. Next week.

>Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
>than that. Show some real conviction in your belief.
>If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

Denial of what?

You haven't posed a question or claim to be denied, or that has been,
as yet.

What ever are you babbling about now?

Gentle reader. A caveat:

Wandering around in the barren wasteland of his fevered bong water
addled mind The Whore comes up with yet another feeble attempt to
discredit others over HIS vicious treatment of a child and her mother.

It can cause him to write to these ngs as though there is some
rationale thread he is discussing. I suspect he's just assuming YOU
and I know what is going on in his head. A failing of the addled brain
no doubt.


Greg,
Get a job. Be a man. Grow up Greg. Or sit on your ass making a fool of
yourself. At least it keeps you from ****ing up yet another family.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Regarding the "Lot's Daughters" scam played
by a caseworker, after acting very
incredulous and doubting:

Dan wrote
> Don't bother.
> It's part of a case I worked on.

Golly! Isn't that special!

So, Dan, was it one of the cases you worked
on before Kane began helping you with every
single case you work on?

I ask because Kane says he never heard of this
little gem. How could that be?

And you keep saying that you are out
to help parents versus CPS..

Please make this little gem public, so that
parents all over the United States and even
around the world can KNOW the truth about
Child Protective Services caseworkers using
this "Lot's Daughters" caseworker scam.

You say you're out to help parents, so don't hold back!

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Regarding the "Lot's Daughters" scam played
> by a caseworker, after acting very
> incredulous and doubting:
>
> Dan wrote
> > Don't bother.
> > It's part of a case I worked on.
>
> Golly! Isn't that special!

I would say so, wouldn't you?

> So, Dan, was it one of the cases you worked
> on before Kane began helping you with every
> single case you work on?

I make it a point not to press Dan for details he doesn't offer. It's
out of respect for those folks he is working with. I don't need to
know.

> I ask because Kane says he never heard of this
> little gem.

Citation please...my post preferred. Point to where I said I "never
heard of this little gem." I didn't say one way or another, as I
recall.

> How could that be?

Your overheated braincells from taking in too much bongwater?

> And you keep saying that you are out
> to help parents versus CPS..

He offerred to help even you, only to discover you didn't want real
help as that wasn't your game. My guess, given his success rate and
the extreme difficulty of the situations he's taken on, strongly
suggest he could have had your situation cleared up and the child home
in six months tops.

Maybe as quickly as a couple of weeks if you had gotten to him soon
enough, and been willing to forego your little plan for sitting and
sueing.

> Please make this little gem public, so that
> parents all over the United States and even
> around the world can KNOW the truth about
> Child Protective Services caseworkers using
> this "Lot's Daughters" caseworker scam.

What is the truth about it? And how do you wish Dan to make it public?
Will you help with the expenses...say from your can and bottle money?

On the other hand, without the explicit permission of the family
involved I have a hunch you won't see much detail. There is a matter
of privacy, you know.

And families that get their children back are often not completely
without risk of yet another attempt by CPS on them.

You still out to help families are you? R R R R R

What an unmitigated prick you are.

> You say you're out to help parents, so don't hold back!

He doesn't have to say he is out to help parents. It's already quite
obvious to anyone that cares to google on his name in his addy.

A more interesting google on a name though, to find out what someone
who claims, wrongfully and deceptively, to want to help parents, would
be yours. I can't remember a single time you have done a single thing
to actually help anyone, and most especially your "fiance."

You have repeatedly offered advice to parents in dire straights with
CPS that would insure they would lose their children, or vastly
increase the odds against them. I think it's that old misery loves
company thing with you...or a cover-up for what you have done to that
family of mother and child.

You are beginning to sound very desparate, Greegor. Can we count on
something new happening in the Greegor, little girl, and "fiance"
story soon?

Kane

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Regarding the "Lot's Daughters" scam played
> by a caseworker, after acting very
> incredulous and doubting:

I'd like to buy a sentence, Pat.

> Dan wrote
> > Don't bother.
> > It's part of a case I worked on.
>
> Golly! Isn't that special!

Yup.

The parents got their children back.

Don't you consider that special?

> So, Dan, was it one of the cases you worked
> on before Kane began helping you with every
> single case you work on?

No.

> I ask because Kane says he never heard of this
> little gem.

Kane didn't say that.

As a matter of fact Kane was far more familiar with Lot's story than you.

He wrote,

"His name, assuming others reading this have read of him, is Lot. I
suppose the spelling doesn't matter as I believe the first rendering
of this story outside of Judeaism is in the Greek. I don't know who to
render his name in Greek in this forum.

Your knowledge on this issue YOU brought up shows exactly how much you
usually know about anything you discuss....very damn little.

The truly dispicable thing Lot did, from the viewpoint of some, is,
that when the crowd in Sodom beat upon his door seeking women to
ravage he considered, and may have, offered up his daughters. They did
however escape with Lot from the city before it's destruction.

They found themselves living in a cave for some time and believing the
entire world was destroyed except for themselves felt they were the
salvation of humankind and they got their father drunk and lay with
him thinking they would become pregnant and thereby repeople the
earth.

> How could that be?

You regularly make claims without substantiation.

> And you keep saying that you are out
> to help parents versus CPS..

Help parents PREVAIL over CPS.

Here's part of an email I received last night,

-------------------

WE WON CASE DISMISSED:
Accordingly, the petitions to the extent that they seek a finding of abuse
are dismissed for lack of proof by the required preponderance of the
evidence.
The petition seeking a finding of severe abuse is likewise dismissed for
lack of proof by clear and convincing evidence
As to the remaining neglect based on the totality of the evidence and for
the reasons set fort above the court dismisses the neglect petitions
Furthermore it does not appear that the aid of the court is needed to
further protect the health and well-being of respondents children.
Accordingly the court dismisses all pending petitions directs that (our
daughter) be returned to respondents care and terminates (her) placement in
foster care and terminates supervision of respondents by dss

In accordance with family court act 1112 (the child) shall be returned to
her parents on or before 5pm Friday November 14 2003

-------------------

Don't ya just love it!

> Please make this little gem public, so that
> parents all over the United States and even
> around the world can KNOW the truth about
> Child Protective Services caseworkers using
> this "Lot's Daughters" caseworker scam.

YOU can make the "little gem" public.

> You say you're out to help parents, so don't hold back!

You've got more time on your hands than I do.

You said, " I might be able to come up with it next week."

So keep lookin.

Post it when you find it.

Dan

[Greg Hanson]

So why don't you tell parents more about this
idiotic line of reasoning from a caseworker?

Here's your chance to prove to parents and
people who don't know already, just how stupid
child protection caseworkers really can be.

PS- Please explain how a judge went along with
a removal order based on something so stupid.

This is Greg Hanson reporting live from Iowa.
Over to you, Dan.

[Kane]

On 14 Nov 2003 07:14:46 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>So why don't you tell parents more about this
>idiotic line of reasoning from a caseworker?

I doubt Dan has the time to do all the excoriating of CPS workers you
would wish. He really does have other things to do given the
information from the parent he just shared with you.

>Here's your chance to prove to parents and
>people who don't know already, just how stupid
>child protection caseworkers really can be.

I've never known Dan to do any less than dump on CPS workers in his
area, where he would know best. Since he isn't a stupid pud like you
he seems to limit his opinions and thoughts to things he actually
knows about.

You seem interested in getting anyone you can con into being as stupid
as you.

I don't think you are going to win with Dan. But it's amusing as hell
watching you try.

>PS- Please explain how a judge went along with
>a removal order based on something so stupid.

Because some dip**** like you was involved?

>This is Greg Hanson reporting live from Iowa.

Yes, obviously. It was because some dip**** like you was involved.

>Over to you, Dan.

Why would you want Dan spending his valuable time with you instead of
on helping families to prevail over CPS? Looking for company in your
misery?

No, it's that you want as many failures by others as possible so folks
will forget that you set your fiance and her daughter up so you'd have
a nice soft berth for however long it takes for your "fiance" to get
wise to you.

Write us another "Motion" willyah bright boy?

Kane

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>
> So why don't you tell parents more about this
> idiotic line of reasoning from a caseworker?

I'd rather deal with what's actually going on in their case.

The current idiocy.

And how to stick it up CPS' nose in front of the Fam Ct Judge.

> Here's your chance to prove to parents and
> people who don't know already, just how stupid
> child protection caseworkers really can be.

I've been proving how stupid the people at CPS are for YEARS, Greg.

> PS- Please explain how a judge went along with
> a removal order based on something so stupid.

I don't think the Judge based the removal order on the CW's comparison of
the family to story of Lot.

I believe the comparison had something to do with a psych eval.

> This is Greg Hanson reporting live from Iowa.
> Over to you, Dan.

[Dennis Hancock]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Regarding the "Lot's Daughters" scam played
> by a caseworker, after acting very
> incredulous and doubting:
>
> Dan wrote
> > Don't bother.
> > It's part of a case I worked on.
>
> Golly! Isn't that special!
>
> So, Dan, was it one of the cases you worked
> on before Kane began helping you with every
> single case you work on?
>
> I ask because Kane says he never heard of this
> little gem. How could that be?
>
> And you keep saying that you are out
> to help parents versus CPS..
>
> Please make this little gem public, so that
> parents all over the United States and even
> around the world can KNOW the truth about
> Child Protective Services caseworkers using
> this "Lot's Daughters" caseworker scam.
>
> You say you're out to help parents, so don't hold back!

What if parents don't want or need his help?

[Dennis Hancock]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Regarding the "Lot's Daughters" scam played
> > by a caseworker, after acting very
> > incredulous and doubting:
>
> I'd like to buy a sentence, Pat.
>
> > Dan wrote
> > > Don't bother.
> > > It's part of a case I worked on.
> >
> > Golly! Isn't that special!
>
> Yup.
>
> The parents got their children back.
>
> Don't you consider that special?

No, it only shows that the system isn't as great as many would try to
portray.

In California, unless outright abuse can be proven in a court of law,
children must be returned to the home within six months. I claim no first
hand knowledge of this except from statements from a foster parent who took
in many abused children and said this was the hardest part, watching the
truly abused being returned to the same environment after only six months.

>
> > So, Dan, was it one of the cases you worked
> > on before Kane began helping you with every
> > single case you work on?
>
> No.
>
> > I ask because Kane says he never heard of this
> > little gem.
>
> Kane didn't say that.
>
> As a matter of fact Kane was far more familiar with Lot's story than you.
>
> He wrote,
>
> "His name, assuming others reading this have read of him, is Lot. I
> suppose the spelling doesn't matter as I believe the first rendering
> of this story outside of Judeaism is in the Greek. I don't know who to
> render his name in Greek in this forum.
>
> Your knowledge on this issue YOU brought up shows exactly how much you
> usually know about anything you discuss....very damn little.
>
> The truly dispicable thing Lot did, from the viewpoint of some, is,
> that when the crowd in Sodom beat upon his door seeking women to
> ravage he considered, and may have, offered up his daughters. They did
> however escape with Lot from the city before it's destruction.
>
> They found themselves living in a cave for some time and believing the
> entire world was destroyed except for themselves felt they were the
> salvation of humankind and they got their father drunk and lay with
> him thinking they would become pregnant and thereby repeople the
> earth.
>
> > How could that be?
>
> You regularly make claims without substantiation.
>
> > And you keep saying that you are out
> > to help parents versus CPS..
>
> Help parents PREVAIL over CPS.
>
> Here's part of an email I received last night,
>
> -------------------
>
> WE WON CASE DISMISSED:
> Accordingly, the petitions to the extent that they seek a finding of abuse
> are dismissed for lack of proof by the required preponderance of the
> evidence.
> The petition seeking a finding of severe abuse is likewise dismissed for
> lack of proof by clear and convincing evidence
> As to the remaining neglect based on the totality of the evidence and for
> the reasons set fort above the court dismisses the neglect petitions
> Furthermore it does not appear that the aid of the court is needed to
> further protect the health and well-being of respondents children.
> Accordingly the court dismisses all pending petitions directs that (our
> daughter) be returned to respondents care and terminates (her) placement
in
> foster care and terminates supervision of respondents by dss
>
> In accordance with family court act 1112 (the child) shall be returned to
> her parents on or before 5pm Friday November 14 2003
>
> -------------------
>
> Don't ya just love it!
>
> > Please make this little gem public, so that
> > parents all over the United States and even
> > around the world can KNOW the truth about
> > Child Protective Services caseworkers using
> > this "Lot's Daughters" caseworker scam.
>
> YOU can make the "little gem" public.
>
> > You say you're out to help parents, so don't hold back!
>
> You've got more time on your hands than I do.
>
> You said, " I might be able to come up with it next week."
>
> So keep lookin.
>
> Post it when you find it.
>
> Dan
>
>

[Greg Hanson]

Dennis H wrote
> What if parents don't want or need his help?

If a parent is willing to just play guilty, no reason.

If however a parent or advocate wishes to fight
the insanity of CPS workers, something like the
"Lot's Daughters" gambit is very illustrative
of caseworker lies, deviousness and fairy tales.

In fact this story was circulated among people in
the closed groups and of the many people there
never did any one of them say that they did not
want to see it. If anything, it became another
example to galvanize people against LIES CPS USES.

To think that a caseworker would DARE to write up
such an insane accusation and use it on a family
informs anti-CPS people of how corrupt CPS really is.

If a parent ignores cases and situations that
don't apply to them at the time, they may discover
that later on the same tactic might actually
be tried on their family.

Just because CPS has not falsely accused my family of
Munchhausens by proxy, does not mean that I should
stay ignorant of the agency abuses and how they
MISUSE and ABUSE that angle to hurt families.
Much like the standard CPS Modus Operandi about
Spiral fractures (always Child abuse? Lie.) the
CPS Modus Operandi for supposed Munchhausens
repeats over and over. It's money on the CPS table.

Perhaps Dennis, you are not aware that Dan has
been an enigma when it comes to correcting CPS.
He claims to be for parents, but it seems more like
in a Benedict Arnold way.

That's why I was asking him to REVEAL what he knows.
He is in a bind if he wants to continue to support
Child Protection Services while pretending to support
parents against them.

[Kane]

On 16 Nov 2003 17:30:33 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Ho boy, on the off chance, even if Dennis and I aren't buddies, I urge
him to carefully google both Dan and Greg should he actually
anticipate a problem with CPS.

I do not want someone with a problem with CPS, whether I agree with
them or not on other matters, to be sold down the river by this little
twit pretending he's a friend of families.

All one has to do is look at the one family here he's told us about.

I wouldn't do Greegor the Whore to my worst enemy. Truce Dennis, and
caveat.

Kane

>Dennis H wrote
>> What if parents don't want or need his help?
>
>If a parent is willing to just play guilty, no reason.
>
>If however a parent or advocate wishes to fight
>the insanity of CPS workers, something like the
>"Lot's Daughters" gambit is very illustrative
>of caseworker lies, deviousness and fairy tales.
>
>In fact this story was circulated among people in
>the closed groups and of the many people there
>never did any one of them say that they did not
>want to see it. If anything, it became another
>example to galvanize people against LIES CPS USES.
>
>To think that a caseworker would DARE to write up
>such an insane accusation and use it on a family
>informs anti-CPS people of how corrupt CPS really is.
>
>If a parent ignores cases and situations that
>don't apply to them at the time, they may discover
>that later on the same tactic might actually
>be tried on their family.
>
>Just because CPS has not falsely accused my family of
>Munchhausens by proxy, does not mean that I should
>stay ignorant of the agency abuses and how they
>MISUSE and ABUSE that angle to hurt families.
>Much like the standard CPS Modus Operandi about
>Spiral fractures (always Child abuse? Lie.) the
>CPS Modus Operandi for supposed Munchhausens
>repeats over and over. It's money on the CPS table.
>
>Perhaps Dennis, you are not aware that Dan has
>been an enigma when it comes to correcting CPS.
>He claims to be for parents, but it seems more like
>in a Benedict Arnold way.
>
>That's why I was asking him to REVEAL what he knows.
>He is in a bind if he wants to continue to support
>Child Protection Services while pretending to support
>parents against them.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Dennis H wrote
> > What if parents don't want or need his help?
>
> If a parent is willing to just play guilty, no reason.
>
> If however a parent or advocate wishes to fight
> the insanity of CPS workers, something like the
> "Lot's Daughters" gambit is very illustrative
> of caseworker lies, deviousness and fairy tales.
>
> In fact this story was circulated among people in
> the closed groups and of the many people there
> never did any one of them say that they did not
> want to see it. If anything, it became another
> example to galvanize people against LIES CPS USES.
>
> To think that a caseworker would DARE to write up
> such an insane accusation and use it on a family
> informs anti-CPS people of how corrupt CPS really is.
>
> If a parent ignores cases and situations that
> don't apply to them at the time, they may discover
> that later on the same tactic might actually
> be tried on their family.
>
> Just because CPS has not falsely accused my family of
> Munchhausens by proxy, does not mean that I should
> stay ignorant of the agency abuses and how they
> MISUSE and ABUSE that angle to hurt families.
> Much like the standard CPS Modus Operandi about
> Spiral fractures (always Child abuse? Lie.) the
> CPS Modus Operandi for supposed Munchhausens
> repeats over and over. It's money on the CPS table.
>
> Perhaps Dennis, you are not aware that Dan has
> been an enigma when it comes to correcting CPS.

You can attempt to explain that, Greg.

> He claims to be for parents, but it seems more like
> in a Benedict Arnold way.

Explain this statement of yours, too, Greg.

> That's why I was asking him to REVEAL what he knows.

I have years (since 1987) of knowledge on how to beat CPS.

I'm not gonna write my autobiography.

> He is in a bind if he wants to continue to support
> Child Protection Services while pretending to support
> parents against them.

Where and when did I support CPS, Greg?

I have prevailed over CPS dozens of times... in my cases and other peoples.

And I've helped get more than a few children out of FC.

From Cathy, last night's email,

------

Dan,

Life couldn't be better right now. I wouldn't have made it without you and I
am so very grateful. Thank you for all the positive you have given me.

-------

Drop dead, Greg.

The world will be a better place.

[Greg Hanson]

Post more info about the CPS deception to get a
psych eval and a child removal using the crud
about Lot's Daughters to slam a religious family.

I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

After all, if you really want to HELP families, that
little gambit should be listed in the Tricks of The Trade,
so people can see the Modus Operandi of Child Protection.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Post more info about the CPS deception to get a
> psych eval and a child removal using the crud
> about Lot's Daughters to slam a religious family.

Who are ya talking to, Greg?

> I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
> that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
> don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

".... said obvious spew..."

Is that a legal term, Greg?

> After all, if you really want to HELP families, that
> little gambit should be listed in the Tricks of The Trade,
> so people can see the Modus Operandi of Child Protection.

Who are ya talking to, Greg?

[Greg Hanson]

Michael S. Morris wrote
> If this is true, then every CPS caseworker having removed a single
> one of these 103,144 children should be doing life in prison
> for violation of Section 241 or 242 of the United States Code.
>
> No child should ever be removed from any home without conviction
> of the parents in a jury trial for abuse or neglect of that
> child, and prior prescription by law of removal of that child from
> the home as part of the punishment. Short of that, the CPS worker
> is committing kidnap to take a child away from a parent.

