Do you take seriously the ... [Archive]

0:->

October 12th 06, 12:06 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics,
> > and are you really interested in the research?
> >
> > If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss, more
> > directly:
> >
> > http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
> >
> > You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with
> > the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science
> > analysis.
> >
> > Of course, Doan will call you a liar, but of course, coming from him, a
> > noted pathological liar, that's a plus. 0;-]
> >
> > I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on
> > line. Some academic in nature.
>
> LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to?

I don't chose to. I gave them a lead. If they can't even google then
there's little likelihood they would make good use of information they
gleaned. Are YOU having trouble finding professional academic research
groups and individuals?

I correspond with them a lot.

> >
> > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide
> > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least,
> > where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how they do it,
> > in these newsgoups.
>
> Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public,
> either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess?

Guess, of course.

But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess.
And you?

> >
> > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups.
> > Google is your friend.
>
> Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL

Yep.

> Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are.

On this issue? Is someone's life or personal safety at risk? If not,
no.

>
> Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them?
>

Oh, I do. On matters of real data and reseach. That's why you see a
link to Murray Straus early in the post.

We've debated him for some time, and while I've accessed his documents
many times, I doubt many others here have -- from the source.

And you?

I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search
tools. It's really not hard.

If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust
me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link.
I do that as you know.

> Michael©

You are yet another lie to insinuate other than the truth, Michael.
You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things
that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone.

You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument.

You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when
there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a
supposed data or research backed claim.

Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael?

0:->

>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

0:->

October 12th 06, 12:07 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics,
> > and are you really interested in the research?
> >
> > If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss, more
> > directly:
> >
> > http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
> >
> > You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with
> > the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science
> > analysis.
> >
> > Of course, Doan will call you a liar, but of course, coming from him, a
> > noted pathological liar, that's a plus. 0;-]
> >
> > I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on
> > line. Some academic in nature.
>
> LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to?

I don't chose to. I gave them a lead. If they can't even google then
there's little likelihood they would make good use of information they
gleaned. Are YOU having trouble finding professional academic research
groups and individuals?

I correspond with them a lot.

> >
> > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide
> > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least,
> > where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how they do it,
> > in these newsgoups.
>
> Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public,
> either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess?

Guess, of course.

But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess.
And you?

> >
> > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups.
> > Google is your friend.
>
> Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL

Yep.

> Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are.

On this issue? Is someone's life or personal safety at risk? If not,
no.

>
> Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them?
>

Oh, I do. On matters of real data and reseach. That's why you see a
link to Murray Straus early in the post.

We've debated him for some time, and while I've accessed his documents
many times, I doubt many others here have -- from the source.

And you?

I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search
tools. It's really not hard.

If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust
me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link.
I do that as you know.

> Michael©

You are yet another liar to insinuate other than the truth, Michael.
You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things
that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone.

You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument.

You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when
there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a
supposed data or research backed claim.

Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael?

By the way, would you tell the absolute truth if it might have a
reasonably good chance of putting someone in physical danger? Someone
innocent?

Now weasel or run.

0:->

>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

Michael©

October 12th 06, 12:41 AM

"0:->" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> Michael© wrote:
>> "0:->" > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>> > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related
>> > topics, and are you really interested in the research?
>> >
>> > If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss,
>> > more directly:
>> >
>> > http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
>> >
>> > You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with
>> > the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science
>> > analysis.
>> >
>> > Of course, Doan will call you a liar, but of course, coming from him,
>> > a noted pathological liar, that's a plus. 0;-]
>> >
>> > I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on
>> > line. Some academic in nature.
>>
>> LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to?
>
> I don't chose to. I gave them a lead. If they can't even google then
> there's little likelihood they would make good use of information they
> gleaned. Are YOU having trouble finding professional academic research
> groups and individuals?
>
> I correspond with them a lot.

I'm having trouble finding these groups that you post to that you claim
are professional or academic.

Hence:

Author: "0:->" >
First Seen: 1/16/2006
Last Seen: 10/8/2006
Aliases: Other authors use this e-mail with different aliases. Select a
different author:

"0;->" >
"Kane" >
kane >
Pohaku Kane >

"0:->"

Newsgroups Ordered by Posts, descending

First Seen Last Seen Days Active Posts Replies Threads Initiated Threads
Touched

talk.politics.guns 1/16/2006 10/1/2006 219 3018 2934 40 536
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1
Month / Last Month 1 / 9 1 / 18 1 / 16 0 / 1 1 / 13
Quarter / Last Quarter 1 / 60 1 / 669 1 / 655 0 / 6 1 / 95
Year / Last Year 219 / 0 3018 / 0 2934 / 0 40 / 0 536 / 0

alt.support.child-protective-services 1/22/2006 10/8/2006 238 2440 2325
92 399
Day / Last Day 17 / 1 15 / 1 1 / 0 11 / 1
Week / Last Week 1 / 7 17 / 101 15 / 98 1 / 3 11 / 27
Month / Last Month 8 / 30 118 / 335 113 / 310 4 / 22 33 / 59
Quarter / Last Quarter 8 / 92 118 / 1054 113 / 995 4 / 48 33 / 180
Year / Last Year 238 / 0 2440 / 0 2325 / 0 92 / 0 399 / 0

alt.parenting.spanking 1/20/2006 10/7/2006 239 1855 1783 56 235
Day / Last Day 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1
Week / Last Week 0 / 7 0 / 30 0 / 30 0 / 0 0 / 11
Month / Last Month 7 / 29 30 / 161 30 / 158 0 / 3 11 / 19
Quarter / Last Quarter 7 / 79 30 / 544 30 / 534 0 / 9 11 / 70
Year / Last Year 239 / 0 1855 / 0 1783 / 0 56 / 0 235 / 0

talk.politics.misc 1/16/2006 7/30/2006 93 527 527 0 62
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 8 0 / 21 0 / 21 0 / 0 0 / 5
Year / Last Year 93 / 0 527 / 0 527 / 0 0 / 0 62 / 0

alt.support.foster-parents 1/22/2006 10/8/2006 119 482 469 11 65
Day / Last Day 4 / 0 3 / 0 0 / 0 3 / 0
Week / Last Week 1 / 6 4 / 46 3 / 46 0 / 0 3 / 8
Month / Last Month 7 / 27 50 / 90 49 / 88 0 / 1 10 / 17
Quarter / Last Quarter 7 / 66 50 / 222 49 / 218 0 / 4 10 / 39
Year / Last Year 119 / 0 482 / 0 469 / 0 11 / 0 65 / 0

