Re: The Meth Debate Continues

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
>> Would you mind posting your proof?
>
> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?

What was it you said?

Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?

Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?

Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.

You don't have any proof.

You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.

No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.

Keep it up Greg.

All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Is this WHINEY?


Kane wrote
> Would you mind posting your proof?

Greg wrote
> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?

Kane wrote
> What was it you said?
> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
> You don't have any proof.
> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
> Keep it up Greg.
> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.

What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?

Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Is this WHINEY?
>
>
> Kane wrote
>> Would you mind posting your proof?
>
> Greg wrote
>> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
>
> Kane wrote
>> What was it you said?
>> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
>> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
>> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
>> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
>> You don't have any proof.
>> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
>> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
>> Keep it up Greg.
>> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
>> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
>
> What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
> Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
> search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?
>
> Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
> search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?

A warrant is not something that a case manager is going to have gregg. Law
Enforcement, yes, but not case managers.

If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
aware of it.

Ron

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Is this WHINEY?
>
>
> Kane wrote
>> Would you mind posting your proof?
>
> Greg wrote
>> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
>
> Kane wrote
>> What was it you said?
>> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
>> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
>> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
>> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
>> You don't have any proof.
>> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
>> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
>> Keep it up Greg.
>> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
>> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
>
> What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?

You haven't read my posts by you have decided what I mean?

> Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
> search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?

Where did I say that?

> Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
> search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?

Now you suddenly have morphed YOUR questions into presumptions of what I
mean.

Where have I told you to not offer that advice?

In fact, I've discussed here exactly the same thing myself, offering
advice, including citations to authoritative sources on HOW TO GO ABOUT
DOING THAT MOST EFFECTIVELY.

You simply want to FIGHT. One doesn't need to fight to deal with the
state at your door. Not at the opening.

And that's where you screw things up, don't you Greg?

And now you are back to lying about me.

Anyone with a memory who has been here long enough knows that I've never
advocated anything other than smart handling of the "people at the door."

And I have pointed out that telling CRIMINALS THAT ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN
how to do that has a price to pay.

That is how democracy works. It is not perfect. It's best features can
have bad outcomes.

You folks them blame CPS for what they must do. Lawfully.

Dim bulbs.

Everything must be black or white, but you'll use the gray to make your
wild ranting claims.

CPS can't get in, but you'll blame them if a child dies where they could
NOT.

Stupid little ****s. That's all you are. The pack of you.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Is this WHINEY?
>>
>>
>> Kane wrote
>>> Would you mind posting your proof?
>> Greg wrote
>>> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
>> Kane wrote
>>> What was it you said?
>>> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
>>> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
>>> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
>>> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
>>> You don't have any proof.
>>> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
>>> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
>>> Keep it up Greg.
>>> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
>>> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
>> What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
>> Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
>> search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?
>>
>> Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
>> search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?
>
> A warrant is not something that a case manager is going to have gregg. Law
> Enforcement, yes, but not case managers.

Patience, Ron. Forbearance. Greg is a victim of the deliberate fogging
of the lines between civil and criminal actions by the propagandists. He
can't, and likely does not want to, sort out the reality.

> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door.

What the propagandists try to foist here is that most all child abuse
complaints are not valid. The fact is most come with considerable
evidence and claims and willingness to testify to it, that the child IS
in immediate risk and danger.

Many states routinely hook up CPS investigators and cops on such calls,
about half or more of their investigations. For the very reason you
point out below.

> As long as
> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
> required.

And all that takes is someone telling him so in a convincing enough
way...something most cops are trained to elicit from those they are
interviewing.

> THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
> aware of it.

He is studiously avoiding, with the help of the spin doctors, any such
knowledge, Ron.

He has been told things like this for years here. On this and other
subjects. He simply forgets it in a few minutes and babbles on as though
he had not been told.

AND wants to argue with you without having done one bit of research
himself.

