Kane
July 25th 03, 11:04 PM
On 25 Jul 2003 20:56:31 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
>Would you like me to cite the incidence of FAS? Kane.
Sure, go ahead.
>
>Only the facts....ma'am.........
It happens so seldom from you.
>Do you drink, yourself?
Rarely.
>Alcoholism in your family?
Not that I know of, but considering how many ancestors we all have and
the prevalence of booze the world over for thousands of years, who can
say?
>>Absolutely, and they have the same fundamental liberty interest in
>>being parented with out violence, sexual abuse, and drugs in their
>>system from a mother than couldn't stop partying when she was
>>pregnant.
>
>How about smoking?
Low birth weight. Often respiratory complications.
> Talking on a cell while driving?
Being sued by the people you run into, or your estate sued by the
survivors of the victim of your carelessness and stupidity.
Are you suggesting that damage doesn't happen to a child in utero with
a drinking mother? Or are you suggesting, Corn, that talking on a cell
phone while driving has some bearing on serious physical anomolies to
fetuses?
You been hittin' the Liguid Fertilizer heavy again haven't you?
>>Do a look up on fetal alcohol syndrom some time and look at the
>>mishappen heads, the wandering eyes, and the crippled brains that
>>result.
>
>Is this something personal to you?
Why yes it is. We have you, of course, and a growing population of
folks cheated out of a fuller life because of this error on the part
of the mother...and I hear there is some support for claims that the
father, if a drinker, may have some effects on the child as well.
>>Odd, your buddy, the other Woodenhead, seems to think that there is
a
>>clear line between abusive parents and non-parents and those on the
>>abusive side should lose their children every time...as it is a
crime,
>>while that are working up to it should be left alone because they
>>haven't sufficiently injured the ch
>
>Kane, the debate is meaningless.
So declares a Portulacca. Others don't agree. They think it important
that we all be reminded that people come here with agendas, and some
could be very self serving, don't you think?
> Doug is an ADVOCATE in every sense of the
>word.
Oh, do you wish to tell us all HOW he is an advocate, in every sense
of the word? His hobby? His work? His dreamstate meanderings?
>Not only that--he's a good human being.
Everyone thinks they are. Even Hitler believed he was the savior of
his people, the White Aryans.
>>The most intelligent kids I ever worked with were masters at
>>manipulating people like you, and in fact were psychiatric cases.
Put
>>them on the street and no one but a trained professional could have
>>told they were extremely maladjusted sociopaths. You keep claiming
you
>>are a professional. In what?
>
>Actually, CPS will be tamed by its excessive and possibly harmful
>interventions, and its excessive costs (often kickbacks, and
hidden)
Let me see now. I introduced the concept that your experience with a
teen might not be totally what you think it was, and you supported my
suspicion by pointing out my experience with pathological
personalities...that are highly skilled at looking normal and
good...and you wish to discuss CPS and taming it.
Okay, I'll play.
All interventions have the risk of harm. CPS has no lock on the game.
The only way to reduce the risk of harm from CPS intervention would be
to have them NOT intervene and then we and the child would have to
live with the consequences. And we've seen how many posts you've put
in the ngs pointing out the FAILURE to intervene problem.
>>Well, that explains your thoughtless malice.
>>
>
>Kane have you ever examined your verbals?
Peanut, have you ever examined your Gerbils?
>You have managed to insult almost
>every poster on these NG's.
I concede the point. Given that the majority of posters are hopeless
twits, lying assholes, or completely out of the loop...you seem to fit
the latter description though I'll give you the entire range if you
wish, it should come as no surprize that I'd insult the majority.
Have you noticed the minority that I haven't insulted? Now that's the
crop you should watch, and watch out for because they see through you
and your cohorts quite clearly.
And it hasn't been "almost every poster". I'm waaaaaaaaaay behind but
working on it. Thanks for the reminder.
>You are being played........
You are a Bongo and my little toy......Wanna bet on who is playing
who?
Maybe in 20 years I'll let you in on it....
For now, be at Peace, Petunia.
r r r r
bingo bango bongo.