misc.survivalism 1/18/2006 9/20/2006 67 428 428 0 28
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 7 0 / 14 0 / 14 0 / 0 0 / 4
Year / Last Year 67 / 0 428 / 0 428 / 0 0 / 0 28 / 0

alt.impeach.bush 1/20/2006 9/30/2006 77 406 406 0 63
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 6 0 / 8 0 / 8 0 / 0 0 / 4
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 10 0 / 15 0 / 15 0 / 0 0 / 7
Year / Last Year 77 / 0 406 / 0 406 / 0 0 / 0 63 / 0

us.military.army 1/18/2006 7/6/2006 58 296 296 0 27
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 1
Year / Last Year 58 / 0 296 / 0 296 / 0 0 / 0 27 / 0

alt.atheism 1/16/2006 7/6/2006 35 293 293 0 10
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 2 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 3
Year / Last Year 35 / 0 293 / 0 293 / 0 0 / 0 10 / 0

or.politics 3/26/2006 6/1/2006 28 284 274 0 18
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Year / Last Year 28 / 0 284 / 0 274 / 0 0 / 0 18 / 0

seattle.politics 1/18/2006 8/20/2006 36 282 282 0 15
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 2
Year / Last Year 36 / 0 282 / 0 282 / 0 0 / 0 15 / 0

alt.fan.rush-limbaugh 1/17/2006 9/12/2006 77 272 272 0 47
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 1
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 12 0 / 32 0 / 32 0 / 0 0 / 9
Year / Last Year 77 / 0 272 / 0 272 / 0 0 / 0 47 / 0

az.politics 1/16/2006 8/20/2006 33 261 261 0 17
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 3 0 / 0 0 / 3
Year / Last Year 33 / 0 261 / 0 261 / 0 0 / 0 17 / 0

misc.health.alternative 2/15/2006 8/31/2006 68 247 247 0 68
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 22 0 / 128 0 / 128 0 / 0 0 / 18
Year / Last Year 68 / 0 247 / 0 247 / 0 0 / 0 68 / 0

talk.politics.medicine 2/15/2006 8/31/2006 68 244 244 0 66
Day / Last Day 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Week / Last Week 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Month / Last Month 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
Quarter / Last Quarter 0 / 21 0 / 124 0 / 124 0 / 0 0 / 17
Year / Last Year 68 / 0 244 / 0 244 / 0 0 / 0 66 / 0

I see you initiate posts in several groups, none professional or academic,
unless you are not using one of your aliases. Then you would be using a
sock, something you claim you don't do yet freely accuse others of doing.
Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane?

>
>> >
>> > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a
>> > bonifide researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but
>> > at least, where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how
>> > they do it, in these newsgoups.
>>
>> Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely
>> public, either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers
>> simply guess?
>
> Guess, of course.
>
> But then, some are intelligent and honest enough to not have to guess.
> And you?

See above.

>
>> >
>> > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups.
>> > Google is your friend.
>>
>> Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL
>
> Yep.
>
>> Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are.
>
> On this issue? Is someone's life or personal safety at risk? If not,
> no.
>
>>
>> Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them?
>>
>
> Oh, I do. On matters of real data and reseach. That's why you see a
> link to Murray Straus early in the post.
>
> We've debated him for some time, and while I've accessed his documents
> many times, I doubt many others here have -- from the source.
>
> And you?
>
> I'm not your librarian, Michael. Learn to use google or other search
> tools. It's really not hard.

I use tools quite well that are at my disposal, seems something is amiss
in your claim though. See above.

>
> If I have a claim related to data and research, a specific claim, trust
> me, I'll either say it's not available on line, or I'll provide a link.
> I do that as you know.
>
>> Michael©
>
> You are yet another liar to insinuate other than the truth, Michael.
> You've been here long enough to know that I don't "lie" about things
> that are not issues of safety of life and limb to someone.

A liar is a liar. Color it however you wish in your moral and ethical way.

>
> You also know that I do in fact provide citations in argument.

Yes you generally do, Kane.

>
> You also know that I've not 'demanded' someone produce a source when
> there's nothing more than general interest. Only if they make a
> supposed data or research backed claim.
>
> Do you enjoy being a liar, Michael?

I'm not a liar, so how would I enjoy being something I'm not?

>
> By the way, would you tell the absolute truth if it might have a
> reasonably good chance of putting someone in physical danger? Someone
> innocent?

I would either, tell the absolute truth and live with the consequences or
refrain from saying anything and live with the consequences of remaining
silent. I would not lie as you seem so easily able to justify doing.

>
> Now weasel or run.

I've done neither.

>
> 0:->
>
>
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>
>

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

Doan

October 12th 06, 08:52 PM

On 11 Oct 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics,
> and are you really interested in the research?
>
> If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss, more
> directly:
>
> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
>
> You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with
> the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science
> analysis.
>
And you too can be published! ;-)

Doan

0:->

October 12th 06, 10:10 PM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:

>
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

Doan

October 17th 06, 06:44 AM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Michael© wrote:

> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > ... issue of spanking, Corporal Punishment, abuse, and related topics,
> > and are you really interested in the research?
> >
> > If so you might want to follow the sources I use, such as Strauss, more
> > directly:
> >
> > http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/
> >
> > You too can fill your file cabinets, and office library shelves with
> > the research, reports, instruments and tools for social science
> > analysis.
> >
> > Of course, Doan will call you a liar, but of course, coming from him, a
> > noted pathological liar, that's a plus. 0;-]
> >
> > I participate with other researchers in many professional groups on
> > line. Some academic in nature.
>
> LOL Sure you do. What groups can you point the readers here to?
>
> >
> > You are not barred from participating, though if you aren't a bonifide
> > researcher you may not be given some of the materials...but at least,
> > where you can get them you will know just who lies, and how they do it,
> > in these newsgoups.
>
> Since they are not barred from participation, they are most likely public,
> either Usenet or elsewhere, share them or should the readers simply guess?
>
> >
> > Usually your questions will be answered though. Look for the groups.
> > Google is your friend.
>
> Just as I thought, let the readers guess and look for themselves. LOL
>
> Are you morally and ethically lying, Kane? I bet you are.
>
> Remember your own words, 'put up or shut up'. Why don't you heed them?
>

LOL!