You mentioned 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
and 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Don't forget 42 USC 14141 Pattern and Practice

Plus Child Protection caseworkers commonly retaliate if people file in
court (1st Amendment right to seek peaceful redress of grievances)

14th Amendment right to Family Association (need extreme justification
to abrogate this, not just "at risk of maybe someday?"

4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure
(Therapy which is not therapy but more witch hunting)

4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure
(If they refuse to give standards for home inspections)
(Home inspection is a search warrant lacking required specifics.)
(AKA "Fishing Expedition")

6th ("Walking 6th" Public Pretenders doing stipulation Judas thing.)

6th Various failures to provide process that it due.
(Many many items in Welfare Code, Reasonable Efforts etc.)

14th right to have
unpopular views re spanking, caseworkers or social workers

And the part you mentioned about a JURY is only done
in certain circumstances in one or two states.

They get around that by saying that you are not charged
with a crime, therefore you don't get the protections.
(Even though Child Removal is an issue that treads on
LIBERTY INTEREST, the main REASON for jury trials on
the criminal side. People need to raise more heck
about the fact this is not a PETTY affair, but a
LIBERTY INTEREST issue and so should be afforded full
constitutional protections.)

> So, why not skip over this "go-to-a sequence-of-hearings-to-plead
> -with-them-to-get-my-kids-back" stuff and simply file criminal
> charges? Prosecute the hell out of any CPS caseworker removing
> children from homes where the parents have not been convicted
> by a jury of criminal abuse or neglect. Put those CPS caseworkers
> in prison, where they belong. Cut them precisely zero slack.

Possible, but there is a lot of resistance from Judges
in Federal Courts who don't want to overrule state courts.

Another barrier is the States cloak their Child Protection
caseworkers in qualified immunity and for some things they
have absolute immunity. (States rights issue vs. Citizens Rights?)
But it is also said that an agency has no Civil Rights.

The best chances seem to be using Ch (42?) USC 1983 and 1985
to sue for civil rights violations.

Citizens who know their legal rights in general,
are in for a major shock if they tangle with
Juvenile Court. Standard of evidence is gossip,
innuendo, and "preponderance of evidence" which says
that because they slung a pile of mud, and most of
pile of mud is against you, you lose. They barely
if ever sling mud in your favor. This is said to be
a violation of 6th Amendment right to due process
because of "abuse of preponderance standard".

I am NOT an attorney, and proud of not to be.
There are others who know vastly more than me,
both inside and outside of the priesthood of law.
Use this information at your own peril.

Please consult CPSWATCH or Profane-Justice websites.

[Greg Hanson]

> > I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
> > that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
> > don't throw said obvious spew out of court.
>
> ".... said obvious spew..."

For example: Caseworker said that I stood around outside
their building "in an intimidating manner" for hours.
Supposedly caseworkers spent HOURS watching some guy
standing around outside of their building.
They say it was me.

1. Not true.
2. No witness provided
3. It's a large public building.
4. I did visit a congressman's office in that building.
I was never near that building for hours.
5. Even if it WERE true, it's a LEGAL and Constitutionally
protected activity. 1st Amendment no less.
6. When I DO stand around outside their building I
will be carrying a picket sign which they
will no doubt find to be "intimidating".
7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
their 3rd floor offices.
8. The complaint is more interesting because
it makes apparent their interest in violating
people's constitutional rights.
9. Which caseworker had HOURS to waste on watching
somebody on the sidewalk below their windows?


But why didn't the JUDGE throw this out of court
based on number 5?

Why should a person prove or disprove something
that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

The Judge should have thrown it out based
on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

[Kane]

On 19 Nov 2003 16:54:16 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> > I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
>> > that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
>> > don't throw said obvious spew out of court.
>>
>> ".... said obvious spew..."
>
>For example: Caseworker said that I stood around outside
>their building "in an intimidating manner" for hours.
>Supposedly caseworkers spent HOURS watching some guy
>standing around outside of their building.
>They say it was me.
>
>1. Not true.

Oh, we believe you good buddy.

>2. No witness provided

They weren't charging you, were they? What would witnesses be used
for?

>3. It's a large public building.

Yep.

>4. I did visit a congressman's office in that building.

Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long ago about habitual neurotic
liars, they seem to, so they can believe it themselves and get that oh
so convincing look on their faces, always make part of the lie
factual. It helps them in their disgusting practices.

> I was never near that building for hours.

MmmmmHmmmmmm. Of course not. Technically.

>5. Even if it WERE true, it's a LEGAL and Constitutionally
> protected activity. 1st Amendment no less.

Why yes it is. Were you asked to leave or in anyway hindered or
hampered from being there?

And believe it or not state employees are covered and protected by the
same amendment....they get to remark that they saw you standing around
outside the building. Or do you think only non-state employees have or
should have any rights?

>6. When I DO stand around outside their building I
> will be carrying a picket sign which they
> will no doubt find to be "intimidating".

No doubt. And as long as you do it in a legal manner under local
statutes your 1st amendments rights will be protected. You may even,
if there is no local law, pull your pants down and exhibit, by your
bent over stance, where you store your brains ( * )

>7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
> obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
> their 3rd floor offices.

Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to their offices all
day long without a break. With those heavy caseloads I'm not
surprized.

>8. The complaint is more interesting because
> it makes apparent their interest in violating
> people's constitutional rights.

And in their complaint did they specify they wanted some authority to
come and take you away or force you away?

>9. Which caseworker had HOURS to waste on watching
> somebody on the sidewalk below their windows?

Well, it would be kind of hard to speculate that on those few
occasions they looked and found you there that you just happened to be
there throughout the hours. But then you are a remarkably strange
character that is in places he shouldn't be so very often, towelboying
and shampoogirling and all.

>But why didn't the JUDGE throw this out of court
>based on number 5?

How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do? You weren't there. If
it's in a document, like a legal finding you will find somewhere to
publish it so we can see the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
stand around in a public place for hours, won't you?

>Why should a person prove or disprove something
>that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

Were you asked to prove it or disprove it? Did you go to jail for it?

>The Judge should have thrown it out based
>on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

There is no obvious conflict unless you were in any way subject to
confinement or ejection. Were you?

Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl? Was it one of the
factors? Was it even a sneeze?

>It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

Actually no it isn't. It's part of their job to make a judicial
judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous asshole and they might
look at all kinds of perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
make the judgement from.

It's perfectly legal to stand around outside a school ground and watch
the girls soccer team practice too. If you do it for hours and hours
and you also are going to court for molesting children it might well
be brought up.

Is that an abrigement of your 1st amendment?

You are only 13 years old aren't you? Well, developmentally.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

> >1. Not true.
> Oh, we believe you good buddy.
Who is "we" Kane? You and your socks?

> >2. No witness provided
> They weren't charging you, were they?
> What would witnesses be used for?
TPR hearing.

> Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long
> ago about habitual neurotic liars, they
> seem to, so they can believe it themselves
> and get that oh so convincing look on their
> faces, always make part of the lie factual.
> It helps them in their disgusting practices.

This does explain a LOT about you, Commander McBrag.

> >7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
> > obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
> > their 3rd floor offices.
>
> Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to
> their offices all day long without a break. With
> those heavy caseloads I'm not surprized.

Umm. They're Unionized. What makes you think they
"are confined to their offices all day long without a break"?

And what the HECK does that have to do with the
window ledges and visibility?


> How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do?
> You weren't there.
I was in attendance at the TPR.

> If it's in a document, like a legal finding you
> will find somewhere to publish it so we can see
> the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
> stand around in a public place for hours,
> won't you?

Are they going to make such records public?

> >Why should a person prove or disprove something
> >that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?
>
> Were you asked to prove it or disprove it?
> Did you go to jail for it?

No, It was just used to villify me in a TPR hearing.
Because LIBERTY INTEREST involved, comparable to jail.

> >The Judge should have thrown it out based
> >on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.
>
> There is no obvious conflict unless you were
> in any way subject to confinement or ejection.
> Were you?

It is unconstitutional for them to seek revenge
for somebody exercising their Constitutional rights.

> Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl?

Brought up in TPR hearing.
> Was it one of the factors? Was it even a sneeze?
>
> >It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.
>
> Actually no it isn't.

Judges take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.
One of their duties in Juvenile Court as in ANY court
is to safeguard people's rights. It's their job.
I know, you thought they were only supposd to be
a rubber stamp for CPS, which they often are, but
they are SUPPOSED to have a duty to protect people's
constitutional rights.

> It's part of their job to make a judicial
> judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous
> [e.d.] and they might look at all kinds of
> perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
> make the judgement from.

Well, The Judge ruled there is no danger in our home.
That includes me.

> It's perfectly legal to stand around outside
> a school ground and watch the girls soccer
> team practice too. If you do it for hours and
> hours and you also are going to court for
> molesting children it might well be brought up.

I have absolutely no such history.
Their implication that I do is a major issue of course.

Even for some real pervert, if it does not violate
a court order, parole or probation requirements,
it might even be a constitutional violation in their
case. Constitutioanl freedoms don't exist only
when the media public see fit. The real test is
in situations that make people uncomfortable.

[Kane]

On 19 Nov 2003 23:51:18 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> >1. Not true.
>> Oh, we believe you good buddy.
>Who is "we" Kane? You and your socks?

I just happen to have no socks on this morning. Why do you ask?
You have a thing about socks I noticed. Rather fond of them, and them
of you.

>> >2. No witness provided
>> They weren't charging you, were they?
>> What would witnesses be used for?
>TPR hearing.

Then there is no constitutional issue. YOU are not a party to the
case, but just evidence. Interesting you'd see yourself, with no legal
status whatsoever regarding the child or the mother ("fiance's" and
gigolos aren't, you know) as having YOUR constitutional rights
abridged. Rights to What, the right to spank and shower a little girl
not related to you by blood or marriage or adoption?

>> Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long
>> ago about habitual neurotic liars, they
>> seem to, so they can believe it themselves
>> and get that oh so convincing look on their
>> faces, always make part of the lie factual.
>> It helps them in their disgusting practices.
>
>This does explain a LOT about you, Commander McBrag.

Gosh, what a withering comeback. I'm just devastated. R R R R

>> >7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
>> > obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
>> > their 3rd floor offices.
>>
>> Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to
>> their offices all day long without a break. With
>> those heavy caseloads I'm not surprized.
>
>Umm. They're Unionized. What makes you think they
>"are confined to their offices all day long without a break"?

That WAS my point, scummy dummy. They aren't chained to their desks so
they would have ample opportunity to go out for coffee, or leave the
building on state business, like monitoring placements in foster care,
or visiting families receiving in-home services, or doing protective
service abuse allegation investigations.

Since they often carry cell phones I can just imagine, after they have
gotten to their state or county or their own car, that call back to
the office: "He's baaaaaaaaaack." "Oh, nothing, just standing there
staring at our office with one hand in his pocket jiggling and the
other making faucet turning motions, weird huh?" and then laughing her
or his ass off as they leave to go about their WORK, something you
never have had to do for the past 2.5 years.

>And what the HECK does that have to do with the
>window ledges and visibility?

You brought that up. If you are referring to your view of them, then
yes, you really ARE a weirdo. If you are referring to their view of
you...then see above.

>> How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do?
>> You weren't there.

>I was in attendance at the TPR.

I suspect the court was dying to see the author of the Motion, that
they knew the mother couldn't have written herself. They let you in
did they? How nice of them...R R R R R

I can imagine they all now suffer from high blood pressure from the
effects of holding in their laughter when they final got to see the
cretin that showers and shampoos and dries little girls they aren't
related to, and that writes the idiocy in that Motion.

Just to refresh your memory why don't you go back and read it now. I
mean even you must have grown up a little in the past 2 years or so
and can see the outlandish humor, and the underlying viciousness of
the scummy person that would write such a thing ensuring the loss of a
child by her mother.

>> If it's in a document, like a legal finding you
>> will find somewhere to publish it so we can see
>> the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
>> stand around in a public place for hours,
>> won't you?
>
>Are they going to make such records public?

Yah got me. I understand from what Dan's posted here that the results
of a TPR are usually given to the defendant in printed form.

Ask your "fiance" for her copy and then see if you can find a 12 year
old to show you how to use a scanner...then take the graphic and put
it up on a website somewhere...the 12 year old will steer yah right on
that too.

>> >Why should a person prove or disprove something
>> >that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?
>>
>> Were you asked to prove it or disprove it?
>> Did you go to jail for it?
>
>No, It was just used to villify me in a TPR hearing.

Like we villify you here? R R R R

You mean they discussed issues just like we do here...like what WERE
you doing in that bathroom, towel in one hand...and who knows what you
were doing with the other?

Like why can't a 6 year old proportedly bright little girl get the
shampoo out of her own hair? Or find a towel for herself? Or have it
given to her BEFORE she goes to shower? Or why the bathroom doesn't
have a supply of towels like most households?

You give away sooooo much when you post, Greegor....so much.

Like why would a grown male who spanks a little girl not understand
the terror and confusion that could result in her wetting herself?

Like why did the events conveniently lead to the shower, then to the
removal, then the Motion that most definately screwed the mom out of
any chance of getting her child back with that vicious little *******
squatting in her home?

>Because LIBERTY INTEREST involved, comparable to jail.

What liberty interest was that? The right to shower little girls? The
right to threaten the child? (Just being there was a threat). The
right to use her space, and alienate her mother from her? Those
liberty interests?

And would you mind, when you answer, explaining how they are
comparable to jail, and how you would know what is or isn't comparable
to jail?

Apparently the judge thought something was amiss in that household
that put the child at risk. I wonder what it could have been, really?

>> >The Judge should have thrown it out based
>> >on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.
>>
>> There is no obvious conflict unless you were
>> in any way subject to confinement or ejection.
>> Were you?
>
>It is unconstitutional for them to seek revenge
>for somebody exercising their Constitutional rights.

And they have caused you harm how again? In their vicious revenge
against a simple assed child abuser that admits his mean behavior
toward the child right her in these ngs?

Greegor the Whore, you couldn't have arranged your soft berth any
better than if you had planned it.....hmmmm, wait, it DOES look like
you might have.

Tell us, Geegor, how many times have you done this before?

>> Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl?
>
>Brought up in TPR hearing.

The YOUR rights aren't the question, now are they? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
PARENTAL RIGHT'S ASSHOLE AND YOU HAVE AVOIDED EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
WANTING THEM NOT MARRYING THE MOTHER RIGHT ****IN' NOW, haven't you?

The mother's rights might just be, but we can be sure the rights of
the child were considered pretty carefully. I'll bet she sighed a sigh
of relief when she learned she was NOT going to have to return to the
tender mercies of the spanking, shower pushing in, pervert that had
invaded her home and taken her needy and probably stupid mother away
from her.

>> Was it one of the factors? Was it even a sneeze?
>>
>> >It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.
>>
>> Actually no it isn't.
>
>Judges take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

That's correct. You haven't shown us ANY proof that the judge in the
mother's case didn't uphold it. Zip. Zero. Nada.

We are waiting.

YOU being inconvenienced, YOU being used as an example of the mother's
inability to protect her child, YOU being used as evidence of
monumental parental stupidity isn't an abrogation of YOUR rights,
dummy, nor of the mother's. Just evidence. No charges are being made
against you or her, other than having a pedophile as a houseguest,
right? Or maybe I'm wrong, but we'll never really know because Greegor
the Whore will diddle the truth as surely as he idly diddles the
keyboard.

>One of their duties in Juvenile Court as in ANY court
>is to safeguard people's rights.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you?

>It's their job.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you?

>I know, you thought they were only supposd to be
>a rubber stamp for CPS, which they often are, but
>they are SUPPOSED to have a duty to protect people's
>constitutional rights.

The rubber stamp bull**** is just that. In the course of caseworkers
doing exactly what they are supposed to do they very often do it
exactly right, hence the judge has no recourse to do anything but
agree. Have you sat through case after case in family court, as I
have, and seen what happens when a caseworker screws the pooch on a
case?

It ain't purdy man. The judge just doesn't rubber stamp those botched
cases...they might stamp the head of the worker but not the case...and
when they have really screwed up good and there WAS NO ****ING CASE
bad things happen to caseworkers. Ask Dan, the rascal has been the
cause of a couple of those reamings and removals I hear.

>> It's part of their job to make a judicial
>> judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous
>> [e.d.] and they might look at all kinds of
>> perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
>> make the judgement from.
>
>Well, The Judge ruled there is no danger in our home.
>That includes me.

Well then, what are you bitchin' about? Everyone's rights were
protected, eh?

So tell us. If there was a ruling of NO danger in "our" home (my you
are presumptuous...I hope your "fiance" doesn't read this) then pray
tell why did the judge not order the child home?

Just what were the grounds for removal? Have you ever shared that with
us, Greegor?

And what WAS the outcome of the TPR? Have you shared that, Greegor?

And if the family (the mother, not you, you aren't family) was
assigned services, that is a plan, how's it going?

Why isn't that child back home, Greegor?

You couldn't even contain your deep need to be the child and be taken
care of by "mommy" when you were in the classroom taking a parenting
training class could you? Couldn't keep your stupid mouth shut and let
the mother have a win against CPS, could you?

You are sooooooooo obvious.

"I have my rights no matter what it costs my "fiance" I will."

Asshole.

>> It's perfectly legal to stand around outside
>> a school ground and watch the girls soccer
>> team practice too. If you do it for hours and
>> hours and you also are going to court for
>> molesting children it might well be brought up.
>
>I have absolutely no such history.

We are most pleased to hear that. Playing softball then?
R R R R R

>Their implication that I do is a major issue of course.

Oh! What an interesting revelation. Can you explain how their
implication plays into their decision that "our" home is a safe, "no
danger" home then?

You must see how we might be confused at the inconsistency and
rambling nature of your disclosures, that seem to come spread waaaaay
out over two years or so, a bit here, then a bit there, a disclosure
now and then, then silence, then another disclosure, or claim or
whatever.

It makes it seem as though you are dreaming things up as you go along.
Tsk. You wouldn't do that would you?

>Even for some real pervert,

As apposed to to an unreal one?

>if it does not violate
>a court order, parole or probation requirements,
>it might even be a constitutional violation in their
>case.

How would you know? You a law student on sabbatical?

>Constitutioanl freedoms don't exist only
>when the media public see fit. The real test is
>in situations that make people uncomfortable.

I defy you to find anywhere in the US Constitution where comfort or
discomfort of anyone is an issue. YOU make ME uncomfortable when I see
what you write about what you did to that girl and her mother, but
that in no way makes YOU a violator of MY constitutional rights....nor
vice versa you little ****.

No, Gigolo Boy. Pointing out someones actions that involve behaviors
that relate to offenses CAN be used in court as evidence on those
offenses. You can't be prosecuted for standing around outside a girls
school soccer game (unless local loitering laws are being broken) but
it can be considered as one piece of evidence when you are convicted
of a sexual molestation charge.

Your weaseling to the contrary is very sick and sad.

If what you say is true NO investigation would be legal, by cops or
CPS. A cop couldn't walk up to you and ask what you are doing there
watching the soccer game and jiggling your hand in your pocket.