The Greg's of the Web and Usenet are a dime a dozen. Industriously
ignorant. You can find them all over the place, still insisting 9/11 was
a US government conspiracy to incite war, opining that UFOs are circling
the planet, and in insisting they have personal communication with the
spirit of Elvis.

> Ron

0:->




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Is this WHINEY?
> >
> >
> > Kane wrote
> >> Would you mind posting your proof?
> >
> > Greg wrote
> >> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
> >
> > Kane wrote
> >> What was it you said?
> >> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
> >> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
> >> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
> >> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
> >> You don't have any proof.
> >> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
> >> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
> >> Keep it up Greg.
> >> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
> >> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
> >
> > What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
> > Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
> > search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?
> >
> > Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
> > search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?
>
> A warrant is not something that a case manager is going to have gregg. Law
> Enforcement, yes, but not case managers.
>
> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
> required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
> aware of it.
>
> Ron

Hi Ron,
I hope you not suggesting that we should throw the Constitution out of
the window. How do you define "reasonable"?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Ron wrote:
>
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Is this WHINEY?
>>>
>>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> Would you mind posting your proof?
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> What was it you said?
>>>> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
>>>> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
>>>> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
>>>> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
>>>> You don't have any proof.
>>>> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
>>>> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
>>>> Keep it up Greg.
>>>> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
>>>> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
>>> What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
>>> Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
>>> search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?
>>>
>>> Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
>>> search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?
>> A warrant is not something that a case manager is going to have gregg. Law
>> Enforcement, yes, but not case managers.
>>
>> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
>> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
>> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
>> required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
>> aware of it.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Hi Ron,
> I hope you not suggesting that we should throw the Constitution out of
> the window. How do you define "reasonable"?

He doesn't. The state does. The departments teach it in police academy.
And update as needed.

"Exigent" is a word often used. If the officer has information that any
reasonable person (sound familiar, stupid asshole....r r r r r ) would
believe constituted a cause for concern for the safety of another...etc.
etc. etc.

Ron is telling you how it works.

You wish to split hairs.

YOU are the greatest danger to the Constitution, monkeyboy, because you
don't understand it and along with other assholes that think they do,
when it's convenient for THEM, you interpret it subjectively from
circumstance to circumstance.

A police officer's discretion on entry has been tested time and again.
HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RIGHT in that he finds what was told to him or he
though was occurring, he only needs to show that HE HAD EVERY REASON TO
BELIEVE.

Have cases gone the other way? Yes, with strong dissenting opinions from
other justices.

The Constitution was NOT created to help you and other ****ants like you
either break the law or advocate for those that DO.

Put your sick little head back up your ass and keep it there, monkeyboy.

Hide your ugliness.
>
> Doan ... the blowhard know it all apologist for and protector of child abusers.
>
Tell us again if you agreed with Fern, dancing evading sick little
monkeyboy.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Stupid little ****s. That's all you are. The pack of you.

Nope, no PATHOLOGY there! :)

Coprolalia?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Stupid little ****s. That's all you are. The pack of you.
>
> Nope, no PATHOLOGY there! :)
>
> Coprolalia?

Is that the case when you refer to excrement as well?

No, no pathology as far as I can tell, for you or I.

You are a demonstrated stupid little ****, Greg.

Live with it. We do just to be able to watch you make a fool of yourself
so predictably.