Doan

> >
> > Kane
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>

Greegor

October 17th 06, 10:36 AM

Kane wrote
> I participate with other researchers in many professional
> groups on line. Some academic in nature.

Dangerously funny!

0:->

October 17th 06, 04:41 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > I participate with other researchers in many professional
> > groups on line. Some academic in nature.
>
> Dangerously funny!

I'll see if they think so and get back to you.

0:->

Doan

October 17th 06, 06:39 PM

On 17 Oct 2006, Greegor wrote:

> Kane wrote
> > I participate with other researchers in many professional
> > groups on line. Some academic in nature.
>
> Dangerously funny!
>
Remember what they said about an empty Kane? It often makes lot of
noises!

Doan

Greegor

October 17th 06, 08:26 PM

Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't
respect any club with standards so low that they would have him.

WHERE are these esteemed (esteamed) groups Kane?

Drop some names!

Let me guess, NACO! :)

0:->

October 17th 06, 08:47 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't
> respect any club with standards so low that they would have him.
>
> WHERE are these esteemed (esteamed) groups Kane?
>
> Drop some names!
>
> Let me guess, NACO! :)

NACO is not an academic organization.

And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. If YOU can't find them
that's your problem.

0:-}

Greegor

October 17th 06, 09:33 PM

Kane wrote
> And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
> If YOU can't find them that's your problem.

Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
professionals and serious researchers
in an attempt to claim some credibility.

Clearly he KNOWS he has none.

Then he won't name them!

Classic David Koresh.
Cult of personality.

0:->

October 18th 06, 12:28 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
> > If YOU can't find them that's your problem.
>
> Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
> professionals and serious researchers
> in an attempt to claim some credibility.

Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
questions?

> Clearly he KNOWS he has none.

What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.
>
> Then he won't name them!

Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
sources.
>
> Classic David Koresh.
> Cult of personality.

Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.

0:-}

Greegor

October 22nd 06, 03:56 PM

> > Kane wrote
> > > And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
> > > If YOU can't find them that's your problem.
> >
> > Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
> > professionals and serious researchers
> > in an attempt to claim some credibility.
>
> Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
> credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
> to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
> sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
> questions?
>
> > Clearly he KNOWS he has none.
>
> What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.

Commander McBrag....

> > Then he won't name them!
>
> Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
> sources.

That's why your so incredible!

> > Classic David Koresh.
> > Cult of personality.
>
> Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.

By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that
don't have INTERNET LINKS?

No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic!

0:->

October 22nd 06, 07:05 PM

Greegor wrote:
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
>>>> If YOU can't find them that's your problem.
>>> Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
>>> professionals and serious researchers
>>> in an attempt to claim some credibility.
>> Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
>> credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
>> to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
>> sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
>> questions?
>>
>>> Clearly he KNOWS he has none.
>> What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.
>
> Commander McBrag....
>
>>> Then he won't name them!
>> Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
>> sources.
>
> That's why your so incredible!
>
>>> Classic David Koresh.
>>> Cult of personality.
>> Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.
>
> By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that
> don't have INTERNET LINKS?

You don't establish that at the time, Greg.

It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that,
and NOT clarifying that they were not on line.

> No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic!

We are not in academia. If we were my arguments would be somewhat
different.

We'd meet face to face, and have our reference work at hand, if a
question of authenticity of fact came up.

Here when such questions of credibility come up we are at a dead end if
we and readers cannot access the information primary source HERE.

You and other liars like you not only take advantage of the absence of
access, but you hide it until it's forced out of you.

You are moral cheats.

But that's not news.

When you make a claim of information from others that is NOT available
here, say so.

If you make a claim that IS backed by access on the Internet, give the
Universal Resource Locater number (as converted into characters that we
see as a clickable link), and you might remove some of the stench of
your lies and other subterfuge.

0:->

Doug

October 22nd 06, 10:46 PM

> It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and
> NOT clarifying that they were not on line.

Hi, Kane,

I had posted the information and cited its sources for many years in this
newsgroup. The sources were cited in text APA style and listed at the end
of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the
information. For years.

Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited
researchers, but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their
findings. You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in
citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During
that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies --
something you have yet to do. Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of
the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue.

Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social
science, will involve material that is not available on the internet. Most
of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books
and is not available on the internet. In fact, the unpublished internet
report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources,
cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. <g>

It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature
available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information
and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have
a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works.

0:->

October 23rd 06, 12:41 AM

Doug wrote:
> > It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and
> > NOT clarifying that they were not on line.
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> I had posted the information and cited its sources for many years in this
> newsgroup. The sources were cited in text APA style and listed at the end
> of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the
> information. For years.

When I wasn't reading here.

> Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited
> researchers,

Yep.

> but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their
> findings.

R R R R not hardly, podner.

You have not cited any evidence they adjusted for the obvious....that
fosters are captive and can be easily counted for abuse against
children, and bio parents are not.

Simple, but devestating to your claims.

> You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in
> citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During
> that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies --
> something you have yet to do.

You are HOPEING I haven't. You don't know it for a fact.

You are sliding into Greg's habit of fanticizing about what someone
does or doesn't do.

> Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of
> the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue.

No, I said the source was cited. And I showed that the same people that
cited them (the same way you had, in bibliography, had also cited BY
QUOTE another reseacher that shows what bull**** you spread, for she
made the very same observiation I have that YOU are avoiding. Namely
that foster parents are under heavy scrutiny and bio parent are NOT.

> Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social
> science, will involve material that is not available on the internet.

So what? We aren't off the net.

> Most
> of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books
> and is not available on the internet.

So what? You have NOT answered even from those sources that we cannot
view here anything that would rebut my own, and the researcher quoted,
on the issue foster observability, Doug.

> In fact, the unpublished internet
> report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources,
> cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. <g>

They were the same as YOU posted, but not the one I quoted from their
quote. <g>

Show an equally applicable quote that would rebut, from your sources,
the one I provided.

I'll wait...it's been three years so far. I'm obviously patient.

> It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature
> available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information
> and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have
> a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works.

On the contrary, as I have pointed out I have studied CPS for coming up
on 30 years, Doug, and most of the time not from the internet.

You, if you did not have that personal agenda you refuse to respond to
here when I ask you about it, and quietly and secretly snip my
question, would have to admit that your driving motivation is vengence,
no?

0:->

Greegor

October 24th 06, 09:26 AM

Kane wrote
> and quietly and secretly snip my question

Is your Megalomania evolving into Paranoia Kane?