Now if the cop beats you about the head and shoulders vigorously,
besides it demonstrating his utter contemp and disgust of you, it HAS
violated your civil rights, unless you got mouthy and tried to either
run or attack.

Say, are you a member of NAMBLA by any chance? In the investigations
I've read about that IS the way they talk: "my constitutional rights
have been abridged."

Did I just violate your constitutional rights by asking?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane: NAMBLA, hands on in bathroom, etc.
I'll use Dan's expert refutational advice.

No!

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane: NAMBLA, hands on in bathroom, etc.
> I'll use Dan's expert refutational advice.
>
> No!

You've no idea how relieved I am to hear that. On the other hand, as I
think I mentioned, your protestations and attitude, especially toward
being in the bathroom with the child sounds so very like what I've
seen in transcripts of NAMBLA member testimony. You can't blame me for
asking.

On the other hand, speanking of hands, and we should give you a hand,
how did you manage to push the little girl's head under the shower
stream to "rinse out the shampoo" you claim she missed and couldn't
manage to go back and rinse on her own, use your foot?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane:
You have me at a distinct disadvantage since I don't
read NAMBLA literature or posts.
What happened, did Geoff Rantz leave a copy laying
around in your lunchroom?
How many NAMBLA caseworkers work in your CPS office?

I didn't use my hands to shampoo the child.
That is what you said, old chap, and what I refuted.
I did use my hands to push her head under
a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
do this sort of thing all the time and it does
not raise a fuss. It is legal.

Clearly, Child Protection knew that it was
a big nothing, since they had to exaggerate
it to state that I "pushed her head under water"
which is quite a different thing from pushing
her head under a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

And nothing I did was a crime.
You imagine perversion because is suits your dirty cause.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
m...
> Kane:
> You have me at a distinct disadvantage since I don't
> read NAMBLA literature or posts.

Kane never said he read NAMBLA literature or posts.

Kane wrote, "I've seen in transcripts of NAMBLA member testimony."

Besides it's well known that your victim was a little girl, not a boy.

> What happened, did Geoff Rantz leave a copy laying
> around in your lunchroom?
> How many NAMBLA caseworkers work in your CPS office?
>
> I didn't use my hands to shampoo the child.
> That is what you said, old chap, and what I refuted.

Sorry, Greg,

Here's what Kane wrote,

"how did you manage to push the little girl's head under the shower stream
to "rinse out the shampoo" you claim she missed and couldn't manage to go
back and rinse on her own, use your foot?"

Kane did NOT claim that you used your hands to shampoo the child.

> I did use my hands to push her head under
> a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

Which is EXACTLY what Kane wrote.

I'd love to see you on the witness stand, Greg.

> Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
> do this sort of thing all the time and it does
> not raise a fuss. It is legal.

Little girls with their foster mothers.

You don't mean the foster parents bring in adult males un-related to the
children to handle little girls in the shower, do you?

> Clearly, Child Protection knew that it was
> a big nothing, since they had to exaggerate
> it to state that I "pushed her head under water"
> which is quite a different thing from pushing
> her head under a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

Either way you were in the bathroom with your hands on a little girl who
wasn't finished showering.

> And nothing I did was a crime.

Massively inappropriate.

And one of the many reasons the little girl was removed by CPS

> You imagine perversion because is suits your dirty cause.

It's a "dirty cause" to support and promote the proper treatment of
children?

But it's not a "dirty cause" to promote un-related adult males physically
handling naked little girls in the bathroom before and after they've
finished showering?

Not to mention the fact that AFTER your girlfriends little girl was removed
you "volunteered" to the court to "TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in
the
community."

Isn't that a little like teaching a group of rapists about "safe sex?"

[Kane]

On 22 Nov 2003 04:45:19 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Kane:
>You have me at a distinct disadvantage since I don't
>read NAMBLA literature or posts.

That isn't what I asked. Had you not AGAIN deliberately avoided
attributing the post you reply to the reader would know. This isn't a
private forum for you and I to exchange pleasantries.

If you cannot post in the open, with relevant material attributed from
post to post, then you are attempting, obviously, to mislead. Shame on
you. R R R R

I merely pointed out that you POST like the transcripts I've read of
NAMBLA member's confessions. I would't doubt some of them can be found
through media sources here on The Web.

>What happened, did Geoff Rantz leave a copy laying
>around in your lunchroom?

Who would Geoff Rantz be? If a member of NAMBLA how convenient you
know his name. So you have not read NAMBLA literature or posts, right?

You can't even lie effectively within a single post let along across a
series of them.

If I said you bleat like a goat would you insist that I have
documentation?

You bleat like a NAMBLA member.

>How many NAMBLA caseworkers work in your CPS office?

I don't have a CPS office. My only office is a larege lovely second
floor bedroom I converted years ago into a computer work center and
the location of my LAN server.

You should see the view. Breathtaking forest covered mountains all
around me. If CPS has an office located here I'm hard put to find it.
Help me out.

If you think I work for the state look me up on their employee search
utilities. Many states have them.

As for your question: If you think there are NAMBLA caseworkers in any
office why don't you call up and ask. Get back to us with the answer.

>I didn't use my hands to shampoo the child.

I didn't say you did.

>That is what you said,

Show me where I said you did.

Any old post you come up with were writen in response to what you had
revealed to THAT time...you seem to be coming up with a lot of new
information lately, liarboy.

>old chap,

That is correct. I am. I am too old to be taken in by naughty little
boys such as you. And I am a chap, male.

>and what I refuted.

YOU? "Refuted"? R R R R R R R You haven't refuted a damn thing for
over 2 years that I've followed you in these ngs. All you've done is
bury yourself deeper and deeper and deeper.

I don't recall you offering a single bit of credible evidence beyond
your year or two late to the challenge babbling. Your first
descriptions of what you did are what count in my book and you left a
great deal unsaid while making it very clear you put your hands on the
child while she was in the shower.

Refute THIS! Scummy one.

>I did use my hands to push her head under
>a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

Oh, now we get a refutation of a refutation. You didn't shampoo her
using your hands but you pushed her head under a shower spray to rinse
shampoo out....a six year old girl?

>Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
>do this sort of thing all the time and it does
>not raise a fuss. It is legal.

You are neither. Have you not noticed that?

The only foster parent that would invite and unrelated male into their
foster home to the unsupervised (hell, supervised for that matter)
"attendand" to the showering and disciplining of a naked six year old
girl would not last long if caught.

As for the parent that would to it: PFWAY PATOOIE.....YUK!

They deserve the scrutiny that CPS gives them. And the chance to mend
their ways that CPS gives them. That the boyfriend does all he can to
sabotage so he won't lose his free ride.

Foster parents have background checks, they are given rather clear
instructions about what males, who are licensed or listed on the
foster contract as residents in the household must NOT do with little
girls in foster care, and a very important thing is to not even be
alone with them, let alone giving the shampoo hands on assistance (do
you like that better?), and providing towel delivery.

You sir, have all the earmarks of, at the very least, an incipient
child molester. Your abusive treatment of the child, your willingness
to be allowed to be alone with the child for many hours each day, your
brutal punishment of what is a common event to child (wetting
themselves), and your stupidly cruel imposition of parenting methods
that hardly would pass as humane in animal training.

>Clearly, Child Protection knew that it was
>a big nothing,

They knew that you fit the profile of the predatory pediphile to a tee
in how you got the household set up for your convenient access to a
unsupervised child.

That's hardly "nothing." And if you were the first one they ever ran
across their hair would still stand on end at the thought of what you
did.

>since they had to exaggerate
>it to state that I "pushed her head under water"
>which is quite a different thing from pushing
>her head under a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

It was more accurate than most of what you post.

On the other hand, if you weren't such a self opinionated, self
serving loud mouth little prick, you could have followed the simple
advice given you, gotten focused on getting the child back and used
that questionable language of the worker and nailed their CPS
asses....and, sad for you...the child WOULD be home and the mother
would have a better view of reality and have booted your sorry ass by
now.

>And nothing I did was a crime.

That is correct. Nothing YOU did. It was, however, apparently
something the mother did or didn't do that put the court onto you. And
not complying with service agreements seems to fit.

You couldn't have created a better way to keep that child out than you
****ing over the mother in the parenting class by being an outright
boob, and then topping it all off with the frosting of **** you called
a "Motion."

>You imagine perversion because is suits your dirty cause.

What dirty cause might that be now?

I have helped thousands deal successfully with CPS, and Dan tells me,
and you, that I've lent a hand in my small way to the successes of
families he's worked with.

How many have YOU helped, even peripherally?

All you have done, according to your own posts, is **** over one child
and her mother, and according to what we read of you here, try
desperately to steer parents that come here seeking help away from the
one resource that can rightly boast to helping so many as Dan has.

Haven't you figured out what a low life you are yet?

I've done everything I know how to do to reform you long distance. If
I was g'pa I'd have done exactly the same to you as he did but with
much more effect. You can bank on it.

All that is left for me to post to and about you is a warning to
others to take what you post with more than one grain of salt.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane said
> Who would Geoff Rantz be? If a member of
> NAMBLA how convenient you know his name.
> So you have not read NAMBLA literature
> or posts, right?

Do a Google search on Geoff Rantz.
He is a former Child Protection caseworker.
His criminal charge for molestation here
was covered up and dismissed.
(It would have embarassed the CPS agency.)

He went on to Colorado where he got a
job as a CPS caseworker AGAIN and did
it again. Now he sits in a Colorado prison.

Yes, I know, you are Commander McBrag.
You fought in the Boer war. :)
You wrestled big foot with your bare hands.
You are Commander McBrag.

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane said
> > Who would Geoff Rantz be? If a member of
> > NAMBLA how convenient you know his name.
> > So you have not read NAMBLA literature
> > or posts, right?
>
> Do a Google search on Geoff Rantz.

Nope, you brought him up, in your playfull little child way,
withholding the information you now jump out and swishing your cape
dramatically, proclaim:

> He is a former Child Protection caseworker.
> His criminal charge for molestation here
> was covered up and dismissed.

Please post what you have. You brought him up, quite playing coy.

> (It would have embarassed the CPS agency.)

Please provide some support beyond your usual brainless twaddle.

Personally I have seen CPS go as public as possibe when they have
canned a worker for malfeasance. And I've seen them provide evidence
to have them jailed.

My experience checks your experience. Mate.

> He went on to Colorado where he got a
> job as a CPS caseworker AGAIN and did
> it again. Now he sits in a Colorado prison.

Gosh, I thought he would get off again, according to YOUR thinking.

> Yes, I know, you are Commander McBrag.
> You fought in the Boer war. :)

Didn't make it quite to South Africa my last trip. Maybe next time.
Probably would have had I been their, given my ancestry.

> You wrestled big foot with your bare hands.

Still looking for him. Want to come and help?

> You are Commander McBrag.

Not since I last checked, but you go ahead and keep trying your best
to divert from the fact I work for a living and you don't. And I've
not sat on my ass at the expense of a woman and her daughter.

Greegor, Private Low Class Whore.

Kane.

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane said
> > Who would Geoff Rantz be? If a member of
> > NAMBLA how convenient you know his name.
> > So you have not read NAMBLA literature
> > or posts, right?
>
> Do a Google search on Geoff Rantz.

Did.

> He is a former Child Protection caseworker.


Okay....please locate, quote, and cite, with URL to source, if you
don't mind.

> His criminal charge for molestation here
> was covered up and dismissed.

Where, Iowa? Buddy of yours?

> (It would have embarassed the CPS agency.)

Well, I guess.......!

Nontheless it is extremely hard to keep police blotters and court
records out of view of the media...now stop lying and tell the truth
little twit.

> He went on to Colorado where he got a
> job as a CPS caseworker AGAIN and did
> it again. Now he sits in a Colorado prison.

Bad bad Colorado for not doing and adequate BG check on him. Good for
Colorado for catchin' his ass and locking him up.

So far you haven't really posted any earth shatter condemnation of CPS
that works, oh hapless couch hopper.

They screw up. They fix up. Perp in jail. 1

> Yes, I know, you are Commander McBrag.

You don't know ****. You haven't done anything more exciting than
drinking from one of the cans on a dare that you collect for refund.
Probably a drunk ****ed in it.

> You fought in the Boer war. :)

Not the Boer War, thank you.

> You wrestled big foot with your bare hands.

Wrestled in HS. Yes, we were required to do it bare handed. I am
stalking Big Foot, now that you mention it, but keep tripping over the
shampoo filed tracks of the Pigeontoed Knockneed Kid Hassler. I guess
that will have to do until I find BF.

> You are Commander McBrag.

I was proud of the fact I never succumbed to the entreties of my
commanders and the obvious lure of OCS, higher pay, better looking
women, and fatter retirement.

The officer's uniforms were spiffier too. I remained an enlisted man
my entire service, and hired all my uniforms tailored in fine wools
and gabardine. Pretty spiffy for a three striper.

My real value though was in my work. Loved it. You remember what I did
in the USAF, right?

I am deeply sorry for you that your life has been so dull and EMPTY,
but that's what sitting on the couch will do, with no more ambition
than to bring pain into a child's life, and her mothers so you can sit
on your sorry butt hoping for windfall by suing CPS.

If your "SO" gets a big enough settlement want to bet you'll not be
out on your ass? At this point she knows she's lost her kid and maybe,
just maybe she's got plans for you....R R R R

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Greg wrote
> > Do a Google search on Geoff Rantz.

Kane wrote
> Nope, you brought him up,[...] withholding the information <snip>

Withholding? You CHOSE to ignore it when I posted it in
a newsgroup you frequent over a MONTH ago, Kane.

> > He is a former Child Protection caseworker.
> Please post what you have. You brought him up, quite playing coy.
Publicly posted in a newsgroup is not "coy".

> > (It would have embarassed the CPS agency.)
> Please provide some support beyond your usual brainless twaddle.
> Personally I have seen CPS go as public as possibe when they have
> canned a worker for malfeasance. And I've seen them provide evidence
> to have them jailed.

In this case the MISSING news coverage proves a point.
Media here normally DOES report such stuff on parents.
Clearly some favoritism exists.

> My experience checks your experience. Mate.
Look on the bottom for the court record.
Two charges IN criminal court, and dismissed?
Apparently your so-called experience is lacking. :)

Message-ID: >
From: Greg Hanson )
Subject: Pervert Child Protection Caseworker GEOFF RANTZ
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2003-10-08 04:37:22 PST

GEOFF RANTZ
In 1996 our local Cedar Rapids Iowa DHS Child Protection office
fired him for fondling a 12 year old. He was 20 years old.
It was kept out of the media completely.

News coverage would have embarassed Iowa DHS Child Protection,
even if the mans name was kept out of the media.

They put him on the sex offender registry.
He bargained it down to a neglect listing on the Child Abuse registry.

BUT
In Colorado he got another job in Child Protection,
coerced little boys into sex, impersonated a law
enforcement officer and conned families out of money.

At 27 years old in 2002 Geoff Rantz got 40 years in Colorado.
He said he was framed.
---------------------------------------------------
Social Service Worker Accused Of Molesting Boys
Police Say Rantz Posed As Police Officer, Investigator To Gain
Access Posted: 8:37 a.m. MDT May 23, 2002
Updated: 8:42 a.m. MDT May 23, 2002

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A former El Paso County social
services caseworker sexually assaulted boys after gaining access
to them by posing as a psychologist, police officer and
probation officer, prosecutors said.

Geoff Rantz, 27, is charged with criminal impersonation, theft
and a series of sexual assaults on underage boys. His trial
began Wednesday.

In opening statements, prosecutor Geoff Heim said Rantz used
threats, lies and pornography to gain control and groom the boys
to be open to his advances.

Rantz's attorneys said he is the victim of lies concocted by the
mother of two boys he is accused of molesting.

As a county social worker, Rantz was responsible for
investigating reports of child abuse and dealt with about 30
children in foster homes and treatment facilities from April
1999 to March 2001.

Posing as a probation officer and sexual assault investigator,
prosecutors said Rantz told a 14-year-old boy that sexual
encounters would help move him off probation. The boy had been
in trouble for stealing school lunch tickets.

Rantz said on an employment application that he had graduated
from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with a psychology degree
and was a master's candidate at Regis University. Both schools
said Rantz' claims were false.

He was hired despite his name appearing on Iowa's Central Child
Abuse Registry, which identifies people who have been arrested
and convicted of sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and other
crimes against children.

El Paso County officials said they have changed hiring
procedures.

Testimony: Caseworker Demanded Sex "Thousands" Of Times
El Paso County Man In Court Over Alleged Sexual Molestations
Posted: 9:36 a.m. MST January 15, 2002

A former caseworker for the El Paso County Department of Human
Services demanded sex from a boy "thousands" of times, according to court
testimony Monday.

Geoff Rantz, 26, is accused of sexually molesting a child over a
three-year period.

Monday's testimony in a Colorado Springs, Colo., courtroom came during
the first day of a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence for a
trial.

The 18-year-old college student testified in court that Rantz tricked
him into performing sexual acts for more than three years, beginning when
he was 14.

The teen testified that Rantz said he was a probation officer and told
him the sex acts were part of training sessions. The man also testified
that he paid $15,000 to $20,000 during the three-year period to pay off the
cost of his "rehabilitation."

The teen also said the sexual encounters increased to as many as three
times per day until the time police began their investigation of Rantz in
February 2001.

Rantz turned himself last October after a warrant was issued for his
arrest on suspicion that he sexually assaulted a child, misrepresented his
background and bilked thousands of dollars from families of troubled
boys he counseled.

A subsequent investigation revealed that in 1996, Rantz was accused of
fondling a 12-year-old boy in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Charges were
dismissed in that case, but Rantz was placed on a sex offenders registry. Rantz
appealed and the sexual abuse listing was changed to neglect, according to a
court document.

Monday's hearing will continued on Jan. 23.


http://www.profane-justice.org/pressadv.prs.pdf.

Press Advisory
October 30, 2001
RE: Request for Grand Jury Investigation into Child Protection
Practices
Is DA Jeanne Smith Lying?
POINT :
October 25, 2001 Gazette article states "Smith. . .said the Rantz case
is not related to Cloer's request for an investigation." (See attached
article)
POINT:
October 17, 2001 Letter from attorney Anjanette Wayman, distributed as
part of the press packet at Rep Cloer's press conference, and included in the
packet to DA Smith, references Geoff Rantz, "When the Colorado Springs
Police Department contacted me about Mr. Rantz, they disclosed that
Mr. Rantz had disappeared with my client's teenage son." (See attached
letter)
CONCLUSION
: Either Jeanne Smith lied to the Gazette about Rantz being a part of
the investigation requested by Cloer (in order to falsely state there are
no criminal violations in any of the cases presented to her?) -OR-
there is another pedophile under the employ of DHS, still at large,
preying on the vulnerable children of El Paso County and DHS and Smith
are aware of that fact and doing nothing about it.
FACT:
DA Jeanne Smith has not contacted the victims named in the report
given to her by Rep. Mark Cloer subsequent to the conference requesting a Grand
Jury investigation into child protection practices.
QUESTIONS
Is Jeanne Smith going to make a decision about convening a Grand Jury
without speaking to the victims?
Has she given the complaints she received to the accused?
Is this the correct way to conduct a criminal investigation?