0:->



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> >> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >>> Is this WHINEY?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kane wrote
> >>>> Would you mind posting your proof?
> >>> Greg wrote
> >>>> That you're an intellectual prostitute, a shill?
> >>> Kane wrote
> >>>> What was it you said?
> >>>> Notice you had to abort my words to have your stupid response?
> >>>> Just weaseling again, aren't you Greg?
> >>>> Basically you want the same kind of conversation that the nutsos run
> >>>> here to divert from any challenges to your stupidity I put to you.
> >>>> You don't have any proof.
> >>>> You just run off at the mouth, presuming you'll be taken seriously.
> >>>> No facts. No logic. Lies. Dodges.
> >>>> Keep it up Greg.
> >>>> All this is here for any future posters coming here for help to see
> >>>> before they accept any of your stupid dangerous advice.
> >>> What stupid dangerous advice are you talking about?
> >>> Do you mean telling people NOT to let the caseworker
> >>> search their home, insisting on a WARRANT, etc?
> >>>
> >>> Insisting on constitutional right against unreasonable
> >>> search and seizure is dangerous HOW? For WHO?
> >> A warrant is not something that a case manager is going to have gregg. Law
> >> Enforcement, yes, but not case managers.
> >>
> >> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
> >> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
> >> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
> >> required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
> >> aware of it.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> > I hope you not suggesting that we should throw the Constitution out of
> > the window. How do you define "reasonable"?
>
> He doesn't. The state does. The departments teach it in police academy.
> And update as needed.
>
> "Exigent" is a word often used. If the officer has information that any
> reasonable person (sound familiar, stupid asshole....r r r r r ) would
> believe constituted a cause for concern for the safety of another...etc.
> etc. etc.
>
Hihihi! The "stupid asshole" is you since you were the one that has the
problem with "reasonable person" standard. You were the one that claimed
not to know where the "line" is. You were the one that said not knowing
that line, you may have crossed it when you hit your kid. Rememered,
"stupid asshole"???

> Ron is telling you how it works.
>
> You wish to split hairs.
>
> YOU are the greatest danger to the Constitution, monkeyboy, because you
> don't understand it and along with other assholes that think they do,
> when it's convenient for THEM, you interpret it subjectively from
> circumstance to circumstance.
>
Hihihi! Another "abreaction"???

> A police officer's discretion on entry has been tested time and again.
> HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RIGHT in that he finds what was told to him or he
> though was occurring, he only needs to show that HE HAD EVERY REASON TO
> BELIEVE.
>
Where is the "line"? ;-)

> Have cases gone the other way? Yes, with strong dissenting opinions from
> other justices.
>
> The Constitution was NOT created to help you and other ****ants like you
> either break the law or advocate for those that DO.
>
> Put your sick little head back up your ass and keep it there, monkeyboy.
>
Funny, the only little head I see is yours when I go to bathroom and take
a dump! ;-)

> Hide your ugliness.

You can't hide yours! ;-)

> >
> > Doan ... the blowhard know it all apologist for and protector of child abusers.
> >
> Tell us again if you agreed with Fern, dancing evading sick little
> monkeyboy.
>
Tell us again how your mom approved of you calling other "smelly-****",
"never-spanked" boy.

Doan

> 0:->
>
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
>

[0:->]

I think I heard a screeching monkey.....why yes, I certainly did.

0:->

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Greegor]

Kane, for an atheist you sure seem to need
a lot of demons! Your self image seems to depend
on others being inferior and your HERO delusion.

Does it anger you when others fail to see you
as the new Moses, here to lead us out of the wilderness?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, for an atheist you sure seem to need
> a lot of demons!

I don't believe in demons. Or angels.

> Your self image seems to depend
> on others being inferior and your HERO delusion.

Really? Community minded activism appears to you to be not responsible
behavior, but delusional?

> Does it anger you when others fail to see you
> as the new Moses, here to lead us out of the wilderness?

Actually during the sixties I was rebuking and repudiating a few young
people that wanted to make me into a guru.

I don't take kindly to such nonsense.

I was trying to teach people to small farm, develop markets, and feed
the poor. Also doing street work in the Haight rounding up zonked out
kids and getting them into detox and clean and reconnecting with life.

Someone else put a halo on me.

I took it off, and left eventually as that seemed the only thing to do
to avoid people that had not gotten their lives together and wanted
someone else to tell them what to do.

You certainly are putting on a show today, Greg.

Not troubled about anything, are you?

I note that in the past when things weren't going well your harassment
and your ranting about CPS would escalate.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

[Doan]

Hihihi! I heard the "never-spanked" boy making a fool of himself again!