You constantly complain about perceived
improprieties in responses to you.

You're like somebody in a street fight
griping that somebody else is not following
the Marquis De Queensbury rules!

People MUST answer you or they are violating some rule?

You seem to insist (as if you have a right to) that
"snippage" only takes place as a violation of the ""rules"".

Snippage can be used to highlight what a person IS responding to.

I am NOT required to quote your text I am not responding to.
Your belief in excessive requoting is NOT universal.

Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts
are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge.

You argue to justify an industry that paid you.
Pat yourself on your back and put yourself up for sainthood.
Clearly your identity is wrapped around the CPS INDUSTRY.

I suspect that an unspoken implication of your
arguing here is about squelching your own self doubt
about CPS and your connection to it.

I also suspect you were a victim of child abuse
and that you have lied about it to this newsgroup
and perhaps even to yourself.

Perhaps you tell yourself it is a moral or ethical lie.

Perhaps you just thought it was tactically advantageous to you.

Dan Sullivan

October 24th 06, 09:42 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts
> are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge.

At least Kane hasn't advised anyone to do something to get themselves
arrested in Faamily Court, as you did, Greg!

Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?

0:->

October 24th 06, 04:19 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > and quietly and secretly snip my question
>
> Is your Megalomania evolving into Paranoia Kane?
>
> You constantly complain about perceived
> improprieties in responses to you.
>
> You're like somebody in a street fight
> griping that somebody else is not following
> the Marquis De Queensbury rules!
>
> People MUST answer you or they are violating some rule?
>
> You seem to insist (as if you have a right to) that
> "snippage" only takes place as a violation of the ""rules"".
>
> Snippage can be used to highlight what a person IS responding to.
>
> I am NOT required to quote your text I am not responding to.

That's correct. I made no such requirement.

> Your belief in excessive requoting is NOT universal.

I do not have such a belief. I too snip, WITH CLEAR NOTICE OF HAVING
DONE SO, as a practice to remove what has been discussed and concluded,
and is not relevant to the remainder I wish to discuss.

If you think I've removed critical information that changes your intent
I want you to feel free to speak up and demand that include passages
that clarify your intent.

> Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts
> are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge.

I actually post very few original posts. Almost all of mine are
replies. And I am outnumbered by you twits, so naturally I am going to
post more than any individual among you.

So what would be, to you, a sign of intelligence and true knowledge,
Greg?

> You argue to justify an industry that paid you.

Nope.

> Pat yourself on your back and put yourself up for sainthood.

That seems more the style of you twits in the vengence field of debate.

> Clearly your identity is wrapped around the CPS INDUSTRY.

You could say that, but it would not be true.

> I suspect that an unspoken implication of your
> arguing here is about squelching your own self doubt
> about CPS and your connection to it.

Nope. How could I, unlike you, have more than one note to post.

I post both criticisms and explanations of CPS operations and practices
as I understand them.

YOU cast that as 'agency suck' but do not bother to check and see if my
explanation is correct or not.

YOU, on the other hand, post nothing but diatribe, and mostly lies at
that, or studied ignorance of the subject.

> I also suspect you were a victim of child abuse
> and that you have lied about it to this newsgroup
> and perhaps even to yourself.

Nope.

> Perhaps you tell yourself it is a moral or ethical lie.

Nope. I've told you my position and it does not extend to argument, but
simply protection of others. This of course, makes YOU a liar to
insinuate otherwise.

> Perhaps you just thought it was tactically advantageous to you.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Do you argue with words and comments that are not tactically
adventageous to you?

Let me explain.

In war, or business, there are two exercises one must learn to be good
at.

One is tactics, the other strategy.

Strategy, roughly, is taking information from as many persectives as
one can master, and applying them to the picking of appropriate
attainable goals.

Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
it should be the exercise of planning.

Now comes the hard part, Greg.

What is my strategy? In other words ...

What is my goal, or goals?

So far you've missed it.

Try again.

0:->

Greegor

October 26th 06, 12:17 AM

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?

Why don't you give her YOUR expertise?

OH WAIT!
You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
How intelligent is that?
It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.

You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.

Ironically you have been caught giving people
such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded
you are working AGAINST families.

Your reposting of messages from a private
SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
newsgroup would likely get you expelled
from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
group that exists or will exist.

The fact that you or one of your minions
lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
and posted them in a public newsgroup
would certainly prove your intentions.

How smart is that?

0:->

October 26th 06, 04:31 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?
>
> Why don't you give her YOUR expertise?

He is doing that. I presume she is interested enough in her own case to
be following this conversation for herself.

If not, why don't you, since you've already posted to her, invite her
here to do so?

Afraid?

> OH WAIT!
> You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!

I'm still waiting for you to produce the circumstances. What you call
'kicked out' may be something very different from your reality.

> How intelligent is that?

It isn't possible, and intelligence has little to do with it, to
control other peoples actions. I suspect a few fools like you to be
involved. But we'll see when you prove he was "kicked out" and it
wasn't by kooks.

Have at it, boy. Prove yourself.

> It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.

Could it be that there are those that want losses instead of wins, and
are losers rather than winners, that just can't stand to have someone
successful, a multiple winner in the fight against
child protective services around?

It would tend to highlight their being losers, now wouldn't it?

> You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.

Actually you have it quite backwards.

Dan appears to have a healthy ego ... those are the kind based on
facts, verifiable reality. The reality is that Dan has successfully
beating what you losers portray as an evil all powerful unbeatable foe,
CPS.

Yet he's done it again and again. Family after family with overturned
founding, child after child returned from foster care.

Cases with complex issues, even serious medical ones where he had to
find, and he did, the research that proved the unlikelihood of guilt on
the part of the parents....and of course, they DID get their children
back.

If there is one criticism I have of Dan is that he wastes his valuable
time on twits such as you, and the loser contingent of antiCPS little
thugs that are cruising for CPS families to abuse and use to cover up
their own failings.

> Ironically you have been caught giving people
> such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> parents and Family Rights people concluded
> you are working AGAINST families.

Please list here, the "BAD advice" that he gave. I'm very curious to
see proof of this, since I have never seen Dan give a single piece of
bad advice on CPS matters.

His advice tends to be conservative, tactically sound -- and proven
repeatedly, and resulted in tens of families winning against CPS. Even
he has, many times, beaten CPS in his own case.

Please explain just how, and by what evidence, "quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded," he was "working AGAINST
families."