Empire: Social worker gets 40 years Denver Post
Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - COLORADO SPRINGS - A former
social-services caseworker was sentenced to 40 years in prison on
charges he molested and raped troubled boys.

Geoff Rantz, 27, was sentenced Monday. He insisted he was framed on
the sex charges.

The El Paso County employee was convicted in June of six counts of
sexual assault on a child, theft, contributing to the delinquency of a
minor, criminal impersonation and practicing therapy without a
license.

Rantz's conviction on sex crimes gives the state parole board the
discretion to incarcerate him for life if it thinks he remains
dangerous.

Prosecutors also presented evidence suggesting Rantz attempted to
influence a witness during his three-week trial while he remained free
on bail. The district attorney's office has not determined whether to
file charges in that case.


CHILD PROTECTOR ACCUSED OF MOLESTING CHILDREN AND BILKING PARENTS:
Authorities say an El Paso County social worker used lies and his
position to sexually molest troubled teen-age boys and bilk their
families out of thousands of dollars. Police on Tuesday arrested
Geoff Rantz, 26, on suspicion of sexual assault, theft and
criminal impersonation. Details about the arrest emerged on
Wednesday in a court document. Meanwhile, county officials say
the department already has revamped its hiring procedures.
Rantz's arrest comes at a time when others are questioning
the county's Department of Human Services. State Rep. Mark
Cloer, R-Colorado Springs, last week delivered 40 to 50
complaints about caseworkers to 4th Judicial District Attorney
Jeanne Smith, seeking a grand jury investigation into the
department. (Source: Colorado Springs Gazette, 10/26/2001)
http://www.gazette.com

Case ID Title Name DOB
06571 FECR009803
STATE OF IOWA VS RANTZ, GEOFFREY DEL
DOB 12/08/1974 Offence date: August 1, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge Charge: 709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD (FELD)
Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:
Adjudication Charge:
709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD (FELD)
Adj.: DISMISSED Adj.Date: 09/19/1996
Adj.Judge: KOEHLER, THOMAS L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge Charge:
709.4-2 Description: DNU - SEXUAL ABUSE 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:

[Kane]

On 23 Nov 2003 21:42:48 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Greg wrote
>> > Do a Google search on Geoff Rantz.
>
>Kane wrote
>> Nope, you brought him up,[...] withholding the information <snip>
>
>Withholding? You CHOSE to ignore it when I posted it in
>a newsgroup you frequent over a MONTH ago, Kane.

I do not remember seeing it. Please refer me to the ng and post. I
notice you've done neither in the reply. Why is that I wonder.

>> > He is a former Child Protection caseworker.
>> Please post what you have. You brought him up, quite playing coy.
>Publicly posted in a newsgroup is not "coy".

When you refer to it and don't POINT to it asshole so I'll know that
you posted that is a good deal more than COY.... it's asshole
behavior...but then you've demonstrated that that is what you know
best how to do...think like and be an asshole.

>> > (It would have embarassed the CPS agency.)
>> Please provide some support beyond your usual brainless twaddle.
>> Personally I have seen CPS go as public as possibe when they have
>> canned a worker for malfeasance. And I've seen them provide
evidence
>> to have them jailed.
>
>In this case the MISSING news coverage proves a point.

This point below?

>Media here normally DOES report such stuff on parents.

I do not see the point. You think one worker that didn't get reported
equated with ALL parents being reported. Prove it.

>Clearly some favoritism exists.

I've not seen that. In fact I have never in all these years seen a
single instance where a client of CPS, unless they have been accused
of murder, get newscoverage.

It's a rare case of shaken baby syndrom that doesn't result in death,
for instance, that hits the news. Do they report them all where you?

>> My experience checks your experience. Mate.
>Look on the bottom for the court record.
>Two charges IN criminal court, and dismissed?
>Apparently your so-called experience is lacking. :)
>
>Message-ID: >
>From: Greg Hanson )
>Subject: Pervert Child Protection Caseworker GEOFF RANTZ
>Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
>Date: 2003-10-08 04:37:22 PST

So you always set traps for people? Is this how you parented the
little girl? No wonder she ****ed herself. She had to guess what ****
you'd come up with next to torture her with.

>GEOFF RANTZ
>In 1996 our local Cedar Rapids Iowa DHS Child Protection office
>fired him for fondling a 12 year old. He was 20 years old.
>It was kept out of the media completely.

So tell me, if it wasn't in the media how did you manage to find out
about it?

I mean what with Iowa CPS keeping it all hush hush. And how did the
authorities in Colorado find out about this carefully kept secret?

>News coverage would have embarassed Iowa DHS Child Protection,
>even if the mans name was kept out of the media.

And you found out about it how again?

Come on, dimwit, don't you know by now I know how you find out about
it and they got it from the media?

>They put him on the sex offender registry.
>He bargained it down to a neglect listing on the Child Abuse
registry.

And what did he offer in exchange for this "bargain"?

>BUT
>In Colorado he got another job in Child Protection,
>coerced little boys into sex, impersonated a law
>enforcement officer and conned families out of money.

Sounds like a thoroughgoing criminal with the mind of a
criminal...speaking of which....?.....?.....?

>At 27 years old in 2002 Geoff Rantz got 40 years in Colorado.
>He said he was framed.

Excellent. By the bars, I presume. Apparently those nasty folks at CPS
and the police and all failed to put this guy away...opps, Wait!

Seems everyone IS doing their job, but they just aren't perfect enough
for you, the highly skilled observer and supervisor of all things CPS.

>---------------------------------------------------
>Social Service Worker Accused Of Molesting Boys
>Police Say Rantz Posed As Police Officer, Investigator To Gain
>Access Posted: 8:37 a.m. MDT May 23, 2002
>Updated: 8:42 a.m. MDT May 23, 2002
>
>COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A former El Paso County social
>services caseworker sexually assaulted boys after gaining access
>to them by posing as a psychologist, police officer and
>probation officer, prosecutors said.
>
>Geoff Rantz, 27, is charged with criminal impersonation, theft
>and a series of sexual assaults on underage boys. His trial
>began Wednesday.
>
>In opening statements, prosecutor Geoff Heim said Rantz used
>threats, lies and pornography to gain control and groom the boys
>to be open to his advances.
>
>Rantz's attorneys said he is the victim of lies concocted by the
>mother of two boys he is accused of molesting.
>
>As a county social worker, Rantz was responsible for
>investigating reports of child abuse and dealt with about 30
>children in foster homes and treatment facilities from April
>1999 to March 2001.
>
>Posing as a probation officer and sexual assault investigator,
>prosecutors said Rantz told a 14-year-old boy that sexual
>encounters would help move him off probation. The boy had been
>in trouble for stealing school lunch tickets.
>
>Rantz said on an employment application that he had graduated
>from Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with a psychology degree
>and was a master's candidate at Regis University. Both schools
>said Rantz' claims were false.
>
>He was hired despite his name appearing on Iowa's Central Child
>Abuse Registry, which identifies people who have been arrested
>and convicted of sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and other
>crimes against children.

As far as I know states do not check each other's registries. The cost
to do nationwide (what would be the point of only checking the state a
criminal SAYS he's from...dummy?) bg checks is quite prohibitive.

Why is it you ninnies think everyone in the world, but you...ass
sitter....can snap their fingers and make things appear at their
command?

>El Paso County officials said they have changed hiring
>procedures.

Trust me on this. I know criminals. I've worked extensively with them
and this is just an invitation for those like you to develop new and
slicker ways around the system. You need some time in the slammer to
tune up your skills, Gigolo. You could do lots better than a needy
women and her helpless child.

>Testimony: Caseworker Demanded Sex "Thousands" Of Times
>El Paso County Man In Court Over Alleged Sexual Molestations
>Posted: 9:36 a.m. MST January 15, 2002
>
>A former caseworker for the El Paso County Department of Human
>Services demanded sex from a boy "thousands" of times, according to
court
>testimony Monday.
>
>Geoff Rantz, 26, is accused of sexually molesting a child over a
>three-year period.
>
>Monday's testimony in a Colorado Springs, Colo., courtroom came
during
>the first day of a hearing to determine if there is enough evidence
for a
>trial.
>
>The 18-year-old college student testified in court that Rantz tricked
>him into performing sexual acts for more than three years, beginning
when
>he was 14.
>
>The teen testified that Rantz said he was a probation officer and
told
>him the sex acts were part of training sessions. The man also
testified
>that he paid $15,000 to $20,000 during the three-year period to pay
off the
>cost of his "rehabilitation."
>
>The teen also said the sexual encounters increased to as many as
three
>times per day until the time police began their investigation of
Rantz in
>February 2001.
>
>Rantz turned himself last October after a warrant was issued for his
>arrest on suspicion that he sexually assaulted a child,
misrepresented his
>background and bilked thousands of dollars from families of troubled
>boys he counseled.
>
>A subsequent investigation revealed that in 1996, Rantz was accused
of
>fondling a 12-year-old boy in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Charges were
>dismissed in that case, but Rantz was placed on a sex offenders
registry. Rantz
>appealed and the sexual abuse listing was changed to neglect,
according to a
>court document.

You said he "bargained" it from sex to abuse registry. He "appealed"
it apparently. Or maybe you best call that reporter and get it
straight that YOU are the expert in what happened.

>
>Monday's hearing will continued on Jan. 23.
>

Interestingly this below is the ONLY thing that pops up on a search
for the man by name. Yes profane justice seems to be well informed. Do
they work for the state of Iowa and have an inside track, or in fact
was the "secret" in Iowa not so much of a secret after all...that is
to say that your babbling about Iowa CPS was just so much pig **** as
usual?

>
>http://www.profane-justice.org/pressadv.prs.pdf.
>
>Press Advisory
>October 30, 2001
>RE: Request for Grand Jury Investigation into Child Protection
>Practices
>Is DA Jeanne Smith Lying?
>POINT :
>October 25, 2001 Gazette article states "Smith. . .said the Rantz
case
>is not related to Cloer's request for an investigation." (See
attached
>article)
>POINT:
>October 17, 2001 Letter from attorney Anjanette Wayman, distributed
as
>part of the press packet at Rep Cloer's press conference, and
included in the
>packet to DA Smith, references Geoff Rantz, "When the Colorado
Springs
>Police Department contacted me about Mr. Rantz, they disclosed that
>Mr. Rantz had disappeared with my client's teenage son." (See
attached
>letter)
>CONCLUSION
>: Either Jeanne Smith lied to the Gazette about Rantz being a part of
>the investigation requested by Cloer (in order to falsely state there
are
>no criminal violations in any of the cases presented to her?) -OR-
>there is another pedophile under the employ of DHS, still at large,
>preying on the vulnerable children of El Paso County and DHS and
Smith
>are aware of that fact and doing nothing about it.
>FACT:
>DA Jeanne Smith has not contacted the victims named in the report
>given to her by Rep. Mark Cloer subsequent to the conference
requesting a Grand
>Jury investigation into child protection practices.
>QUESTIONS
>Is Jeanne Smith going to make a decision about convening a Grand Jury
>without speaking to the victims?
>Has she given the complaints she received to the accused?
>Is this the correct way to conduct a criminal investigation?
>
>
>Empire: Social worker gets 40 years Denver Post
>Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - COLORADO SPRINGS - A former
>social-services caseworker was sentenced to 40 years in prison on
>charges he molested and raped troubled boys.
>
>Geoff Rantz, 27, was sentenced Monday. He insisted he was framed on
>the sex charges.
>
>The El Paso County employee was convicted in June of six counts of
>sexual assault on a child, theft, contributing to the delinquency of
a
>minor, criminal impersonation and practicing therapy without a
>license.
>
>Rantz's conviction on sex crimes gives the state parole board the
>discretion to incarcerate him for life if it thinks he remains
>dangerous.
>
>Prosecutors also presented evidence suggesting Rantz attempted to
>influence a witness during his three-week trial while he remained
free
>on bail. The district attorney's office has not determined whether to
>file charges in that case.
>
>
>CHILD PROTECTOR ACCUSED OF MOLESTING CHILDREN AND BILKING PARENTS:
>Authorities say an El Paso County social worker used lies and his
>position to sexually molest troubled teen-age boys and bilk their
>families out of thousands of dollars. Police on Tuesday arrested
>Geoff Rantz, 26, on suspicion of sexual assault, theft and
>criminal impersonation. Details about the arrest emerged on
>Wednesday in a court document. Meanwhile, county officials say
>the department already has revamped its hiring procedures.
>Rantz's arrest comes at a time when others are questioning
>the county's Department of Human Services. State Rep. Mark
>Cloer, R-Colorado Springs, last week delivered 40 to 50
>complaints about caseworkers to 4th Judicial District Attorney
>Jeanne Smith, seeking a grand jury investigation into the
>department. (Source: Colorado Springs Gazette, 10/26/2001)
>http://www.gazette.com
>
>Case ID Title Name DOB
>06571 FECR009803
>STATE OF IOWA VS RANTZ, GEOFFREY DEL
>DOB 12/08/1974 Offence date: August 1, 1994
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Count 01 Charge Charge: 709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A
CHILD (FELD)
>Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:
>Adjudication Charge:
>709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD (FELD)
>Adj.: DISMISSED Adj.Date: 09/19/1996
>Adj.Judge: KOEHLER, THOMAS L
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Count 02 Charge Charge:
> 709.4-2 Description: DNU - SEXUAL ABUSE 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (FELC)
> Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:

Yah know, yah get through reading this and it should be apparent to
the sane and thinking people that this was a skillful criminal who
figured out how to slide through the checks in the system.

I've asked about such things from CPS and what I find is they have all
kinds of ways of checking but in fact no matter how thorough they are,
some will slip through just on the odds...and the number that
try...well, among clients it's very high.

They talk about sister's using their sibs name and social security
number, or doing a mix and match. People buying identities off ID
theives.

Thanks for all the information, finally. Much quicker this time. I'll
get you to come to heel yet, boy.

That little trickster will probably do all he can, as cons do, to get
out early, and go back to scammin one way or another.

And you?

Kane

[Kane]

On 24 Nov 2003 02:07:38 GMT, (Super ****ed Dad) wrote:

> From Washington State :May y'all have a Happy Thanksgiving.
>
> Super ****ed Dad
> Super ****ed Mom
> Super ****ed Son #1
> Super ****ed Son #2
> Super ****ed Little Girl

Back at yah....<smile>

Happy,

>CPS FREE FOR 3 YEARS : )

And many more, like for life.

Best,
Pohaku Kane and Pohaku Wahine. {:-] and %:-)

[Greg Hanson]

Kane wrote
> You think one worker that didn't get
> reported equated with ALL parents
> being reported. Prove it.

Your equation, your problem.
Why should I prove something I never said?

However, even ONE caseworker caught at child
molesting is something the community should
be made aware of. Don't you think, Kane?

> >Clearly some favoritism exists.

> I've not seen that. In fact I have never
> in all these years seen a single instance
> where a client of CPS, unless they have
> been accused of murder, get newscoverage.

Well, CRIMINAL CHARGES are ALL reported in
our local newspaper, at the PROSECUTORS
descretion. It's a quite busy column!
Interesting eh?

> So you always set traps for people?

Kane, this is PRECIOUS! You did it to yourself!

> Is this how you parented the little girl?
> No wonder she ****ed herself.
> She had to guess what **** you'd come up
> with next to torture her with.

But the girl generally had the problem
in the middle of her school day.
She also told us truthfully that she
held her bladder because she didn't
want to take 5 minutes out of school fun
to go to the bathroom. Kids do this.
And you've been told this many times.

> So tell me, if it wasn't in the media how
> did you manage to find out about it?

It was completely blacked out HERE until the
guy did it in COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO.

Isn't the internet wonderful?

> I mean what with Iowa CPS keeping it
> all hush hush. And how did the authorities
> in Colorado find out about this carefully
> kept secret?

ONLY after he was caught molesting THERE!
That caused a lot of fussing in COLORADO
about how the CPS dorks there never did any
background check and actually hired a
KNOWN PEDOFILE CASEWORKER.

> Come on, dimwit, don't you know by now
> I know how you find out about
> it and they got it from the media?

Commander McBrag, Do Tell!

> And what did he offer in exchange for this "bargain"?

Don't know.

> Trust me on this. I know criminals.

Yes, It's the WORLD OF COMMANDER MCBRAG!

You nit picked about the "bargaining" but you
never explained why the criminal charges were
brought forth and then DISMISSED.

You focused instead on the REGISTRY.

> >Case ID Title Name DOB
> >06571 FECR009803
> >STATE OF IOWA VS RANTZ, GEOFFREY DEL
> >DOB 12/08/1974 Offence date: August 1, 1994
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >Count 01 Charge Charge: 709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A
> CHILD (FELD)
> >Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:
> >Adjudication Charge:
> >709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD (FELD)
> >Adj.: DISMISSED Adj.Date: 09/19/1996
> >Adj.Judge: KOEHLER, THOMAS L
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >Count 02 Charge Charge:
> > 709.4-2 Description: DNU - SEXUAL ABUSE 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (FELC)
> > Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:

Kane wrote
> this was a skillful criminal who
> figured out how to slide through
> the checks in the system.

That would imply there WERE checks to slide through.
There were NOT.

> Thanks for all the information, finally. Much
> quicker this time.

It was on the net, just like I said.

> I'll get you to come to heel yet, boy.

Megalomania AGAIN?
Get over yourself.

> That little trickster will probably do all he
> can, as cons do, to get out early, and go
> back to scammin one way or another.

Yeah, but you said you personally ARCHIVE all of this.
Store it on your bookshelf next to your
jars of urine, Doctor Strangelove.

[Kane]

On 24 Nov 2003 04:46:15 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Kane wrote
>> You think one worker that didn't get
>> reported equated with ALL parents
>> being reported. Prove it.
>
>Your equation, your problem.

Your equation. You made the accusation, not I.

>Why should I prove something I never said?

Oh, I see. Then you AREN'T accusing CPS of being remiss. Excellent. I
knew you'd grow up.

>However, even ONE caseworker caught at child
>molesting is something the community should
>be made aware of. Don't you think, Kane?

Oh darn, I was wrong. Still a sniveling whining child.

Now tell us, as I asked before, how is it the "community" didn't know
but YOU did?

>> >Clearly some favoritism exists.
>
>> I've not seen that. In fact I have never
>> in all these years seen a single instance
>> where a client of CPS, unless they have
>> been accused of murder, get newscoverage.
>
>Well, CRIMINAL CHARGES are ALL reported in
>our local newspaper, at the PROSECUTORS
>descretion. It's a quite busy column!
>Interesting eh?

Yes. Another pointless comeback in an effort to avoid answering.

>> So you always set traps for people?
>
>Kane, this is PRECIOUS! You did it to yourself!

You'll be able to explain that won't you...below...

ah...no, nothing. I thought so.

>
>> Is this how you parented the little girl?
>> No wonder she ****ed herself.
>> She had to guess what **** you'd come up
>> with next to torture her with.
>
>But the girl generally had the problem
>in the middle of her school day.

Under the tension of being around you, a spanker and otherwise
punishment oriented caregiver, that may have been the only place she
could feel safe enough to start indicating her terror of you. She
probably wasn't even aware of how terrified she was, consciously.

>She also told us truthfully that she
>held her bladder because she didn't
>want to take 5 minutes out of school fun
>to go to the bathroom. Kids do this.