Stoneman
>Would you like me to cite the incidence of FAS? Kane.
Sure, go ahead.
>
>Only the facts....ma'am.........
It happens so seldom from you.
>Do you drink, yourself?
Rarely.
>Alcoholism in your family?
Not that I know of, but considering how many ancestors we all have and
the prevalence of booze the world over for thousands of years, who can
say?
>>Absolutely, and they have the same fundamental liberty interest in
>>being parented with out violence, sexual abuse, and drugs in their
>>system from a mother than couldn't stop partying when she was
>>pregnant.
>
>How about smoking?
Low birth weight. Often respiratory complications.
> Talking on a cell while driving?
Being sued by the people you run into, or your estate sued by the
survivors of the victim of your carelessness and stupidity.
Are you suggesting that damage doesn't happen to a child in utero with
a drinking mother? Or are you suggesting, Corn, that talking on a cell
phone while driving has some bearing on serious physical anomolies to
fetuses?
You been hittin' the Liguid Fertilizer heavy again haven't you?
>>Do a look up on fetal alcohol syndrom some time and look at the
>>mishappen heads, the wandering eyes, and the crippled brains that
>>result.
>
>Is this something personal to you?
Why yes it is. We have you, of course, and a growing population of
folks cheated out of a fuller life because of this error on the part
of the mother...and I hear there is some support for claims that the
father, if a drinker, may have some effects on the child as well.
>>Odd, your buddy, the other Woodenhead, seems to think that there is
a
>>clear line between abusive parents and non-parents and those on the
>>abusive side should lose their children every time...as it is a
crime,
>>while that are working up to it should be left alone because they
>>haven't sufficiently injured the ch
>
>Kane, the debate is meaningless.
So declares a Portulacca. Others don't agree. They think it important
that we all be reminded that people come here with agendas, and some
could be very self serving, don't you think?
> Doug is an ADVOCATE in every sense of the
>word.
Oh, do you wish to tell us all HOW he is an advocate, in every sense
of the word? His hobby? His work? His dreamstate meanderings?
>Not only that--he's a good human being.
Everyone thinks they are. Even Hitler believed he was the savior of
his people, the White Aryans.
>>The most intelligent kids I ever worked with were masters at
>>manipulating people like you, and in fact were psychiatric cases.
Put
>>them on the street and no one but a trained professional could have
>>told they were extremely maladjusted sociopaths. You keep claiming
you
>>are a professional. In what?
>
>Actually, CPS will be tamed by its excessive and possibly harmful
>interventions, and its excessive costs (often kickbacks, and
hidden)
Let me see now. I introduced the concept that your experience with a
teen might not be totally what you think it was, and you supported my
suspicion by pointing out my experience with pathological
personalities...that are highly skilled at looking normal and
good...and you wish to discuss CPS and taming it.
Okay, I'll play.
All interventions have the risk of harm. CPS has no lock on the game.
The only way to reduce the risk of harm from CPS intervention would be
to have them NOT intervene and then we and the child would have to
live with the consequences. And we've seen how many posts you've put
in the ngs pointing out the FAILURE to intervene problem.
>>Well, that explains your thoughtless malice.
>>
>
>Kane have you ever examined your verbals?
Peanut, have you ever examined your Gerbils?
>You have managed to insult almost
>every poster on these NG's.
I concede the point. Given that the majority of posters are hopeless
twits, lying assholes, or completely out of the loop...you seem to fit
the latter description though I'll give you the entire range if you
wish, it should come as no surprize that I'd insult the majority.
Have you noticed the minority that I haven't insulted? Now that's the
crop you should watch, and watch out for because they see through you
and your cohorts quite clearly.
And it hasn't been "almost every poster". I'm waaaaaaaaaay behind but
working on it. Thanks for the reminder.
>You are being played........
You are a Bongo and my little toy......Wanna bet on who is playing
who?
Maybe in 20 years I'll let you in on it....
For now, be at Peace, Petunia.
r r r r
bingo bango bongo.
Stoneman