I suspect those people include many of the losers that have moved on
from this newsgroup, after being exposed -- mostly by Dan.

> Your reposting of messages from a private
> SUPPORT GROUP web site

You are misrepresenting the website. It is not a private group.

> into a public
> newsgroup would likely get you expelled
> from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
> group that exists or will exist.

Since anyone can join those forums there is nothing the least private
about them.

Would they stop me, for instance, from joining?

If so, given this is a public medium, would that not be a violation of
my rights?

Would you, for instance, try to stand between me and a group that could
pump me for information, as Dan has, from own long standing experience
winning for kinship relative placement families?

I coached, taught, advocated, and was an activist for 13 plus years,
and count over 2,000 relative families that successfully gain custody
of their grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and even siblings, in a system
that during that time was dead set against providing support to
relatives seeking foster custody, and adoption of their little
relatives.

I accumulated a mass, in fact a <chuckle> vast mass, of operations and
practice information for both CPS, the juvenile justice system, mental
health, and the legal system that we extremely valuable to those
families.

And you'd do everything you could to keep me out or kick me, wouldn't
you, Greg?

Costing any families that came to such groups the value of my
experience.

Isn't that right, Greg, you loser?

> The fact that you or one of your minions
> lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
> web site

It is not a private support group website. You need to get that clear
in your little pointy yead.

And we certainly can see why you are frantically kicking up a must dust
as possible...since you gave dangerous LEGAL advice to someone in one
of those groups. Is that not so, Greg?

> that you had been KICKED OUT OF
> and posted them in a public newsgroup
> would certainly prove your intentions.

You mean to tell us, coward, that you would not have posted the same
advice to that women right here in this newsgroup....to go ahead and
challenge the secret recording laws of her state, and attemp to use the
recording in court in her case?

> How smart is that?

Yes, I have to ask that too. Just how smart is it to keep offering such
valuable services as Dan does in such hostile company as that of you
losers that cluster for comfort and your little circle jerk in this
support groups (you little thugs manage to take them over and crowd out
both the people that need expert help, and shout down those that can
give it)?

I have to presume he's either a misguided nut himself, or, and far more
likely 0:-], very dedicated to his advocacy and activism to family
rights.

Which do you think it is?

You might want to remind yourself, as you ponder, that Dan didn't drop
out of the blue into this issue. He's been doing it for over three
years that I know of, activily, and I believe longer AS A FORMER CPS
TARGET HIMSELF.

And for all that time he has been winning, and you and your cronies,
for all that time, have been doing what, Greg? What?

Why, continuing your remarkable string of losses, of course. No wonder
you folks hate him irrationally.

0:->

Greegor

November 28th 06, 05:58 AM

Kane wrote
> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
> it should be the exercise of planning.

Got a dictionary definition for those?

0:->

November 28th 06, 06:18 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
>> it should be the exercise of planning.
>
> Got a dictionary definition for those?

Sure.

You can't use a dictionary?

Try it you'll like it.

But be careful. Only the first toke is free.

You could get hooked and be going back for
more word meanings, and your life would crumble around you, Greg.

Oliver Sutton learning what your words really mean, and all.

Like, "show up in court with the evidence you have committed a crime,
and use it to challenge the law and the court, and they'll have to
deliver your kids to you," isn't that about what you said, Greg?

If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact
quote, would you?

I just love figuring out what words mean.

0:->

Greegor

November 28th 06, 08:15 PM

I just love watching you twist everything up like caseworkers do.

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane wrote
> >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
> >> it should be the exercise of planning.
> >
> > Got a dictionary definition for those?
>
> Sure.
>
> You can't use a dictionary?
>
> Try it you'll like it.
>
> But be careful. Only the first toke is free.
>
> You could get hooked and be going back for
> more word meanings, and your life would crumble around you, Greg.
>
> Oliver Sutton learning what your words really mean, and all.
>
> Like, "show up in court with the evidence you have committed a crime,
> and use it to challenge the law and the court, and they'll have to
> deliver your kids to you," isn't that about what you said, Greg?
>
> If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact
> quote, would you?
>
> I just love figuring out what words mean.
>
> 0:->

Dan Sullivan

November 28th 06, 08:23 PM

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane wrote
> >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
> >> it should be the exercise of planning.
> >
> > Got a dictionary definition for those?
>
> Sure.
>
> You can't use a dictionary?
>
> Try it you'll like it.
>
> But be careful. Only the first toke is free.
>
> You could get hooked and be going back for
> more word meanings, and your life would crumble around you, Greg.
>
> Oliver Sutton learning what your words really mean, and all.
>
> Like, "show up in court with the evidence you have committed a crime,
> and use it to challenge the law and the court, and they'll have to
> deliver your kids to you," isn't that about what you said, Greg?
>
> If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact
> quote, would you?
>
> I just love figuring out what words mean.

Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back.

He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that
state.

And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars.

Greegor

November 28th 06, 08:39 PM

Dan Sullivan wrote
> Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back.
>
> He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that
> state.
>
> And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars.

But not in the same case.

Typical half truth and innuendo.

Dan Sullivan

November 28th 06, 09:08 PM

0:->

November 28th 06, 09:57 PM

You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad advice it caused
him to be kicked off of support groups.

I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please.

I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might
make against you.. 0:-]

Why won't you prove your claim?

Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch
hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice:
haven't you noticed?

Put up, Greg. Put up.

And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you
are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are.