Why yes they do. I find it very natural child behavior,
developmentally. And some girls leak a little when they laugh. There
are feminine products advertised in the ladies' magazines.

>And you've been told this many times.

Oh, long before you mentioned it. Perfectly natural.

But it seems you aren't going anywhere with this apology for your
brutal torture of her in the name of "discipline" for peeing, right?
No of course not.

>> So tell me, if it wasn't in the media how
>> did you manage to find out about it?
>
>It was completely blacked out HERE until the
>guy did it in COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO.

Your reliance on your indignation to motivate you to keep breathing is
an over rated excuse for you to continue living. I'd say give up your
indignation.

It never get's you anywhere. Besides, it's misplaced.

It doesn't get children back to their parents, and the relevance of
the point you are making escapes me, other than yet another attempt to
try and convince this ng you care about children.....patently untrue
by the evidence of your posts.

>Isn't the internet wonderful?

Yep. I've always been a fan. I especially like that it can disseminate
so much information about creeps such as you and their little girl
showering antics.

>> I mean what with Iowa CPS keeping it
>> all hush hush. And how did the authorities
>> in Colorado find out about this carefully
>> kept secret?
>
>ONLY after he was caught molesting THERE!

Excellent. I noticed you still blame Colorado for not checking more
closely.....but admit that the information was rather hard to come
by...since until this event he was listed only as a child neglecter.

>That caused a lot of fussing in COLORADO
>about how the CPS dorks there never did any
>background check and actually hired a
>KNOWN PEDOFILE CASEWORKER.

Colorado knew he was a pedophile? How would they know that before he
offended again if when he was hired he hadn't offended in Colorado and
he was not on a sex offenders list anywhere in the country, certainly
not Iowa, according to you?

How many hours of stupidity practice do you do a day, Greegor?

Is that why you can't find time to look for a job?

>> Come on, dimwit, don't you know by now
>> I know how you find out about
>> it and they got it from the media?
>
>Commander McBrag, Do Tell!

Greegor the Whore, yes, I do tell alright.

>> And what did he offer in exchange for this "bargain"?
>
>Don't know.

Then on what grounds are you making the accusation or claim? Somebody
told you? How did they find out so much?

>> Trust me on this. I know criminals.
>
>Yes, It's the WORLD OF COMMANDER MCBRAG!

I know criminals...and you kinda quietly snipped a little bit there,
now didn't you, and that reminds me of the cons I've worked with.

>You nit picked about the "bargaining" but you
>never explained why the criminal charges were
>brought forth and then DISMISSED.

Ah..I think here I'm supposed to agree with your indignation and fly
into a rage at Iowa for you, and write them a "motion" of my own on a
par with yours, right?

Fat chance, dummy. I'm not going to HELP you keep that mother and
child separated.

Even at this late a date I daily wish for the mother to wake up and
can her "SO," "Fiance" gigolo.

>You focused instead on the REGISTRY.

Yes. I did pay attention to that, given that what, when, how, and who
seems to be a factor in examining events.

I think YOU focused on your asshole far too much.

>> >Case ID Title Name DOB
>> >06571 FECR009803
>> >STATE OF IOWA VS RANTZ, GEOFFREY DEL
>> >DOB 12/08/1974 Offence date: August 1, 1994
>> >-------------------------------------------------
>> >Count 01 Charge Charge: 709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A
>> CHILD (FELD)
>> >Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:
>> >Adjudication Charge:
>> >709.8 Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD (FELD)
>> >Adj.: DISMISSED Adj.Date: 09/19/1996
>> >Adj.Judge: KOEHLER, THOMAS L
>> >-----------------------------------------------
>> >Count 02 Charge Charge:
>> > 709.4-2 Description: DNU - SEXUAL ABUSE 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (FELC)
>> > Offense Date: 08/01/1994 Arrest Date: Against Type:
>
>Kane wrote
>> this was a skillful criminal who
>> figured out how to slide through
>> the checks in the system.
>
>That would imply there WERE checks to slide through.
>There were NOT.

You are prepared to assert publically, and hopefully in your hometown
newspaper and on TV interviews, that the state of Iowa does not do
background checks on employees doing casework for their CPS, right?

Go for it.

That will most assuredly help your "SO"s case, yessiree.

Do you sit around all day while she's out working to support your
sorry lazy ass figuring out how to **** over her more than you already
have the day before?

>> Thanks for all the information, finally. Much
>> quicker this time.
>
>It was on the net, just like I said.

I'm not obligated to research every sentence or even claim you post.

>> I'll get you to come to heel yet, boy.
>
>Megalomania AGAIN?
>Get over yourself.

I'll get you to come to hell yet, boy.

>> That little trickster will probably do all he
>> can, as cons do, to get out early, and go
>> back to scammin one way or another.
>
>Yeah, but you said you personally ARCHIVE all of this.

Show me where I said "all" of what you post. I might archive all of a
particularly noisesome or comically ridiculous thread...but not your
entire posting history.

>Store it on your bookshelf next to your
>jars of urine, Doctor Strangelove.

No question mark? Give me orders? Weird.

You have such a facination with me. From my "dangling" parts now onto
my excretions.

Are you sure you aren't just a little bit .. you know .. a little bit
fixated?

I know I am....on what you did to that mother and child that will
effect them for the rest of their lives.

You are just another lowlife self serving little bloodsucker.

Get over yourself.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

> She probably wasn't even aware of
> how terrified she was, consciously.

Apparently CPS didn't think this was
the case or, as the psychologist asked,
why didn't they get her to a psychologist?

Do you think CPS screwed up in that regard? :)


Regarding pedophile CPS caseworker Geoff Rantz:

> Colorado knew he was a pedophile?
> How would they know that before he offended again <snip>

I said that he was a known pedophile.
I did not say that they knew. They never looked.

There's that legal phrase again: "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN".

Both states had a "FAILURE TO PROTECT" but they won't
get criminally charged for that as a parent would.

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> > She probably wasn't even aware of
> > how terrified she was, consciously.
>
> Apparently CPS didn't think this was
> the case or, as the psychologist asked,
> why didn't they get her to a psychologist?
>
> Do you think CPS screwed up in that regard? :)
>
>
> Regarding pedophile CPS caseworker Geoff Rantz:
>
> > Colorado knew he was a pedophile?
> > How would they know that before he offended again <snip>
>
> I said that he was a known pedophile.
> I did not say that they knew. They never looked.
>
> There's that legal phrase again: "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN".
>
> Both states had a "FAILURE TO PROTECT" but they won't
> get criminally charged for that as a parent would.

I got this wonderful surprize for you, Greegor the Whore.

I'm doing street work today. Today my job is to educate whores who are
thinking they are jail house lawyers.

Look up Sovereign Immunity. Really study it. It's not about letting
enforcement folks off the hook...they do go to jail and they do get
sued successfully.

It's about them being able to do their job.

Now here's the proof.

Ask a cop if he is on the scene and someone shoots you if he can be
criminally or civilly charged for not protecting you.

There is a cop ng here on USENET. I want to make sure you are learning
something.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.law-enforcement

The classic question was answered a long time ago in caselaw. Someone
tried to sue the police department for not responding quickly enough
to a call from a citizen for help.

It seems the judge ruled that the police cannot be responsible for the
safety of the population or any particular individual therein.

And police cannot protect you by jailing someone that is a mugger if
he isn't wanted for mugging or hasn't mugged you, or attempted to mug
you.

In time the laws that require sex abusers to register are very likely
to fall to the Supremes. They would avoid ruling as long as possible,
but it's going to be beat on constitutionality.

The sex offender, convicted, can be detected and not hired, but if he
is NOT detected and hired, that SHOULD HAVE KNOWN falls to SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN IF THEY HAD THE INFORMATION BEFOREHAND.

Colorado didn't. Simple as that. Simpler than you.

The only bitch you ever come up with is the improbable or the
impossible, claiming malfeasance when there is not legally or
practically.

Go **** up a rope, will yah?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane:

When somebody's JOB is to check background
and they have ready access to such a search,
but they don't bother, that is culpable.

You know it, the courts know it, and agencies
and caseworkers have been learning it over
and over again.

When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
that should be perjury.

At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
have looked it up on a computer. He did not.

Why should this ass be immune in such a case?

He should be free to LIE?
(The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes
it no longer a mere technical mistake.)

A large number of parents who have dealt with
CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.

Thank God the immunity is not absolute, no thanks
to any STATE, however.

Freedom to do their job?
Give me a break.

38 visits to starving New Jersey kids and
that is not a "Failure to Protect" criminal charge?

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Kane:
>
> When somebody's JOB is to check background
> and they have ready access to such a search,
> but they don't bother, that is culpable.

Yep. That's not the claim you made. You are saying CPS is responsible,
not "somebody." If "somebody" screwed up then it is THERE culpability.
I have advocated for and caused the firing of just such culpable
individuals from CPS, and got considerable cooperation...they WERE
fired.

So instead of you proving CPS culpability you just gave me yet another
chance to point out MY knowledge that you are lying twit. Dumb too.

> You know it, the courts know it, and agencies
> and caseworkers have been learning it over
> and over again.

Yep. Caseworkers are disgusted at malfeasance of any kind from
coworkers. They don't get to go public with it usually. Do you know
why?

> When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
> I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
> that should be perjury.

Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you
sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it
that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone.

> At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
> have looked it up on a computer. He did not.

How do you know he didn't?

> Why should this ass be immune in such a case?

He was immune?

You sued him and lost on an immunity argument?

> He should be free to LIE?

You are.

> (The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes
> it no longer a mere technical mistake.)

The 2 years may well represent waiting to see if more comes in on you.
Having the claim there is a reminder this is an open investigation.
When I read what you write here I too, just a plain old ordinary (but
with a lot of interest in CPS activities) citizen also wonders if
there isn't more.

You recently popped up with a new bit on your prior retraining order
history. Brand new stuff to me.

What else is going to surface.

> A large number of parents who have dealt with
> CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
> to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.

Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway.

Wherever did you get the idea they are immune? Can't you read? In the
very ng your Plant Life buddy has posted otherwise from that all
knowing source, the media.

> Thank God the immunity is not absolute, no thanks
> to any STATE, however.

WHAT? Now you are admitting that a page of ranting about the immunity
of the state doesn't constitute the absolute power of the state you
were saying it did?

What IS up with you?

How much time have you done in lockup, Greg?

> Freedom to do their job?

Yes. That is exactly the case. You want them completely crippled so
you can ply your hobby with little girls in showers.

> Give me a break.

I think the court, and your girlfriend, have given you far to much
"break."

> 38 visits to starving New Jersey kids and
> that is not a "Failure to Protect" criminal charge?

So? What has that to do with immunity? I understand there were firings
over that. Where did their absolute immunity go Greg?

What a dumb ass time waster. I think I'll go shoo the hunters off the
back of the property. They are making my deer nervous. They'll be
eating my roses.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane wrote
> If "somebody" screwed up then it is THERE culpability.
Geez, man, lousy english? Capitalized also?

> Yep. Caseworkers are disgusted at malfeasance of
> any kind from coworkers. They don't get to go
> public with it usually. Do you know why?

Yes, I'd like to see that.

> > When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
> > I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
> > that should be perjury.
>
> Did they swear you have a sex abuse history,
> or that they know you sexually abused?
> If I read that you have a history and swear
> I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not
> that you sexually abused anyone.

No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
in reference to the past investigations which
were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.

> > At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
> > have looked it up on a computer. He did not.
>
> How do you know he didn't?

Because it doesn't exist and I found the old
documents which prove he lied about the past
CPS investigation that found nothing.

> > Why should this ass be immune in such a case?
>
> He was immune?
>
> You sued him and lost on an immunity argument?

Not yet.
CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
Without fail.

> > He should be free to LIE?
> You are.
Coming from you that makes me an honest man.

> > (The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes
> > it no longer a mere technical mistake.)
>
> The 2 years may well represent waiting to see
> if more comes in on you. Having the claim
> there is a reminder this is an open investigation.
> When I read what you write here I too, just
> a plain old ordinary (but with a lot of interest
> in CPS activities) citizen also wonders if
> there isn't more.

That's not investigation, that's voyeurism.

You've got so much interest in CPS activities
that you are obviously in some way
one of the "whores of the court".

> You recently popped up with a new bit on
> your prior retraining order
> history. Brand new stuff to me.

New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

> What else is going to surface.

Was that a question?

> > A large number of parents who have dealt with
> > CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
> > to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.
>
> Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway.

Civilians can't bring criminal charges.
The Prosecutor would do that.
They will not prosecute the caseworker.

> WHAT? Now you are admitting that a page
> of ranting about the immunity of the
> state doesn't constitute the absolute
> power of the state you were saying it did?

Very Difficult and expensive.

> What IS up with you?
>
> How much time have you done in lockup, Greg?

You first.

> > Freedom to do their job?
>
> Yes. That is exactly the case. You want
> them completely crippled so you can ply
> your hobby with little girls in showers.

Never was a hobby, just another chore.

You did FAR WORSE when you went into
a shower naked in front of your kids.
Your danglies must have been about eye
level for the kids.

Was that a hobby for you?

[Greg Hanson]

National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2003.

Harms to Children and Parents Inherent to Abuse Investigations
Sandra Mira and Gordon E. Finley )
Department of Psychology, Florida International University
Abstract
Beginning in the 1960's, national concern arose regarding a perceived
crisis of child abuse and neglect. Beginning in the 1980's, a
counter-concern also arose regarding a perceived crisis of large
numbers of unfounded and false abuse allegations along with the
inherently negative consequences of these investigations for children
and parents. This poster briefly lists the existing practice and
policy based literature on these negative impacts, calls for a
research based literature focusing on the harms caused by unfounded or
false abuse investigations for children and parents, and suggests
policy changes based on what we currently know.
Introduction
Beginning in the 1960's, national concern arose which regarded child
abuse to be a crisis of great magnitude. Public policy was
reevaluated, new laws were passed, and Child Protective Service units
were formed to investigate the rising flood of abuse allegations. The
implicit, and sometimes explicit, assumption was that these were
"victimless" investigations and were necessary to ferret out abuse,
"save" children, and punish wrongdoers - all in the name of the "best
interest of the child" (Finley, 2002a). Beginning in the 1980's,
however, a counter-trend emerged which argued that such investigations
were far from harmless, far from victimless, and that they had grave
consequences for the children under investigation as well as their
parents.
If the number of investigations closed with the designation of
unfounded or false were small, the issues raised here would be of
minor consequence. Unfortunately, and although the percentages vary
by state, the percentage of abuse cases investigated and closed with
the designation of unfounded or false usually substantially exceeds
50%. Thus, when (a) there are substantial harms and negative
consequences inherent to the investigations of unfounded and false
abuse allegations for children and parents and (b) the number of
unfounded or false outcomes is high, we have a new crisis - a crisis
of unfounded and false abuse reports and investigations (Finley,
2002b).
Most of the articles cited below argue: (a) that the abuse field long
has been in denial regarding the harms and consequences of these
investigations, (b) that it is long past time to balance the crisis to
save children and the crisis to protect the due process rights of the
accused, and (c) that the well-being of both children and parents is
not being well served by the present system (Finley, 2002a, 2002b).
There also is the implicit argument that this denial may be in the
service of political agendas as well as the substantial financial
profits for those who toil in the domestic violence, divorce, and
forensic mental health industries.
Indeed, the suppression of the literature reporting the harms and
consequences of abuse investigations has been so effective that an
exhaustive computerized literature search yielded only about two dozen
professional articles directly on the topic. By contrast, the
writings and workshops focused on "saving" children from abuse and
neglect number in the tens of thousands. Those motivated to "save"
children (Finley, 2002a), should consider first the harms and
consequences of abuse investigations for children. The major harms
cited in the literature and the authors citing them are cryptically
grouped and listed below.
Harms and Consequences for Children
1. The most potent consequence is the marginalization or severing of
the parent-child relationship. A previously healthy parent child
relationship may be disrupted, become defensive or distant, or even
terminated (Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Finley, 2003; Green &
Schetky, 1988; Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wakefield & Underwager,
1991).
2. There may be a separation from a parent (Besharov, 1985, 1988;
Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Green, 1991; Hickman &
Reynolds, 1994; Rutter, 1971; Wong, 1989).
3. There may be foster care with sometimes tragic consequences
including: abuse, neglect, disappearance, and death (Besharov, 1985,
1988; Duquette, 1982; Fincham, et. al., 1994; Finley, 2002b; Robin,
1992).
4. Investigative interviews with officials are inherently stressful,
repetitive, unsettling, and sometimes entail threats, harassment,
coercive techniques and often a large number of individuals (Fincham,
et. al., 1994; Hickman & Reynolds, 1994; Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982;
Wakefield and Underwager, 1991; and Weiss & Berg, 1982).
5. The child who testifies in court may experience severe
psychological stress (Lipovsky, 1994; Parker, 1982; Weiss & Berg,
1982). Genital examinations are highly stressful often producing
anxiety, fear, or anger (Berson, et al, 1993; Fincham, et .al., 1994;
Robin, 1992).
6. Children sometimes are placed in coercive psychotherapy to
overcome "denial" and required to remain in "treatment" until
molestation is described (Green, 1991; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991).
Likewise, the accusing parent can induce trauma in the child, which
leads to a confused sense of reality (Green, 1991).
7. A variety of negative psychosocial outcomes may occur including
PTSD, depression, loss of appetite, listlessness, loss of enjoyment of
play, sleep disturbances, school failure, disturbances in psychosexual
development, and developing a victim mentality (Hickman & Reynolds,
1994). Children also can suffer a sense of notoriety for having a
parent who was accused of being a sex offender (Dillon 1987).
Harms and Consequences for the Accused Parent
1. The presumption of guilt becomes a taken-for-granted reality often
based on nothing more than an anonymous report and before an
investigative decision is rendered. There also is an absence of due
process for the accused (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Green, 1991; Green &
Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992).
2. In divorce and custody conflicts, the mother often obtains sole
custody, terminates visitation, terminates paternal rights, and
harasses the noncustodial parent (Benedek & Schetky, 1985; Besharov,
1985, 1988; Finley, 2003; Patterson, 1991; Wong, 1989). Contact
between father and child can be abruptly terminated (Besharov, 1985,
1988; Brooks & Milchman, 1991; Finley, 2002b, 2003; Green, 1991;
Patterson, 1991) or the father can be placed under long-term court
supervision (Besharov, 1985, 1988). These events can induce stress,
loss of self-confidence, mistrust, fear of losing one's children, and
anger at those who are perceived as responsible for the report (Robin,
1992) as well as the marginalization or severing of the parent child
relationship (Finley, 2003).
3. The parent is stigmatized and their reputation put into question
even if they later are found innocent (Besharov, 1985, 1988; Brooks &
Milchman, 1991; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky, 1988;
Patterson, 1991; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989).
4. A great deal of time and money is spent on legal defense
(Besharov, 1985; Dillon, 1987; Green, 1991; Patterson, 1991; Robin,
1992; Wong, 1989).
5. Employment may be terminated and a professional reputation
destroyed (Fincham, et. al., 1994; Green, 1991; Green & Schetky,
1988; Robin, 1992; Wong, 1989).
6. The parent may be abandoned by friends and suffer social
isolation, court stresses, or wrongful incarceration (Besharov, 1985,
1988; Duquette, 1982; Green & Schetky, 1988; Robin, 1992). The
falsely accused also may experience the same type of symptoms as the
truly abused including feelings of: trauma, betrayal, powerlessness,
stigmatization, and additional symptoms such as anxiety, fear,
difficulty in resuming normal activities, obsessive thoughts about the
event, eating and sleeping difficulties, and depression (Robin, 1992).
At the end of the road, there may be suicide (Fincham et. al.,
1994).
7. Finally, Farrell (2001) summarizes many of these points when he
argues that a charge of child abuse creates twelve guarantees of child
abuse independent of the truth or falseness of the charge: Image of
parent transformed from trusted-loved-one to
possibly-untrustworthy-criminal-and-abuser; loss of innocence;
suspicion and mistrust for all men (or women); repeated interrogations
by police, psychologists, and welfare agencies; attacked as being in
"denial" if the child denies abuse; parents are seen as each other's
enemies; played off by one parent against the other; feeling
personally responsible for driving the family apart; father spends
approximately $75,000 for lawyers, psychological testing, and expert
witnesses leading to money conflicts or poverty and often dad is
fired; child feels powerless to prevent his own stability from being
undermined; the child is deprived of touching by the charged parent;
child feels that neighbors and schoolmates think of the accused parent
as a criminal; and the child is empowered to get the parent into legal
trouble any time the parent does something the child does not like
(Farrell, 2001, 204-205).
Implications for Research
Unfortunately, due to the absence of empirical research, it is
necessary to re-issue the now decade old call to: "compare abused
children to children reported to CPS but whose cases turned out to be
unfounded. This comparison is critical in separating the possible
impact of abuse from the potential impact of professionals' response
to the abuse" (Fincham et .al., 1994, 250).
Implications for Practice and Policy
The four most critical implications for practice and policy stemming
from the literature reviewed above are that: (a) we must seek to
balance an overzealous search for abuse and neglect with the rights of
due process for the accused by replacing the family court standard of
the "best interest of the child" (Finley, 2002a) with the criminal
court standards of due process; (b) we must carefully re-examine our
"presumptions" regarding guilt, innocence, and truthfulness; (c) we
must forgo denial and recognize not only that more than half of the
abuse and neglect allegations are unfounded or false but also that
these investigations inherently cause harms to children and parents;
and (d) most critically, we must recognize that, even if the
investigations turn out to be unfounded or false, the harms inherent
to these investigations remain with - and influence the lives of -
children, fathers, and mothers for the balance of their lives.
References
Benedek, E.P., & Schetky, D.H. (1985). Allegations of sexual abuse
in child custody and visitation
disputes. In D.H. Schetky & E.B. Benedek (Eds.), Emerging issues in
child psychiatry and the law. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Berson, N.L., Herman-Giddens, M.E., & Frothingham, T.E. (1993).
Children's perceptions of genital
examinations during sexual abuse evaluations. Child Welfare League
of America,72, 41-49.
Besharov, D.J. (1985). "Doing Something" About Child Abuse: The
Need to Narrow the Grounds for
State Intervention. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 8,
539-589.
Besharov, D. (1988). The central dilemma: Protecting abused
children while protecting innocent
parents. In H. Wakefield & R. Underwager (Eds.), Accusations of child
sexual abuse (pp.3-15). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Brooks, C.M. & Milchman, M.S. (1991). Child Sexual Abuse Allegations
during Custody Litigation:
Conflicts between Mental Health Expert Witnesses and the Law.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 21-32.
Dillon, K.M. (1987). False sexual abuse allegations: Causes and
concerns. Social Work, 32(6), 540-541.
Duquette, D. (1982). Protecting individual liberties in the context
of screening for child abuse. In Starr,
R.H., Child abuse prediction: Policy implications (pp.191-204).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994). The
professional response to child
sexual abuse: Whose interests are served? Family Relations, 43,
244-254.
Fincham, F.D., Beach, S.R.H., Moore, T., and Diener, C. (1994).
Child sexual abuse: Finding common
ground. Family Relations, 43, 264- 266.
Farrell, W. (2001). Father and child reunion. New York:
Tarcher/Putnam.
Finley, G.E. (2002a). The best interest of the child and the eye of
the beholder. [Review of C. Panter-
Brick & M.T. Smith (Eds.) Abandoned Children.] ContemporaryPsychology
APA REVIEW OF BOOKS, 47 (5), 629-631.
Finley, G.E. (2002b). Family and state in the context of abuse and
neglect: An input-output analysis.
Adoption Quarterly, 5 (4), 1-6.
Finley, G.E. (2003). Father-child relationships following divorce.
In J.R. Miller, R. M. Lerner, L.B.
Schiamberg, & P.M. Anderson (Eds.) Human ecology, Volume 1: A - H.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, pp. 291-293.