Doan
ITS - Data Network Operations


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> I think I heard a screeching monkey.....why yes, I certainly did.
>
> 0:->
>

[Greegor]

Ron said
> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
> required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
> aware of it.

Please give examples of "reasonable belief that a crime is being
committed".

Does that include false accusations from a Prozac grandma?

Would it include the accusation made in the Wallis v Escondido case?

How about the ""drug bust"" last week where the cops got
the WRONG ADDRESS?

Hey, they reasonably believed it!

Don't you think they'll be PAYING OUT on that one??

I know a guy who made the local Police buy him
an entire garage full of power tools because they
deliberately let go the thief who was caught in the act!

I confess I am mystified by "reasonable belief" when it
comes to Police Officers.

Does that include RUMORS?
Are rumors "reasonable belief"?

How about malicious harassment from a neighbor with a grudge?
Is that "reasonable belief"?

> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door.

And you want me to have a kindly attitude toward government officials?
:)

Go have another doughnut Ron!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Ron said
>> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
>> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door. As long as
>> he has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed a warrant is not
>> required. THAT has been the law for some years now, in case you were not
>> aware of it.
>
> Please give examples of "reasonable belief that a crime is being
> committed".

You've been around long enough to know the answer to such a question.

> Does that include false accusations from a Prozac grandma?

Did a cop enter without a warrant based on her word? Did he know she was
mentally ill? Is so how did he know that?

> Would it include the accusation made in the Wallis v Escondido case?

Post the accusation and ask your question directly and stop the Douging
around.

> How about the ""drug bust"" last week where the cops got
> the WRONG ADDRESS?

When cops don't make mistakes democracy will be at an end.
>
> Hey, they reasonably believed it!

Yep. So that would mean ..........

If we just shot everyone that was wrong there would be a bullet with
your name on it, Greg. One you fired yourself.

> Don't you think they'll be PAYING OUT on that one??

The might IF they could not show they reasonable believed they were in
the right place.

Likely only ONE officer..usually the watch commander, or whatever they
are called in that department, would have the details of where and
directed the operation.

Did he make a mistake? Was it an honest mistake given the circumstances?
Do you want people punished for honest mistakes?

If so please explain how you intend to keep yourself out of the line of
fire?

> I know a guy who made the local Police buy him
> an entire garage full of power tools because they
> deliberately let go the thief who was caught in the act!

Gee, imagine that. "Made them?" I'll bet.

> I confess I am mystified by "reasonable belief" when it
> comes to Police Officers.

Of course you are. You barely can manage to understand standard English
and you sure lose it when logic is required to understand someone else
or formulate a thought or claim of your own.

> Does that include RUMORS?
> Are rumors "reasonable belief"?

What do you think, stupid? If the cop knows it's a rumor do YOU think
that constitutes "reasonable?"

> How about malicious harassment from a neighbor with a grudge?
> Is that "reasonable belief"?

Depends upon whether or not the cop knows there is a grudge match going
on, and especially just what factors are involved. Say the officer is
told, "Hey, Wally next door just shot at my kid with a rifle..there's a
hole in the side of my house."

Now said cop, knowing there is a long standing grudge match going on
could assume that caller put the hole there himself, but do YOU think he
shouldn't go and investigate?

After all, it could be rumor about the neighbor based on actions taken
by the caller himself.

>> If you insist on a warrant when a law enforcement officer arrives at your
>> door be prepared to get stepped on as he goes through the door.
>
> And you want me to have a kindly attitude toward government officials?
> :)

No. Whoever made THAT claim?

I've never said that. Ron's never said that.

> Go have another doughnut Ron!

So, that is the best you can do, eh?

A series of stupid questions, no proof. And insult.

Insult is expected when your opponent is stupid, but it is stupid to
insult when your opponent has the answers and is more likely far better
informed than you.

Your actions and words show what a small time little ****ant you are.

0:->


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)