Kane

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?
>> Why don't you give her YOUR expertise?
>
> He is doing that. I presume she is interested enough in her own case to
> be following this conversation for herself.
>
> If not, why don't you, since you've already posted to her, invite her
> here to do so?
>
> Afraid?
>
>> OH WAIT!
>> You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
>
> I'm still waiting for you to produce the circumstances. What you call
> 'kicked out' may be something very different from your reality.
>
>> How intelligent is that?
>
> It isn't possible, and intelligence has little to do with it, to
> control other peoples actions. I suspect a few fools like you to be
> involved. But we'll see when you prove he was "kicked out" and it
> wasn't by kooks.
>
> Have at it, boy. Prove yourself.
>
>> It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
>
> Could it be that there are those that want losses instead of wins, and
> are losers rather than winners, that just can't stand to have someone
> successful, a multiple winner in the fight against
> child protective services around?
>
> It would tend to highlight their being losers, now wouldn't it?
>
>> You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
>> on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
>
> Actually you have it quite backwards.
>
> Dan appears to have a healthy ego ... those are the kind based on
> facts, verifiable reality. The reality is that Dan has successfully
> beating what you losers portray as an evil all powerful unbeatable foe,
> CPS.
>
> Yet he's done it again and again. Family after family with overturned
> founding, child after child returned from foster care.
>
> Cases with complex issues, even serious medical ones where he had to
> find, and he did, the research that proved the unlikelihood of guilt on
> the part of the parents....and of course, they DID get their children
> back.
>
> If there is one criticism I have of Dan is that he wastes his valuable
> time on twits such as you, and the loser contingent of antiCPS little
> thugs that are cruising for CPS families to abuse and use to cover up
> their own failings.
>
>> Ironically you have been caught giving people
>> such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
>> parents and Family Rights people concluded
>> you are working AGAINST families.
>
> Please list here, the "BAD advice" that he gave. I'm very curious to
> see proof of this, since I have never seen Dan give a single piece of
> bad advice on CPS matters.
>
> His advice tends to be conservative, tactically sound -- and proven
> repeatedly, and resulted in tens of families winning against CPS. Even
> he has, many times, beaten CPS in his own case.
>
> Please explain just how, and by what evidence, "quite a bunch of
> parents and Family Rights people concluded," he was "working AGAINST
> families."
>
> I suspect those people include many of the losers that have moved on
> from this newsgroup, after being exposed -- mostly by Dan.
>
>> Your reposting of messages from a private
>> SUPPORT GROUP web site
>
> You are misrepresenting the website. It is not a private group.
>
>> into a public
>> newsgroup would likely get you expelled
>> from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
>> group that exists or will exist.
>
> Since anyone can join those forums there is nothing the least private
> about them.
>
> Would they stop me, for instance, from joining?
>
> If so, given this is a public medium, would that not be a violation of
> my rights?
>
> Would you, for instance, try to stand between me and a group that could
> pump me for information, as Dan has, from own long standing experience
> winning for kinship relative placement families?
>
> I coached, taught, advocated, and was an activist for 13 plus years,
> and count over 2,000 relative families that successfully gain custody
> of their grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and even siblings, in a system
> that during that time was dead set against providing support to
> relatives seeking foster custody, and adoption of their little
> relatives.
>
> I accumulated a mass, in fact a <chuckle> vast mass, of operations and
> practice information for both CPS, the juvenile justice system, mental
> health, and the legal system that we extremely valuable to those
> families.
>
> And you'd do everything you could to keep me out or kick me, wouldn't
> you, Greg?
>
> Costing any families that came to such groups the value of my
> experience.
>
> Isn't that right, Greg, you loser?
>
>> The fact that you or one of your minions
>> lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
>> web site
>
> It is not a private support group website. You need to get that clear
> in your little pointy yead.
>
> And we certainly can see why you are frantically kicking up a must dust
> as possible...since you gave dangerous LEGAL advice to someone in one
> of those groups. Is that not so, Greg?
>
>> that you had been KICKED OUT OF
>> and posted them in a public newsgroup
>> would certainly prove your intentions.
>
> You mean to tell us, coward, that you would not have posted the same
> advice to that women right here in this newsgroup....to go ahead and
> challenge the secret recording laws of her state, and attemp to use the
> recording in court in her case?
>
>> How smart is that?
>
> Yes, I have to ask that too. Just how smart is it to keep offering such
> valuable services as Dan does in such hostile company as that of you
> losers that cluster for comfort and your little circle jerk in this
> support groups (you little thugs manage to take them over and crowd out
> both the people that need expert help, and shout down those that can
> give it)?
>
> I have to presume he's either a misguided nut himself, or, and far more
> likely 0:-], very dedicated to his advocacy and activism to family
> rights.
>
> Which do you think it is?
>
> You might want to remind yourself, as you ponder, that Dan didn't drop
> out of the blue into this issue. He's been doing it for over three
> years that I know of, activily, and I believe longer AS A FORMER CPS
> TARGET HIMSELF.
>
> And for all that time he has been winning, and you and your cronies,
> for all that time, have been doing what, Greg? What?
>
> Why, continuing your remarkable string of losses, of course. No wonder
> you folks hate him irrationally.
>
> 0:->
>

0:->

November 28th 06, 09:58 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back.
>>
>> He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that
>> state.
>>
>> And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars.
>
> But not in the same case.
>
> Typical half truth and innuendo.

Well, Greg. It's your words.

If Dan has misrepresented, why don't YOU go feloniously quote yourself
and just show him what for, eh?

Prove Dan is telling a half truth by innuendo.

Should be easy.

Or I could have Oliver Sutton change nyms and go fetch.

Take your pick.

0:->

November 28th 06, 10:11 PM

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > >> Tactics is the practices, the actions, once decides to take, and is as
> > >> it should be the exercise of planning.
> > >
> > > Got a dictionary definition for those?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > You can't use a dictionary?
> >
> > Try it you'll like it.
> >
> > But be careful. Only the first toke is free.
> >
> > You could get hooked and be going back for
> > more word meanings, and your life would crumble around you, Greg.
> >
> > Oliver Sutton learning what your words really mean, and all.
> >
> > Like, "show up in court with the evidence you have committed a crime,
> > and use it to challenge the law and the court, and they'll have to
> > deliver your kids to you," isn't that about what you said, Greg?
> >
> > If I am paraphrasing incorrectly please correct me with your exact
> > quote, would you?
> >
> > I just love figuring out what words mean.
>
> Greg didn't say getting arrested in court would help get the kids back.

Dang! Wrong again! Now that's twice since 1999. 0:->

> He said it would be one way of challenging the recording laws in that
> state.

Yeah, right. That'll work.

Can I safely assume he kind of forget what her trial, where she was to
show up and do this "challenging the recording laws," was actually
about and that her "evidence" of worker malfeasance would be tainted
and thrown out?

Naw....Greg wouldn't miss those things.

> And he said she should sue CPS for 12 million dollars.

That's the ticket.

Do you suppose...........naw, he wouldn't do that, now would he?

12 MILLION YOU SAY?

0:-]

Greegor

November 28th 06, 10:42 PM

Kane wrote
> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.

Severely flawed characterization.
Got an exact citation and a link?

Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations?

> I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please.
> I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might
> make against you.. 0:-]

It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private
support group to a public newsgroup.

> Why won't you prove your claim?

Don't you mean your characterization of my claim?

> Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch
> hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice:
> haven't you noticed?
> Put up, Greg. Put up.

Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice?