Green, A.H. (1991). Factors contributing to false allegations of
child sexual abuse in custody disputes.
Child & Youth Services, 15(2), 177- 189.
Green, A.H. & Schetky, D.H. (1988). True and false allegations of
child sexual abuse. In D.H. Schetky &
A.H. Green, Child sexual abuse (pp.104-124). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Hickman, J.A. & Reynolds, C.R. (1994). Effects of false allegations
of sexual abuse on children and
families. In B. Threatt (Ed.), Evaluating children's allegations of
sexual assault. Austin: Texas
Legal Resource Center for Children and Travis County Bar Association.
Lipovsky, J.A. (1994). The Impact of Court on Children: Research
Finding and Practical
Recommendations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 238-257.
Parker, J.Y. (1982). The Rights of Child Witnesses: Is the Court a
Protector or Perpetrator? New
England Law Review, 17, 643-717.
Patterson, D.H. (1991). The other victim: The falsely accused parent
in a sexual abuse custody case.
Journal of family law, 30(4), 919-941.
Robin, M. (1992). The trauma of false allegations of sexual abuse.
In E.C. Viano (Ed.), Critical issues in
victimology: International perspectives (pp. 140-152), New York:
Springer.
Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on
the Children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (12),
233-260.
Wakefield, M.A. & Underwager, R. (1991). Sexual abuse allegations in
divorce and custody disputes.
Behavioral sciences and the law, 9, 451-468.
Weiss, E.H. and Berg, R.F. (1982). Child Psychiatry and Law: Child
Victims of Sexual Assault: Impact
of Court Procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 21, 513-518.
Wong, D. (1989). False allegations of child abuse: The other side of
the tragedy. Pediatric nursing¸ 13(5),
329-333.

[Greg Hanson]

> >> > When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
> >> > I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
> >> > that should be perjury.
> >>
> >> Did they swear you have a sex abuse history,
> >> or that they know you sexually abused?
> >> If I read that you have a history and swear
> >> I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not
> >> that you sexually abused anyone.
> >
> >No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
> >in reference to the past investigations which
> >were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.
>
> Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't
> listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we,
> Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned.

Dan has offered no useful suggestions on
how to force blood from a stone.

Dan?

> >> > At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
> >> > have looked it up on a computer. He did not.
> >>
> >> How do you know he didn't?
> >
> >Because it doesn't exist and I found the old
> >documents which prove he lied about the past
> >CPS investigation that found nothing.
>
> And you don't know how to use them other
> than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?"

Ignored by CPS.
Ignored in Juvenile Court.

Dan?

> What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want
> that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the mother
> that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a state
> settlement.

I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail.

> I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions.

Right. In your own anonymous way you determined that.

> What's holdin' you up, besides your ****filled drawers?
>
> >CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
> >somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
>
> Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it
> wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart.

We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off
their state paid arse and do diddly squat.
The ones we have seen have been the sorriest
bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits.

> They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are
> making, such as THAT is no longer the reason
> they are not returning the child.

A tactic you endorse?

> I'd say you ought to go for it if you are
> sure you have a case. Even if you are not.
>
> I'd love to see what you do in the clinch.

> I kinda thought making little girls let you
> be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making
> them take cold showers had more stink
> of voyeurism.

Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not.

> >> You recently popped up with a new bit on
> >> your prior retraining order
> >> history. Brand new stuff to me.
> >
> >New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>
> You didn't talk recently about your wife
> or was it a prior "fiance"
> having a restraining order against you?

Nope. So it seems these new revelations
you yapped about were just some fairy tale.

This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking
around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing.
Somebody who can't keep facts straight and
turns it into glorified gossip can be
extremely dangerous to families.

> highly likely fact.

Here's a "thinking error" again.

> As long as you post here, trying to convince us,
> and possibly yourself, that you are the victim
> in the mother/child/CPS escapade you
> will blow it and spill more.

> You are carefull, and neurotically, building
> around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim
> state of mind so that you can keep your
> indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS.

I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us.
I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History".

We have both admitted that there are things we could
have done better. We will NOT melt into quivering
masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially
since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM.

A simple warning would have been enough.
A stated requirement would have been enough.
Standards for clutter would have helped.

But the RIGGED services, the bitchy caseworker,
the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected,
these show us malevolent intent.

> >> > A large number of parents who have dealt with
> >> > CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
> >> > to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.
> >>
> >> Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway.
> >
> >Civilians can't bring criminal charges.
>
> A civilian can't sign a complaint against
> another person for actions that are criminal?
>
> Our country is in some trouble.
>
> You are being a nit picking dip**** yet again.
> Why do you do that when you have
> been called on your bull****?

You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking.


>
> >The Prosecutor would do that.
>
> And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dip**** nitpicker
> caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything
> here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others from
> time to time, will call you on your crap.
>
> >They will not prosecute the caseworker.
>
> Liar. The media as posted by your other
> Dip**** Tree buddy proves you
> wrong time and again.

Started by the state prosecutor.

> Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted.
> And on many kinds of charges.

Never started by a parent.
Only when started by the state itself.

> You are, as I've said many a time, a liar.
> Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant.
> Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy.

But you can't decide?
If you can't decide then why have
you asserted I am a liar?
Stating something you apparently haven't
decided is so would make you a liar.

> Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual.
If they violate their manual and the law, they
then have partial immunity.
Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute.
It's called "qualified immunity" I think.

> You want the reader

Is anybody reading this dreck?

Kane wrote
> to think there is something perverse
> in my showering with my own children...

Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > >> > When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
> > >> > I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
> > >> > that should be perjury.
> > >>
> > >> Did they swear you have a sex abuse history,
> > >> or that they know you sexually abused?
> > >> If I read that you have a history and swear
> > >> I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not
> > >> that you sexually abused anyone.
> > >
> > >No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
> > >in reference to the past investigations which
> > >were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.
> >
> > Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't
> > listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we,
> > Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned.
>
> Dan has offered no useful suggestions on
> how to force blood from a stone.
>
> Dan?

I don't know how to get blood from a stone.

But my tactics and strategy for getting children back from CPS is in direct
opposition to everything you've done.

[Kane]

On 27 Nov 2003 08:25:18 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> >> > When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
>> >> > I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
>> >> > that should be perjury.
>> >>
>> >> Did they swear you have a sex abuse history,
>> >> or that they know you sexually abused?
>> >> If I read that you have a history and swear
>> >> I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not
>> >> that you sexually abused anyone.
>> >
>> >No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
>> >in reference to the past investigations which
>> >were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.
>>
>> Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't
>> listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we,
>> Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned.
>
>Dan has offered no useful suggestions on
>how to force blood from a stone.
>
>Dan?

You are correct. He has on how to force CPS and the courts to return
children and get abuse findings unfounded.

"Blood from a stone" strongly suggests you are in this for the money.
I've never seen Dan, beyond possibly saying something on the order of
"So sue 'em" offer advice on how to get money out of the state. That's
not was he wishes to do here, if I understand correctly.

So because he won't do what YOU want you won't use what he is good at?

We know that of course, but I thought I'd remind you. 1

>> >> > At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
>> >> > have looked it up on a computer. He did not.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know he didn't?
>> >
>> >Because it doesn't exist and I found the old
>> >documents which prove he lied about the past
>> >CPS investigation that found nothing.
>>
>> And you don't know how to use them other
>> than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?"
>
>Ignored by CPS.

When they are delivered in the manner in which you delivered your
demands in the Motion it is no wonder. I think you were lucky to be
heard at all, if you were.

>Ignored in Juvenile Court.

Same as above.

>Dan?

I can't answer for Dan but I can give my opinion. You are so obviously
a litiginous little creep, with delusions of getting off the state and
willing ot sacrifice a child and mother connection to do the court is
giving you ZERO credibility. Your "Motion" reeks of it. The deliberate
demands, the pompous pronouncements, the outrageous accusations
against people, the sick language about the grandmother, the things
you write here (it's my bet some worker from your area has heard about
you here and could well have googled your posts, copied and dropped
them off with the court clerk....wouldn't surprize me...it's a free
country after all.)

>> What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want
>> that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the
mother
>> that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a
state
>> settlement.
>
>I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail.

Bull****. If I offered you 10 k right now to walk and drop the whole
thing you couldn't pack fast enough. You are too obvious you stinking
Whore.

>> I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions.
>
>Right. In your own anonymous way you determined that.

Yep...right along with a few others that observe you here and make it
plan to you they think the same of you.

>> What's holdin' you up, besides your ****filled drawers?
>>
>> >CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
>> >somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
>>
>> Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it
>> wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart.
>
>We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off
>their state paid arse and do diddly squat.

I haven't seen a "fiance" get up off his lazy unemployed ass, get a
job, and pay for a better lawyer. Have you noticed that yet?

You haven't had a kid there, and NO responsibilities for 2+ years, and
you still won't go out and earn enough to pay a better lawyer.

So much for defending "YOUR, 'family'"

Dedicated, aren't you.

>The ones we have seen have been the sorriest
>bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits.

Well, check out what they get paid. You are just a stop gap until they
can get into a law firm, or you are pro bono for a more fully employed
lawyer that does public service.

>> They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are
>> making, such as THAT is no longer the reason
>> they are not returning the child.
>
>A tactic you endorse?

It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case, I'd recommend
immediate arrest and a death penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
your greed and laziness. And the chance you can milk the state, much
more than you are currently milking the mother.

You are a "bummer calf."

A bully that took the love of a mother from the child, and the support
as well.

I think they have been more than patient with you, asshole,
considering what it's cost the child...I'm reaching the point where I
can't anything but the deepest pity for the mother, or if she knows
what she is doing, the deepest disgust.

>> I'd say you ought to go for it if you are
>> sure you have a case. Even if you are not.
>>
>> I'd love to see what you do in the clinch.
>
>> I kinda thought making little girls let you
>> be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making
>> them take cold showers had more stink
>> of voyeurism.
>
>Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not.

Says you. You had a hundred other choices about how to handle the
problem. One of which was to let the girl shower herself, after you
left her towels. This is, according to you, a child of nearly genius
capacity.

And even the punishment, you sick ****, could have been different..but
no, it had to be a shower, and you had to bring towels to a child of
six and more, and you had to stand by while she shampooed instead of
simply giving her instructions to go back and rinse the shampoo out.

No, Greeg, you wanted to be there in the bathroom.

>> >> You recently popped up with a new bit on
>> >> your prior retraining order
>> >> history. Brand new stuff to me.
>> >
>> >New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>>
>> You didn't talk recently about your wife
>> or was it a prior "fiance"
>> having a restraining order against you?
>
>Nope. So it seems these new revelations
>you yapped about were just some fairy tale.

Then why did you say, about a domestic violence complaint, to Dan, it
was twice then it was once?

You could have easily, instead of denying the restraining order
admitted it was a domestic violence beef. Why is it you hold out so on
information, teasing, teasing, teasing, until you finally stupidly
blurt it out?

>This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking
>around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing.

How is it "a lot like why" "mucking?"

>Somebody who can't keep facts straight and
>turns it into glorified gossip can be
>extremely dangerous to families.

And a big fat hole out of the system for the child and the parents,
and even for stupid selfish little pricks like you...if that was what
you wanted.

You are looking for something you think you have a chance of sueing
for...and no matter the cost to mother and child.

>> highly likely fact.
>
>Here's a "thinking error" again.

Speculation is not a ""thinking error."" That is why I used the word
"likely."

>> As long as you post here, trying to convince us,
>> and possibly yourself, that you are the victim
>> in the mother/child/CPS escapade you
>> will blow it and spill more.
>
>> You are carefull, and neurotically, building
>> around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim
>> state of mind so that you can keep your
>> indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS.
>
>I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us.
>I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History".

You love it. You love it. You can't and don't want to counter it. You
just are ragingly frustrated that you can't figure out how to make it
a civil case. Poor little Greegor.

>We have both admitted that there are things we could
>have done better.

I should hope.

>We will NOT melt into quivering
>masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially
>since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM.

Translation:"no matter how innocuous the demands of CPS and the judge
we will not comply as the child is not the point here...my ego and my
pocketbook are."

>A simple warning would have been enough.

"Now that you have been in the bathroom with the naked child X number
of times, don't do it again."

Yeah, that's sure how CPS can protect children from predatory
pedaphiles. Sure, that's it.

>A stated requirement would have been enough.

"If we catch you again we will give you another warning."

That's even better.

Like you, a grown adult male, with the mind of a creepy hormone
impaired adolescent (aren't they darling though?) are unable to figure
out you have no business in the bathroom with an unrelated female six
year old with NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE.

>Standards for clutter would have helped.

I'll give you one. Get your **** out of the house that doesn't belong
to you and most especially OUT OF THE CHILDS TINY BEDROOM IN A
SINGLEWIDE MOBILE HOME, you twit.

>But the RIGGED services,

Oh, how do you "rig" an order to attend, what is obviously badly
needed, parenting classes for the little male whore living with the
mother sans matrimony"

>the bitchy caseworker,

I would have much preferred a six foot 4 hairly ape that would check
quick and make sure no one was looking and popped you a hefty one to
your fat lazy gut.

I'm surprised the worker doesn't spit on you. It's a credit to her
professionalism. Thank heaven's for your sake I'm not a CPS caseworker
and more especially not your girl friend's.

>the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected,
>these show us malevolent intent.

They are holding they file open on you to see what comes up. I
certainly would consider that a smart thing to do. They DON'T HAVE TO
unless you can bring a successful court challenge, just like Dan
showed you and many others how to do. And even then I doubt they are
required to remove their information on YOU an unrelated adult
squating in the house.

>> >> > A large number of parents who have dealt with
>> >> > CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
>> >> > to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.
>> >>
>> >> Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway.
>> >
>> >Civilians can't bring criminal charges.
>>
>> A civilian can't sign a complaint against
>> another person for actions that are criminal?
>>
>> Our country is in some trouble.
>>
>> You are being a nit picking dip**** yet again.
>> Why do you do that when you have
>> been called on your bull****?
>
>You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking.

Bull****. I call it like it is. That may be too sophisticated for you
but it isn't "sophistry." My arguments aren't fallacious. They are
factual. Hence sophistry is the incorrect term.

I just see through your highly transparent veneer of ****.
>>
>> >The Prosecutor would do that.
>>
>> And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dip**** nitpicker
>> caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything
>> here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others
from
>> time to time, will call you on your crap.
>>
>> >They will not prosecute the caseworker.
>>
>> Liar. The media as posted by your other
>> Dip**** Tree buddy proves you
>> wrong time and again.
>
>Started by the state prosecutor.

