Kane
October 19th 03, 08:06 PM
On 19 Oct 2003 09:19:28 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:
>Kane tried blaming it all on the parents
>and deflecting blame away from CPS and school.
You have it backwards as usual.
>Dan pointed out that CPS had UNSUBSTANTIATED
>their investigation even though the 12 year old
>was absent from school and pooping his
>pants at school.
Mmmm...methinks Dan and discussed where the responsibilities lay, and
what the circumstances were. In fact we seemed to agree that there was
plenty of blame to go around.
My take was to NOT blame the mother but point out that she could well
have been suffering, as I believe was reported, from depression or
stress and overwork induced nervous exhaustion (one kind of
depression).
Where did you, as you claim, see me blaming her? I'd love to correct
any misperception you might have. I considered her very likely ill.
Hardly a blameful observation.
>Dan described his own observation that
>counselors and psychologists in schools
>don't want to get involved.
Yes, I'd have to agree. Their bosses, the admins and elected school
board officials, are like that some times....don't want to get sued
and use MORE of the taxpayers money on settlements.
I don't recall commenting on it, but you can repost anything I said
that you wish. I'll try to sort it out for you. After all you are my
prize pupil and it makes me proud when you try to surpass the teacher.
>Has Kane disgraced himself so much that even
>his buddy Dan now has to correct him or
>distance himself from Kane's inane statements?
Dan and I have disagreed substantially from time to time. It doesn't
deter us from helping families when we can. Nor does it deter us from
mutual respect.
Would you point out for me where Dan corrected my "inane" statements
or how he might have spoken so as to "distance" himself.
I've found him extraordinarily insightful and a keen observer, so if
he did those things I'd want to give considerable attention to his
opinion.
We all can learn...well, most of us...r r r r
>Will Kane now turn on his old buddy Dan,
>and go rabid on him? I doubt it.
I only "go rabid" an child abusers and those that subvert and or
exploit families.
>To carry what Dan revealed further, shouldn't
>the UNSUBSTANTIATED CPS report have been the
>ultimate defense against the criminal charges
>the mother was convicted of?
Was she charged with precisely those things in the CPS report?
>That UNSUBSTANTIATED would in this case HELP
>the mother fend off the charges.
Yes, that might be possible. What makes you think that was not used by
her attorney? You know something we don't?
Greegor the Whore, there are two things one should not strain at their
stool over: One would be to try and undermine people's respect for one
another; the other would be to try and undermine my disgust for you.
You are wasting your time. You are pointing out to people yet again
what a moral midget you are, and you are making Dan and I look so good
that yet another family may well take advice from us and get their
child back or keep them out of CPS clutches.
In other words, you defend our credibility. As does the sock puppet.
Since your actions with the woman and her daughter seem to have all
the earmarks of a contrived and very successful attempt to displace
the child and provide a squat for yourself sponging off the mother,
I'm sure you are bothered by any conversations between two people that
are willing to work hard for families and children to be together.
Oh, and tell the Leakin' Deakin we love his posts, sock puppet or not.
I've missed him terribly.
Kane
wrote:
>Kane tried blaming it all on the parents
>and deflecting blame away from CPS and school.
You have it backwards as usual.
>Dan pointed out that CPS had UNSUBSTANTIATED
>their investigation even though the 12 year old
>was absent from school and pooping his
>pants at school.
Mmmm...methinks Dan and discussed where the responsibilities lay, and
what the circumstances were. In fact we seemed to agree that there was
plenty of blame to go around.
My take was to NOT blame the mother but point out that she could well
have been suffering, as I believe was reported, from depression or
stress and overwork induced nervous exhaustion (one kind of
depression).
Where did you, as you claim, see me blaming her? I'd love to correct
any misperception you might have. I considered her very likely ill.
Hardly a blameful observation.
>Dan described his own observation that
>counselors and psychologists in schools
>don't want to get involved.
Yes, I'd have to agree. Their bosses, the admins and elected school
board officials, are like that some times....don't want to get sued
and use MORE of the taxpayers money on settlements.
I don't recall commenting on it, but you can repost anything I said
that you wish. I'll try to sort it out for you. After all you are my
prize pupil and it makes me proud when you try to surpass the teacher.
>Has Kane disgraced himself so much that even
>his buddy Dan now has to correct him or
>distance himself from Kane's inane statements?
Dan and I have disagreed substantially from time to time. It doesn't
deter us from helping families when we can. Nor does it deter us from
mutual respect.
Would you point out for me where Dan corrected my "inane" statements
or how he might have spoken so as to "distance" himself.
I've found him extraordinarily insightful and a keen observer, so if
he did those things I'd want to give considerable attention to his
opinion.
We all can learn...well, most of us...r r r r
>Will Kane now turn on his old buddy Dan,
>and go rabid on him? I doubt it.
I only "go rabid" an child abusers and those that subvert and or
exploit families.
>To carry what Dan revealed further, shouldn't
>the UNSUBSTANTIATED CPS report have been the
>ultimate defense against the criminal charges
>the mother was convicted of?
Was she charged with precisely those things in the CPS report?
>That UNSUBSTANTIATED would in this case HELP
>the mother fend off the charges.
Yes, that might be possible. What makes you think that was not used by
her attorney? You know something we don't?
Greegor the Whore, there are two things one should not strain at their
stool over: One would be to try and undermine people's respect for one
another; the other would be to try and undermine my disgust for you.
You are wasting your time. You are pointing out to people yet again
what a moral midget you are, and you are making Dan and I look so good
that yet another family may well take advice from us and get their
child back or keep them out of CPS clutches.
In other words, you defend our credibility. As does the sock puppet.
Since your actions with the woman and her daughter seem to have all
the earmarks of a contrived and very successful attempt to displace
the child and provide a squat for yourself sponging off the mother,
I'm sure you are bothered by any conversations between two people that
are willing to work hard for families and children to be together.
Oh, and tell the Leakin' Deakin we love his posts, sock puppet or not.
I've missed him terribly.
Kane