He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own?

> And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you
> are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are.

0:->

November 28th 06, 11:32 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
>
> Severely flawed characterization.

Nope.

> Got an exact citation and a link?

Sure, four posts up the thread from your post I'm replying to where it
says:
....
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?

Why don't you give her YOUR expertise?

OH WAIT!
You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
How intelligent is that?
It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.

You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.

Ironically you have been caught giving people
such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded
you are working AGAINST families.

Your reposting of messages from a private
SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
newsgroup would likely get you expelled
from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
group that exists or will exist.

The fact that you or one of your minions
lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
and posted them in a public newsgroup
would certainly prove your intentions.

How smart is that?
...........
>
> Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations?
>

Does that above look fabricated to you? If so then speak to Greg. They
are copied from a post just few back up the thread from here.

I guess I forget your poor memory, Greg. Sorry.

Let's pull some quotes and see if indeed you did claim he gave bad
advice and got kicked off news groups for it.

Why shucks, there's one now:

"Ironically you have been caught giving people
such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded
you are working AGAINST families."

By the way, Greg, you've not dealt with a poster from one of those
support groups showing where YOU posted from this group to that one,
OUR comments without permission.

Now what was it I was supposed to have done, Greg?

Oh yeah, you asked: "Or are you going to fabricate more fictional
quotations?"

> > I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please.
> > I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might
> > make against you.. 0:-]
>
> It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private
> support group to a public newsgroup.

Sure it would. You've done it before. And it's not a private group,
Greg. You are lying.

> > Why won't you prove your claim?
>
> Don't you mean your characterization of my claim?

Nope. You claimed Dan gave bad advice, Greg..your own words: "you have
been caught giving people such BAD advice "

I'm sure Dan would give you permisson to quote him...in fact I believe
he has done so already, by asking for you to do so...quote him, please.

Thank you. I know we can count on your honesty, integrity, and general
all around good name and character.

> > Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch
> > hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice:
> > haven't you noticed?
> > Put up, Greg. Put up.
>
> Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice?

Uh...as far as I know he hasn't accused himself of giving BAD advice,
so he might just have a bit of trouble finding that "...such BAD
advice.." you mention.

Help the man out, Greg .

I mean be fair.

If you are going to destroy Dan Sullivan, don't ask him to help you do
it, eh?

Be a man. Do it on your own. Stand behind your claim, your words: "you
have been caught giving people such BAD advice ..."
>
> He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own?
>
He didn't lift anyone's text. He quoted. Sourced it too.

And all you have to do is post his bad advice, Greg. Heck, I'll bet he
would mind if you changed names to protect the innocent...all except
his name of course.

Aren't your tickled that Doan has taught you how to be persistently a
weasel, dodging this way and that, never answering the questions and
challenges set out for you?

> > And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you
> > are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are.

So, I am going to assume, and urge others to as well, that if you
cannot, with Dan's permission, post his "bad advice" here in the very
next reply to me (watch him run folks), that you are in fact lying,
Greg.

Now we can't have people believing that about you, can we, "family
rights advocate?"

0:->

0:->

November 28th 06, 11:46 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
>
> Severely flawed characterization.

Nope.

> Got an exact citation and a link?

Oh, yes, that bad memory problem I forgot...so ....

Sure, up this very thread from your post I'm replying to where it says:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/msg/dadaaeeaa832aacc?hl=en&

From: "Greegor" >
Newsgroups:
alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
Subject: Re: other researchers professional groups academic
Date: 25 Oct 2006 16:17:34 -0700

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?

Why don't you give her YOUR expertise?

OH WAIT!
You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
How intelligent is that?
It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.

You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.

Ironically you have been caught giving people
such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded
you are working AGAINST families.

Your reposting of messages from a private
SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
newsgroup would likely get you expelled
from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
group that exists or will exist.

The fact that you or one of your minions
lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
and posted them in a public newsgroup
would certainly prove your intentions.

How smart is that?
----------end of your post, just 3 days old..what a memory, Greg, what
a memory-----
>
> Or are you going to fabricate more fictional quotations?
>

Does that above look fabricated to you? If so then speak to Greg. The
words are copied from a post just few back up the thread from here, and
posted here in full, every word.

I guess I forget your poor memory, Greg. Sorry.

Let's pull some quotes and see if indeed you did claim he gave bad
advice and got kicked off news groups for it.

Why shucks, there's one now:

"Ironically you have been caught giving people
such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
parents and Family Rights people concluded
you are working AGAINST families."

By the way, Greg, you've not dealt with a poster from one of those
support groups showing where YOU posted from this group to that one,
OUR comments without permission.

Now what was it I was supposed to have done, Greg?

Oh yeah, you asked: "Or are you going to fabricate more fictional
quotations?"

> > I asked you to post some of that here. Quote him please.
> > I take full responsibility for any charges of Felonious Quoting he might
> > make against you.. 0:-]
>
> It wouldn't be ethical or moral to quote from a private
> support group to a public newsgroup.

Sure it would. You've done it before. And it's not a private group,
Greg. You are lying.

> > Why won't you prove your claim?
>
> Don't you mean your characterization of my claim?

Nope. Exact words, Greg. Doan's weasel games are old and tired. He's
just getting YOU to be the lab rat to try them in a new setting, and
he's watching with his beady little monkeyboy eyes as he gathers
intelligence on just how you get caught, trounced, and butt kicked
trying out new angles on old weaseling tricks.

You claimed Dan gave bad advice, Greg..your own words: "you have been
caught giving people such BAD advice "

That's what I claimed you said.

I'm sure Dan would give you permisson to quote him...in fact I believe
he has done so already, by asking for you to do so...quote him, please.

Thank you.

I know we can count on your honesty, integrity, and general all around
good name and character.

> > Post his advice. I assure you if it's bad advice he's going to catch
> > hell from me. I have NO patience with people that give bad advice:
> > haven't you noticed?
> > Put up, Greg. Put up.
>
> Isn't Dan able to repost his own advice?

Uh...as far as I know he hasn't accused himself of giving BAD advice,
so he might just have a bit of trouble finding that "...such BAD
advice.." you mention.

Surely you don't expect him to post all of his advice for all the years
he's posted, do you Greg? Or could that be just another weasel tactic?
R R R R R R

Help the man out, Greg .

I mean be fair.

If you are going to destroy Dan Sullivan, don't ask him to help you do
it, eh?