Which is completely incomprehensible dribbling diarrhea considering th
three previous statements.

>> Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted.
>> And on many kinds of charges.
>
>Never started by a parent.
>Only when started by the state itself.

Oh...?

You better call or write real quick. These folks, one of the more
rabid anti CPS groups at their web site made the claim:

http://www.beanswers.com/pages/miscinfo.htm page to the bottom.

LAWSUITS (THE TORT CLAIM)

"It is now possible for parents to sue agencies and their personnel.
Many states have already allowed such lawsuits, and parents have often
won them. "

Were they lying, Whore, or were you? Or are you just too stupid to
look up things so easily found in the Web before you run off at the
mouth.

Watch folks. Yet another claim by the asshole child abuser displacer
shot down that he will suddenly lose complete interest in.

And for your information The State rarely starts civil suits on behalf
of parents that don't themselves file a complaint and intent to sue
through an attorney. So your statement is yet another weaseling bit of
SOPHISTRY... a fallacious attempt to con the reader.

>> You are, as I've said many a time, a liar.
>> Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant.
>> Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy.
>
>But you can't decide?

No. You put on so many faces here.

>If you can't decide then why have
>you asserted I am a liar?

That is obvious. All too obvious. I just caught you in one above.

>Stating something you apparently haven't
>decided is so would make you a liar.

I beg your pardon?

Would you mind terribly doing a dictionary search for us and show
where a speculative statement is a lie, or stating they one doesn't
know something but is considering alternatives is a lie?

Are you out of your freekin' mind?

>> Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity.
>
>Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual.

Well, do you think they should be able to do their work or not. If a
cop, butcher, doctor, lawyer, adheres to their standards and it turns
out badly for the patient, customer, client, the professional, with no
intent to harm, should be paying you off?

The trick is to find intent of harm. THAT is what you assholes keep
crying about. You want some one sued when they meant no harm and did
exactly as stipulated as a professional standard, even under the law.

>If they violate their manual and the law, they
>then have partial immunity.

Not if there was intent to harm, and you can prove it.

>Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute.

Not if you can prove intent to harm. You and your little army of anti
CPS dipwads want to confuse the issue, so you make these stupid
claims.

>It's called "qualified immunity" I think.

Yes, they have "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY." So do parents. I can't spank
their child, but they can. The qualification is that they are the
paretn. The workers qualification is that they are a state worker.

Without that immunity they cannot perform their duties.

When the **** up...they are YOURS, dummy...as Dan has proven time and
time again...and they don't even have to have had BAD INTENT.

You don't want the child back, you want to sue and the child be
damned. It's so obvious now you cannot possibly weasel your way out of
people seeing it plainly.

>> You want the reader
>
>Is anybody reading this dreck?

You hope not.

I hope they are so that the next time you jump on a new poster, as is
your habit, to try and mislead them and subvert them you will be even
MORE easily exposed for the lying sneaking child abusing mother
****ing-up smelly asshole you really are.

>Kane wrote
>> to think there is something perverse
>> in my showering with my own children...
>
>Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?

Sure, only I won't arfully snip to make me look like a perv, as NON of
us have had to snip you to show you as the perv YOU ARE>

You have tried to make people think that my showering with my children
until they were old enough, LONG BEFORE SIX, to notice our sexual
differences is perverse.

I can understand why you must have to not go out to work or deal with
anyone in the real world by the refund clerk at the supermarket.

You are such a loser it's beat you into retreat. If you are this
hapless, and a loser with me in a silly ass newsgroup, what must your
failures look like in real life?

Oh, wait, you've found someone to share your loser victim role,
haven't you now:

The mother.

By the way, you carefully have avoided, snipped I imagine, the
question I asked:

Given that YOU had to shower and attend the child when she was there,
before you came into the household, while the mother was working, who
supplied child care?

Betcha snip it again to avoid answering, eh? Thought up a good enough
lie yet...

Try it out on us. I've a hunch there are four or five of us just
waiting to see your newest bit of sick nonsense.


Kane

[Kane]

On 28 Nov 2003 04:39:08 GMT, wrote:

(Kane) wrote:
>> On 27 Nov 2003 08:25:18 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
>> >> >> > I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
>> >> >> > that should be perjury.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did they swear you have a sex abuse history,
>> >> >> or that they know you sexually abused?
>> >> >> If I read that you have a history and swear
>> >> >> I read it that is all I'm swearing to, not
>> >> >> that you sexually abused anyone.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
>> >> >in reference to the past investigations which
>> >> >were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.
>> >>
>> >> Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't
>> >> listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we,
>> >> Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned.
>> >
>> >Dan has offered no useful suggestions on
>> >how to force blood from a stone.
>> >
>> >Dan?
>>
>> You are correct. He has on how to force CPS and the courts to return
>> children and get abuse findings unfounded.
>>
>> "Blood from a stone" strongly suggests you are in this for the money.
>> I've never seen Dan, beyond possibly saying something on the order of
>> "So sue 'em" offer advice on how to get money out of the state. That's
>> not was he wishes to do here, if I understand correctly.
>>
>> So because he won't do what YOU want you won't use what he is good at?
>>
>> We know that of course, but I thought I'd remind you. 1
>>
>> >> >> > At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
>> >> >> > have looked it up on a computer. He did not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How do you know he didn't?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because it doesn't exist and I found the old
>> >> >documents which prove he lied about the past
>> >> >CPS investigation that found nothing.
>> >>
>> >> And you don't know how to use them other
>> >> than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?"
>> >
>> >Ignored by CPS.
>>
>> When they are delivered in the manner in which you delivered your
>> demands in the Motion it is no wonder. I think you were lucky to be
>> heard at all, if you were.
>>
>> >Ignored in Juvenile Court.
>>
>> Same as above.
>>
>> >Dan?
>>
>> I can't answer for Dan but I can give my opinion. You are so obviously
>> a litiginous little creep, with delusions of getting off the state and
>> willing ot sacrifice a child and mother connection to do the court is
>> giving you ZERO credibility. Your "Motion" reeks of it. The deliberate
>> demands, the pompous pronouncements, the outrageous accusations
>> against people, the sick language about the grandmother, the things
>> you write here (it's my bet some worker from your area has heard about
>> you here and could well have googled your posts, copied and dropped
>> them off with the court clerk....wouldn't surprize me...it's a free
>> country after all.)
>>
>> >> What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want
>> >> that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the
>> mother
>> >> that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a
>> state
>> >> settlement.
>> >
>> >I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail.
>>
>> Bull****. If I offered you 10 k right now to walk and drop the whole
>> thing you couldn't pack fast enough. You are too obvious you stinking
>> Whore.
>>
>> >> I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions.
>> >
>> >Right. In your own anonymous way you determined that.
>>
>> Yep...right along with a few others that observe you here and make it
>> plan to you they think the same of you.
>>
>> >> What's holdin' you up, besides your ****filled drawers?
>> >>
>> >> >CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
>> >> >somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
>> >>
>> >> Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it
>> >> wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart.
>> >
>> >We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off
>> >their state paid arse and do diddly squat.
>>
>> I haven't seen a "fiance" get up off his lazy unemployed ass, get a
>> job, and pay for a better lawyer. Have you noticed that yet?
>>
>> You haven't had a kid there, and NO responsibilities for 2+ years, and
>> you still won't go out and earn enough to pay a better lawyer.
>>
>> So much for defending "YOUR, 'family'"
>>
>> Dedicated, aren't you.
>>
>> >The ones we have seen have been the sorriest
>> >bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits.
>>
>> Well, check out what they get paid. You are just a stop gap until they
>> can get into a law firm, or you are pro bono for a more fully employed
>> lawyer that does public service.
>>
>> >> They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are
>> >> making, such as THAT is no longer the reason
>> >> they are not returning the child.
>> >
>> >A tactic you endorse?
>>
>> It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case, I'd recommend
>> immediate arrest and a death penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
>> your greed and laziness. And the chance you can milk the state, much
>> more than you are currently milking the mother.
>>
>> You are a "bummer calf."
>>
>> A bully that took the love of a mother from the child, and the support
>> as well.
>>
>> I think they have been more than patient with you, asshole,
>> considering what it's cost the child...I'm reaching the point where I
>> can't anything but the deepest pity for the mother, or if she knows
>> what she is doing, the deepest disgust.
>>
>> >> I'd say you ought to go for it if you are
>> >> sure you have a case. Even if you are not.
>> >>
>> >> I'd love to see what you do in the clinch.
>> >
>> >> I kinda thought making little girls let you
>> >> be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making
>> >> them take cold showers had more stink
>> >> of voyeurism.
>> >
>> >Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not.
>>
>> Says you. You had a hundred other choices about how to handle the
>> problem. One of which was to let the girl shower herself, after you
>> left her towels. This is, according to you, a child of nearly genius
>> capacity.
>>
>> And even the punishment, you sick ****, could have been different..but
>> no, it had to be a shower, and you had to bring towels to a child of
>> six and more, and you had to stand by while she shampooed instead of
>> simply giving her instructions to go back and rinse the shampoo out.
>>
>> No, Greeg, you wanted to be there in the bathroom.
>>
>> >> >> You recently popped up with a new bit on
>> >> >> your prior retraining order
>> >> >> history. Brand new stuff to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> >>
>> >> You didn't talk recently about your wife
>> >> or was it a prior "fiance"
>> >> having a restraining order against you?
>> >
>> >Nope. So it seems these new revelations
>> >you yapped about were just some fairy tale.
>>
>> Then why did you say, about a domestic violence complaint, to Dan, it
>> was twice then it was once?
>>
>> You could have easily, instead of denying the restraining order
>> admitted it was a domestic violence beef. Why is it you hold out so on
>> information, teasing, teasing, teasing, until you finally stupidly
>> blurt it out?
>>
>> >This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking
>> >around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing.
>>
>> How is it "a lot like why" "mucking?"
>>
>> >Somebody who can't keep facts straight and
>> >turns it into glorified gossip can be
>> >extremely dangerous to families.
>>
>> And a big fat hole out of the system for the child and the parents,
>> and even for stupid selfish little pricks like you...if that was what
>> you wanted.
>>
>> You are looking for something you think you have a chance of sueing
>> for...and no matter the cost to mother and child.
>>
>> >> highly likely fact.
>> >
>> >Here's a "thinking error" again.
>>
>> Speculation is not a ""thinking error."" That is why I used the word
>> "likely."
>>
>> >> As long as you post here, trying to convince us,
>> >> and possibly yourself, that you are the victim
>> >> in the mother/child/CPS escapade you
>> >> will blow it and spill more.
>> >
>> >> You are carefull, and neurotically, building
>> >> around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim
>> >> state of mind so that you can keep your
>> >> indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS.
>> >
>> >I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us.
>> >I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History".
>>
>> You love it. You love it. You can't and don't want to counter it. You
>> just are ragingly frustrated that you can't figure out how to make it
>> a civil case. Poor little Greegor.
>>
>> >We have both admitted that there are things we could
>> >have done better.
>>
>> I should hope.
>>
>> >We will NOT melt into quivering
>> >masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially
>> >since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM.
>>
>> Translation: "no matter how innocuou the demands of CPS and the judge
>> we will not comply as the child is not the point here...my ego and my
>> pocketbook are."
>>
>> >A simple warning would have been enough.
>>
>> "Now that you have been in the bathroom with the naked child X number
>> of times, don't do it again."
>>
>> Yeah, that's sure how CPS can protect children from predatory
>> pedaphiles. Sure, that's it.
>>
>> >A stated requirement would have been enough.
>>
>> "If we catch you again we will give you another warning."
>>
>> That's even better.
>>
>> Like you, a grown adult male, with the mind of a creepy hormone
>> impaired adolescent (aren't they darling though?) are unable to figure
>> out you have no business in the bathroom with an unrelated female six
>> year old with NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE.
>>
>> >Standards for clutter would have helped.
>>
>> I'll give you one. Get your **** out of the house that doesn't belong
>> to you and most especially OUT OF THE CHILDS TINY BEDROOM IN A
>> SINGLEWIDE MOBILE HOME, you twit.
>>
>> >But the RIGGED services,
>>
>> Oh, how do you "rig" an order to attend, what is obviously badly
>> needed, parenting classes for the little male whore living with the
>> mother sans matrimony"
>>
>> >the bitchy caseworker,
>>
>> I would have much preferred a six foot 4 hairly ape that would check
>> quick and make sure no one was looking and popped you a hefty one to
>> your fat lazy gut.
>>
>> I'm surprised the worker doesn't spit on you. It's a credit to her
>> professionalism. Thank heaven's for your sake I'm not a CPS caseworker
>> and more especially not your girl friend's.
>>
>> >the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected,
>> >these show us malevolent intent.
>>
>> They are holding they file open on you to see what comes up. I
>> certainly would consider that a smart thing to do. They DON'T HAVE TO
>> unless you can bring a successful court challenge, just like Dan
>> showed you and many others how to do. And even then I doubt they are
>> required to remove their information on YOU an unrelated adult
>> squating in the house.
>>
>> >> >> > A large number of parents who have dealt with
>> >> >> > CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
>> >> >> > to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >Civilians can't bring criminal charges.
>> >>
>> >> A civilian can't sign a complaint against
>> >> another person for actions that are criminal?
>> >>
>> >> Our country is in some trouble.
>> >>
>> >> You are being a nit picking dip**** yet again.
>> >> Why do you do that when you have
>> >> been called on your bull****?
>> >
>> >You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking.
>>
>> Bull****. I call it like it is. That may be too sophisticated for you
>> but it isn't "sophistry." My arguments aren't fallacious. They are
>> factual. Hence sophistry is the incorrect term.
>>
>> I just see through your highly transparent veneer of ****.
>> >>
>> >> >The Prosecutor would do that.
>> >>
>> >> And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dip**** nitpicker
>> >> caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything
>> >> here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others
>> from
>> >> time to time, will call you on your crap.
>> >>
>> >> >They will not prosecute the caseworker.
>> >>
>> >> Liar. The media as posted by your other
>> >> Dip**** Tree buddy proves you
>> >> wrong time and again.
>> >
>> >Started by the state prosecutor.
>>
>> Which is completely incomprehensible dribbling diarrhea considering th
>> three previous statements.
>>
>> >> Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted.
>> >> And on many kinds of charges.
>> >
>> >Never started by a parent.
>> >Only when started by the state itself.
>>
>> Oh...?
>>
>> You better call or write real quick. These folks, one of the more
>> rabid anti CPS groups at their web site made the claim:
>>
>> http://www.beanswers.com/pages/miscinfo.htm page to the bottom.
>>
>> LAWSUITS (THE TORT CLAIM)
>>
>> "It is now possible for parents to sue agencies and their personnel.
>> Many states have already allowed such lawsuits, and parents have often
>> won them. "
>>
>> Were they lying, Whore, or were you? Or are you just too stupid to
>> look up things so easily found in the Web before you run off at the
>> mouth.
>>
>> Watch folks. Yet another claim by the asshole child abuser displacer
>> shot down that he will suddenly lose complete interest in.
>>
>> And for your information The State rarely starts civil suits on behalf
>> of parents that don't themselves file a complaint and intent to sue
>> through an attorney. So your statement is yet another weaseling bit of
>> SOPHISTRY... a fallacious attempt to con the reader.
>>
>> >> You are, as I've said many a time, a liar.
>> >> Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant.
>> >> Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy.
>> >
>> >But you can't decide?
>>
>> No. You put on so many faces here.
>>
>> >If you can't decide then why have
>> >you asserted I am a liar?
>>
>> That is obvious. All too obvious. I just caught you in one above.
>>
>> >Stating something you apparently haven't
>> >decided is so would make you a liar.
>>
>> I beg your pardon?
>>
>> Would you mind terribly doing a dictionary search for us and show
>> where a speculative statement is a lie, or stating they one doesn't
>> know something but is considering alternatives is a lie?
>>
>> Are you out of your freekin' mind?
>>
>> >> Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity.
>> >
>> >Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual.
>>
>> Well, do you think they should be able to do their work or not. If a
>> cop, butcher, doctor, lawyer, adheres to their standards and it turns
>> out badly for the patient, customer, client, the professional, with no
>> intent to harm, should be paying you off?
>>
>> The trick is to find intent of harm. THAT is what you assholes keep
>> crying about. You want some one sued when they meant no harm and did
>> exactly as stipulated as a professional standard, even under the law.
>>
>> >If they violate their manual and the law, they
>> >then have partial immunity.
>>
>> Not if there was intent to harm, and you can prove it.
>>
>> >Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute.
>>
>> Not if you can prove intent to harm. You and your little army of anti
>> CPS dipwads want to confuse the issue, so you make these stupid
>> claims.
>>
>> >It's called "qualified immunity" I think.
>>
>> Yes, they have "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY." So do parents. I can't spank
>> their child, but they can. The qualification is that they are the
>> paretn. The workers qualification is that they are a state worker.
>>
>> Without that immunity they cannot perform their duties.
>>
>> When the **** up...they are YOURS, dummy...as Dan has proven time and
>> time again...and they don't even have to have had BAD INTENT.
>>
>> You don't want the child back, you want to sue and the child be
>> damned. It's so obvious now you cannot possibly weasel your way out of
>> people seeing it plainly.
>>
>> >> You want the reader
>> >
>> >Is anybody reading this dreck?
>>
>> You hope not.
>>
>> I hope they are so that the next time you jump on a new poster, as is
>> your habit, to try and mislead them and subvert them you will be even
>> MORE easily exposed for the lying sneaking child abusing mother
>> ****ing-up smelly asshole you really are.
>>
>> >Kane wrote
>> >> to think there is something perverse
>> >> in my showering with my own children...
>> >
>> >Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?
>>
>> Sure, only I won't arfully snip to make me look like a perv, as NON of
>> us have had to snip you to show you as the perv YOU ARE>
>>
>> You have tried to make people think that my showering with my children
>> until they were old enough, LONG BEFORE SIX, to notice our sexual
>> differences is perverse.
>>
>> I can understand why you must have to not go out to work or deal with
>> anyone in the real world by the refund clerk at the supermarket.
>>
>> You are such a loser it's beat you into retreat. If you are this
>> hapless, and a loser with me in a silly ass newsgroup, what must your
>> failures look like in real life?
>>
>> Oh, wait, you've found someone to share your loser victim role,
>> haven't you now:
>>
>> The mother.
>>
>> By the way, you carefully have avoided, snipped I imagine, the
>> question I asked:
>>
>> Given that YOU had to shower and attend the child when she was there,
>> before you came into the household, while the mother was working, who
>> supplied child care?
>>
>> Betcha snip it again to avoid answering, eh? Thought up a good enough
>> lie yet...
>>
>> Try it out on us. I've a hunch there are four or five of us just
>> waiting to see your newest bit of sick nonsense
>
>~yawn~

Still suffering from that lack of oxygen thingie then?

Go suck a Plant Dennis instead of your buddy's Bong.

Does your CPSWatch know where you are tonight?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane wrote
> It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case,
> I'd recommend immediate arrest and a death
> penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
> your greed and laziness. And the chance you
> can milk the state, much more than you are
> currently milking the mother.

Thank you for the opportunity to outline your
well intentioned reasoning. :)

You're a psycho, Kane.

You play your little posturing game like some
16 year old trying to prove how great he is.

Argue like crazy about why parents should not
spank, as if that wasn't a clue as to your
age right there. Vent your anger.

Argue about every little slight that could
happen to a child, pretend you aren't projecting.

But you get so rabid that you act and behave
like a perfect poster child to justify spanking.

And you engage in the very kind of behavior
that you complain about in others.
Your RAGE is exactly what causes problems when
people spank and go too far.

You try to pretend that you are so principled and
reasonable, but you just can't help your true nature.

You are a flying off the handle psycho, Kane.

You lack even enough discipline to have any
sort of reasoned discussion.

You basically would not EXIST if not for
your CRUSADE. It is your identity.
You are nothing else.

You get so rabid that any nitwit can see that
you would be throwing some sort of physical
temper tantrum if you were in person.
Swearing profusely long term does kind of
reveal something about you.

As I've said, you LACK IMPULSE CONTROL.

You act just like lots of sniveling teen punks
that I have seen, ready to "throw down" on a whim.
You are full of misplaced anger. That's a pathology.

You are a LIAR, a BRAGGART, and a major BS artist.
You are a pervert, pointing at someone and
calling them a pervert. You are a liar, pointing
at someone and calling them a liar.

As a ""grand inquisitor"" you are laughable.

[Kane]

On 28 Nov 2003 07:11:00 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Kane wrote
>> It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case,
>> I'd recommend immediate arrest and a death
>> penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
>> your greed and laziness. And the chance you
>> can milk the state, much more than you are
>> currently milking the mother.
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to outline your
>well intentioned reasoning. :)

So you married the mother, got a job, apologized to the court for your
outrageously stupid "motion," retracted your offer to have the state
pay you to conduct a proper spanking training for classes of alledged
child abusers, moved your crap out into storage that you pay for, and
followed the simple but proven effective guidelines Dan offers to help
families prevail against CPS, and the child is back in the loving arms
of her mother, with your crap moved out of her room, and you no longer
are so focused on shower room attendant activities.

I see.

>You're a psycho, Kane.

Never moved in on a mother and daughter, displaced the child's
possessions with my own, played watersports with the naked child,
written Motions to the Court that consisted of raving accusatory
demanding babble, or sat on my ass for 2+ years while building a can
and bottle refund empire because I have to provide child for a child
gone for 2.5 years or so.

I must be a psycho then.

>You play your little posturing game like some
>16 year old trying to prove how great he is.

See above.

And the following, for a real definition of a posturing asshole
psycho:

http://tinyurl.com/wwvd

"I did use my hands to push her head under
a shower spray to rinse shampoo out."

Then said by neither a parent or foster parent:

"Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
do this sort of thing all the time and it does
not raise a fuss. It is legal."

this from one of the 14 attempts by you at

http://tinyurl.com/wwvq

to try and weasel your way out of what you did, bringing up things
like women washing little boys "dingies" (what a juvenile mind you
have...it's "penis" not the childish "dingie. You talk like a pervert,
not a grown man"), and constantly by your stupidity reminding any
reader that you aren't a mother, father, or certified foster parent,
and you even described yourself as "wannabee step parent" as an excuse
for the child being forced to be naked with you.

You still refuse to admit that you had no business alone with a 7 year
old female (from your posts) forcing her with your hands on her to
"rinse shampoo out of her hair."

And I'm the psycho, eh?

>Argue like crazy about why parents should not
>spank, as if that wasn't a clue as to your
>age right there. Vent your anger.

Are you suggesting that those people who argue against spanking and
for gentle parenting are psycho's? In what way is this mentally ill?

As for my anger, you haven't seen me do that yet up close. Lucky
little pimple.

>Argue about every little slight that could
>happen to a child,

In my posts to you, in fact to the world, where I discuss children I
have come nowhere near arguing every little slight that can happen to
a child. I have, with you, stuck exactly to what you yourself admitted
to:

Displacement, your crap stored in her room, towelboying,
shampoogirling, punishing for euranesis, cold showering, spanking,
sabotaging the mother in the training setting, as well as in the
courtroom....all, asshole, by feeding you back the crap you offered up
to this ng without your whining ingenuous sick excuses.

> pretend you aren't projecting.

Out of the list I just supplied, or one you think YOU can provide,
please point out which, or any offenses, you think I have done that I
projected on YOU or that you haven't done.

>But you get so rabid that you act and behave
>like a perfect poster child to justify spanking.

So if a child dislikes what you have done to a child and tells you
they are now candidates for spanking?

As for that justifiable spanking you think I deserve, pick a spot.
I'll be happy to drop by and see if you can follow up. Bring a friend
or to. You will need them, ass on couch lazy slug.

>And you engage in the very kind of behavior
>that you complain about in others.

I have not done a single thing on that list of offenses against a
child and mother that you have confessed to.

So, asshole, which of my behaviors of others that I complain about
have I engaged in? Be very careful and think, as you will never find
me admonishing anyone for cursing, name calling, or expressing their
honest opinion even when I disagree with them heartily.

I tell them what I don't like, but I don't complain that they have
said it.

>Your RAGE is exactly what causes problems when
>people spank and go too far.

Show me a human being that is not angry and even enraged from time to
time and I'll show you someone that MIGHT not go too far in spanking.

>You try to pretend that you are so principled and
>reasonable, but you just can't help your true nature.

Empty nonsense. I am very principled. It's the basis for your
complaint of how I treat your viciousness toward child and mother.

It's your very problem with me.

>You are a flying off the handle psycho, Kane.

What's a "handle psycho" and what does flying off it entail...calling
you the names you so richly deserve? Pointing out to you, when you
start pretending you have a right to count yourself among normal
decent human beings, that you are a lowlife scum child abusing gigolo?

>You lack even enough discipline to have any
>sort of reasoned discussion.

No discussion I've even seen you have with any reasoned person has
resulted in YOU maintaining a reasoned response.

You inevitably drift off to your "I'm a victim" whining, attempting to
enlist them, no matter what problem of their own they bring for help,
to YOUR little asshole dog and pony show.

THAT, asshole, is a grand example of lack of self discipline.

>You basically would not EXIST if not for
>your CRUSADE.

And what would you say my "CRUSADE" might be?

It's easy to accuse, hard to be credible when you don't really define
what you are assusing someone of.

With you I try to remember to list at least a few of your offenses
each time I post to you. I think I am very clear in my accusations. Or
would you like to continue helping me tune them up even more? Keep
posting.

>It is your identity.

Redefining me by your standards is something of chuckle, considering
your standards.

>You are nothing else.

Silly nonsensical obstreporous spouting by an insignificant little
twit child abuser.

I am not impressed.

>You get so rabid that any nitwit can see that
>you would be throwing some sort of physical
>temper tantrum if you were in person.

Odd. I've never thrown a physical temper tantrum in my life. I don't
need to.

You have your little tantrums here on a daily basis, attempting to
excuse your behavior toward the child and her mother.

My strongly expressed complaints about you have not caused you the
least harm or anyone else while your confessed actions very clearly
have caused harm to mother and child, and your attempt to preempt
visitors to the ng to your cause detracts from their own need for
help.

You are the tantrumming little self absorbed prick here, Greegor.

>Swearing profusely long term does kind of
>reveal something about you.

What? That I enjoy varied and famous company of great men and women
who also swore or do now? **** yourself, dummy.

On 28 Nov 2003 07:11:00 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Kane wrote
>> It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case,
>> I'd recommend immediate arrest and a death
>> penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
>> your greed and laziness. And the chance you
>> can milk the state, much more than you are
>> currently milking the mother.
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to outline your
>well intentioned reasoning. :)

So you married the mother, got a job, apologized to the court for your
outrageously stupid "motion," retracted your offer to have the state
pay to you to conduct a proper spanking training for classes of
alledged child abusers, and followed the simple but proven effective
guidelines Dan offers to help families prevail against CPS, and the
child is back in the loving arms of her mother, with your crap moved
out of her room, and you no longer intent on showerroom attendant
activities.

I see.

>You're a psycho, Kane.

Never moved in on a mother and daughter, displaced the child's
possessions with my own, played watersports with the naked child,
written Motions to the Court that consisted of raving accusatory
demanding babble, or sat on my ass for 2+ years while building a can
and bottle refund empire.

I must be a psycho then.

>You play your little posturing game like some
>16 year old trying to prove how great he is.

See above.

And the following, for a real definition of a posturing asshole
psycho:

http://tinyurl.com/wwvd

"I did use my hands to push her head under
a shower spray to rinse shampoo out."

Then said by neither a parent or foster parent.

"Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
do this sort of thing all the time and it does
not raise a fuss. It is legal."

this from one of the 14 attempts by you at

http://tinyurl.com/wwvq

to try and weasel your way out of what you did, bringing up things
like women washing little boys "dingies" (what a juvenile mind you
have...it's "penis" not the childish term "dingie."), and constantly
by your stupidity reminding any reader that you aren't a mother,
father, or certified foster parent, and you even used the term to
describe yourself as "wannabee step parent" and you still refuse to
admit that you had no business alone with a 7 year old female (from
your posts) forcing her with your hands on her to "rinse shampoo out
of her hair."

And I'm the psycho, eh?

>Argue like crazy about why parents should not
>spank, as if that wasn't a clue as to your
>age right there. Vent your anger.

Are you suggesting that those people who argue against spanking and
for gentle parenting are psycho's?

As for my anger, you haven't seen me do that yet.

>Argue about every little slight that could
>happen to a child,

In my posts to you, in fact to the world, where I discuss children I
have come nowhere near arguing every little slight that can happen to
a child. I have, with you, stuck exactly to what you yourself admitted
to:

Displacement, your crap stored in her room, towboying, shampoogirling,
punishing for euranesis, cold shower, spanking, sabotaging the mother
in the training setting, as well as in the courtroom....all, asshole,
by feeding you back the crap you offered up to this ng without your
whining ingenuous sick excuses.

> pretend you aren't projecting.

Out of list I just supplied, or one you think YOU can provide, please
point out which, or any offenses, you think I hae done that I
projected on YOU.

>But you get so rabid that you act and behave
>like a perfect poster child to justify spanking.

So if a child dislikes what you have done to a child and tells you
they are now candidates for spanking?

Pick a spot. I'll be happy to drop by and see if you can follow up.

>And you engage in the very kind of behavior
>that you complain about in others.

I have not done a single thing on that list of offenses against a
child and mother that you have confessed to.

So, asshole, which of my behaviors of others that I complain about
have I engaged in? Be very careful and think, as you will never find
me admonishing anyone for cursing, name calling, or expressing their
honest opinion even when I disagree with them heartily.

I tell them what I don't like, but I don't complain that they have
said it.

>Your RAGE is exactly what causes problems when
>people spank and go too far.

Show me a human being that is not angry and even enraged from time to
time and I'll show you someone that MIGHT not go too far in spanking.

>You try to pretend that you are so principled and
>reasonable, but you just can't help your true nature.

Empty nonsense. I am very principled. It's the basis for your
complaint of how I treat your viciousness toward child and mother.

It's your problem with me.

>You are a flying off the handle psycho, Kane.

What's a "handle psycho" and what does flying off it entail...calling
you the names you so richly deserve? Pointing out to you, when you
start pretending you have a right to count yourself among normal
decent human beings, that you are a child abusing gigolo?

>You lack even enough discipline to have any
>sort of reasoned discussion.

No discussion I've even seen you have with any reasoned person has
resulted in YOU maintaining a reasoned response. You inevitably drift
off to your "I'm a victim" diatribe attempting to enlist them, no
matter what problem of their own they bring for help with, to YOUR
little asshole dog and pony show.

>You basically would not EXIST if not for
>your CRUSADE.

And what would you say my "CRUSADE" might be?

It's easy to accuse, hard to be credible when you don't really define
what you are assusing someone of.

With you I try to remember to list at least a few of your offenses
each time I post to you.

>It is your identity.

Redefining me by your standards is something of chuckle, considering
your standards.

>You are nothing else.

Silly nonsensical obstreporous spouting by an insignificant little
twit child abuser. I am not impressed.

>You get so rabid that any nitwit can see that
>you would be throwing some sort of physical
>temper tantrum if you were in person.

Odd. I've never thrown a physical temper tantrum in my life. I don't
need to.

You have your little tantrums here on a daily basis, attempting to
excuse your behavior toward the child and her mother.

My strongly expressed complaints by you have not caused you the least
harm or anyone else while your confessed actions very clearly have
caused harm to mother and child, and your attempt to preempt visitors
to the ng to your cause detracts from their own need for help.

You are the tantrumming little self absorbed prick here, Greegor.

>Swearing profusely long term does kind of
>reveal something about you.

What? That I enjoy varied and famous company of great men and women
who also swore or do now? **** yourself, dummy.

Swearing isn't a sign of anything particular....actions ARE.

You are the purveyor of obscenity, Greegor the Whore. The fact that
child isn't home, and the mother can't decide between you, is the
obscenity.

The other obscenity is your misdirecting of visitors here, to their
possible harm.

>As I've said, you LACK IMPULSE CONTROL.

Not in the least. I don't make a living collecting bottles and cans.
Nor to I displace children from their home and mother. Nor do I steer
parents in trouble with CPS to the means to insure they lose.

>You act just like lots of sniveling teen punks
>that I have seen, ready to "throw down" on a whim.

The declarations by you then should constitute insufficient grounds
for indignation by others who read them.

Click -
http://tinyurl.com/wwy7
on a motion to destroy any chance of a mother getting her child
returned from CPS.

Do you think I'm the only person here to '"throw down" on a whim' over
such things as the above?

By the way, if you met me you would never mistake me for a sniveling
teen punk, nor is my language here that of one. You, on the other
hand, the everylasting victim who puts a child and mother at risk for
his convenience and the hope he can convince her to sue the state has
far more to do with punkdom and sniveling.

>You are full of misplaced anger. That's a pathology.

Funny. I am not punishing children for anything, let along lack of
perfect control of body functions. Now exactly who, between us,
appears most full of misplaced anger an pathology again?

>You are a LIAR,

You are lying. I do not.

>a BRAGGART,

So those that have lived a fuller life than you, have many rich and
rewarding experiences, can make things happen, can build, create,
contribute, are braggarts, eh?

And you are a child and family saving parental advocate of great skill
and ability.

Now, you just caught me in a lie. Feel better?

>and a major BS artist.

I am very good at self expression. You are very good at burying
yourself deeper and deeper everytime you take hand to keyboard, and my
skill as a "major BS artist" is what provides you with the ample help
you need to move toward greater honesty in your dealings.

You are welcome.

>You are a pervert,

Which of my revelations about myself here are indicative of perversion
on my part?

You call human body parts, perfectly seriously, by childish names. You
think spanking children should be taught and you are the one to do it,
that children should be "disciplined" for common mistakes on demeanor
and bladder control failure. And "I'm" the pervert, eh?

>pointing at someone and
>calling them a pervert. You are a liar, pointing
>at someone and calling them a liar.

I lied when I called you a liar?

I invite you to read your own posts where your story, more especially
your declared motivations and intent retains the elasticity of warm
taffy.

I also called you stupid and a whore and a gigolo. Which shows me to
be lying?

Do you have a job? Do you contribute to the household in equal
proportions to the other resident? If so in what manner?

Do you write motions to the court for your "SO," who was until
recently your "fiance?"

Have you invited your "SO" formerly "Fiance" to this ng to defend
herself and you as I invited you to? If not, why not?

Why have you not changed your employment profile (R R R R) when your
living situation changed that was the reason for you to be at home,
taking care of the child?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of NAMBLA, and no, you may
not take the Fifth....R R R R

>As a ""grand inquisitor"" you are laughable.

You seem completely unable to let go of our exchanges.

Does that thought make you laugh?

You've never met me in person, pimple.

Kane

Swearing isn't a sign of anything particular....actions ARE.

You are the purveyor of obscenity, Greegor the Whore. The fact that
child isn't home, and the mother can't decide between you, is the
obscenity.

The other obscenity is your misdirecting of visitors here, to their
possible harm.

>As I've said, you LACK IMPULSE CONTROL.

Not in the least. I don't make a living collecting bottles and cans.
Nor to I displace children from their home and mother. Nor do I steer
parents in trouble with CPS to the means to insure they lose.

>You act just like lots of sniveling teen punks
>that I have seen, ready to "throw down" on a whim.

The declarations by you then should constitute insufficient grounds
for indignation by others who read them.

Click -
http://tinyurl.com/wwy7
on a motion to destroy any chance of a mother getting her child
returned from CPS.

Do you think I'm the only person here to '"throw down" on a whim' over
such things as the above?

By the way, if you met me you would never mistake me for a sniveling
teen punk, nor is my language here that of one. You, on the other
hand, the everylasting victim who puts a child and mother at risk for
his convenience and the hope he can convince her to sue the state has
far more to do with punkdom and sniveling.

>You are full of misplaced anger. That's a pathology.

Funny. I am not punishing children for anything, let along lack of
perfect control of body functions. Now exactly who, between us,
appears most full of misplaced anger an pathology again?

>You are a LIAR,

You are lying. I do not.

>a BRAGGART,

So those that have lived a fuller life than you, have many rich and
rewarding experiences, can make things happen, can build, create,
contribute, are braggarts, eh?

And you are a child and family saving parental advocate of great skill
and ability.

Now, you just caught me in a lie. Feel better?

>and a major BS artist.

I am very good a self expression. You are very good at burying
yourself deep and deep everytime you take hand to keyboard, and my
skill as a "major BS artist" is what provides you with the ample help
you need to move toward greater honesty in your dealings.

You are welcome.

>You are a pervert,

Which of my revelations about myself here are indicative of perversion
on my part?

You call human body parts, perfectly seriously, by childish names. You
think spanking children should be taught and you are the one to do it,
that children should be "disciplined" for common mistakes on demeanor
and bladder control failure. And "I'm" the pervert, eh?

>pointing at someone and
>calling them a pervert. You are a liar, pointing
>at someone and calling them a liar.

I lied when I called you a liar?

I invite you to read your own posts where your story, more especially
your declared motivations and intent retains the elasticity of warm
taffy.

I also called you stupid and a whore and a gigolo. Which shows me to
be lying?

Do you have a job? Do you contribute to the household in equal
proportions to the other resident? If so in what manner?

Do you write motions to the court for your "SO," who was until
recently your "fiance?"

Have you invited your "SO" formerly "Fiance" to this ng to defend
herself and you as I invited you to? If not, why not?

Why have you not changed your employment profile (R R R R) when your
living situation changed that was the reason for you to be at home,
taking care of the child?

Are you now or have you ever been a member of NAMBLA, and no, you may
not take the Fifth....R R R R

>As a ""grand inquisitor"" you are laughable.

You seem completely unable to let go of our exchanges.

Does that thought make you laugh?

You've never met me in person, pimple.

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Kane: You're raving again.
<snip>

[Kane]

On 28 Nov 2003 21:47:03 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Whore, you're lying again.

No snip

>Kane: You're raving again.
><snip>

[Greg Hanson]

Tell us again about the Boer War, Commander!