Be a man. Do it on your own. Stand behind your claim, your words: "you
have been caught giving people such BAD advice ..."

> He lifted OTHER people's text, can't he lift his own?
>
He didn't "lift" (as in Feloniously) anyone's text. He quoted. Sourced
it too.

And all you have to do is post his bad advice, Greg. Heck, I'll bet he
would not mind if you changed names to protect the innocent...all
except his name of course.

In fact, I'll bet he WOULD post the advice he gave then, if you'd just
give him a hint as to the circumstances and a few words he used so he
can find what you are referring to.

Aren't your tickled that Doan has taught you how to be persistently a
weasel, dodging this way and that, never answering the questions and
challenges set out for you?

Fits right in with your sterling character, eh.

> > And no, please don't shut up. That's been your dodge for years, when you
> > are finally cornered like the king rat you think you are.

So, I am going to assume, and urge others to as well, that if you
cannot, with Dan's permission, post his "bad advice" here in the very
next reply to me (watch him run folks), that you are in fact lying,
Greg.

Now we can't have people believing that about you, can we, "family
rights advocate?"

0:->

Greegor

November 29th 06, 12:01 AM

Kane wrote
> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.

Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.

Kane wrote > Nope.

Yup! see below.

Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?

Greg wrote
> OH WAIT!
> You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> How intelligent is that?
> It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.

Does this say "because of bad advice"?
I clearly see another explanation!

Greg wrote
> Ironically you have been caught giving people
> such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> parents and Family Rights people concluded
> you are working AGAINST families.

This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
was booted out.

Ironic isn't it?

Greg wrote
> Your reposting of messages from a private
> SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
> newsgroup would likely get you expelled
> from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
> group that exists or will exist.
>
> The fact that you or one of your minions
> lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
> web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
> and posted them in a public newsgroup
> would certainly prove your intentions.

Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

Dan Sullivan

November 29th 06, 12:16 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
>
> Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
>
> Kane wrote > Nope.
>
> Yup! see below.
>
> Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
>
> Greg wrote
> > OH WAIT!
> > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> > How intelligent is that?
> > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
>
> Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> I clearly see another explanation!

Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?

> Greg wrote
> > Ironically you have been caught giving people
> > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> > parents and Family Rights people concluded
> > you are working AGAINST families.
>
> This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> was booted out.
>
> Ironic isn't it?

You did say "Bad advice," Greg.

If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
that they felt I was working against families.

And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
claim over and over in his posts.

> Greg wrote
> > Your reposting of messages from a private
> > SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
> > newsgroup would likely get you expelled
> > from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
> > group that exists or will exist.
> >
> > The fact that you or one of your minions
> > lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
> > web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
> > and posted them in a public newsgroup
> > would certainly prove your intentions.
>
> Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

Dan Sullivan

November 29th 06, 12:45 AM

0:->

November 29th 06, 02:36 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
>> advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
>
> Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
>
> Kane wrote > Nope.
>
> Yup! see below.
>
> Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
>
> Greg wrote
>> OH WAIT!
>> You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
>> How intelligent is that?
>> It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
>> You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
>> on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
>
> Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> I clearly see another explanation!
>
>
> Greg wrote
>> Ironically you have been caught giving people
>> such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
>> parents and Family Rights people concluded
>> you are working AGAINST families.
>
> This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> was booted out.
>
> Ironic isn't it?
>
>
> Greg wrote
>> Your reposting of messages from a private
>> SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
>> newsgroup would likely get you expelled
>> from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
>> group that exists or will exist.
>>
>> The fact that you or one of your minions
>> lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
>> web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
>> and posted them in a public newsgroup
>> would certainly prove your intentions.
>
> Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

The claim by you, Greg, was that Dan gave bad advice. Outcomes are
irrelevant.

Did he in fact give bad advice?

Are you saying he wasn't kicked out them for advice but for something else?

What would that something else have been?

Now you have two claims to support.

You going to dodge some more or answer to them?

Where is this bad advice, and where is the evidence of why Dan was
kicked out?

I KNOW why he was kicked out, and it had nothing to do with advice and
everything to do with challenging nutsos that give advice that puts
people at risk of losing their children permanently.

There are posters from there HERE saying so, stupid.

Are they laying and YOU the only honest contributor to those support pages?

No, Gagg, you have lied about Dan and you are simply dodging now,
bringing up the superfluous to use to distract from the main point.

You said he gave bad advice.

Let's see it.

You said he was kicked out for bad behavior.

Let's see it.

Post your proof, liar.

0:->

Greegor

November 29th 06, 09:12 AM

> > Kane wrote
> > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
> >
> > Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
> >
> > Kane wrote > Nope.
> >
> > Yup! see below.
> >
> > Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
> >
> > Greg wrote
> > > OH WAIT!
> > > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> > > How intelligent is that?
> > > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> > > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> > > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
> >
> > Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> > I clearly see another explanation!
>
> Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?

Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times?

> > Greg wrote
> > > Ironically you have been caught giving people
> > > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> > > parents and Family Rights people concluded
> > > you are working AGAINST families.
> >
> > This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> > was booted out.
> >
> > Ironic isn't it?
>
> You did say "Bad advice," Greg.

Yes, as an ironic aside.
Not a cause and effect relationship.

But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you
were kicked out both times!

Why don't you fess up and stop trying to
goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?!

> If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
> that they felt I was working against families.
>
> And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
> of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
> claim over and over in his posts.

At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks.

> > Greg wrote
> > > Your reposting of messages from a private
> > > SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
> > > newsgroup would likely get you expelled
> > > from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
> > > group that exists or will exist.
> > >
> > > The fact that you or one of your minions
> > > lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
> > > web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
> > > and posted them in a public newsgroup
> > > would certainly prove your intentions.
> >
> > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

Dan Sullivan

November 29th 06, 09:21 AM

Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
> > >
> > > Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
> > >
> > > Kane wrote > Nope.
> > >
> > > Yup! see below.
> > >
> > > Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
> > >
> > > Greg wrote
> > > > OH WAIT!
> > > > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> > > > How intelligent is that?
> > > > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> > > > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> > > > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
> > >
> > > Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> > > I clearly see another explanation!
> >
> > Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?
>
> Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times?

Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg.

> > > Greg wrote
> > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people
> > > > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> > > > parents and Family Rights people concluded
> > > > you are working AGAINST families.
> > >
> > > This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> > > was booted out.
> > >
> > > Ironic isn't it?
> >
> > You did say "Bad advice," Greg.
>
> Yes, as an ironic aside.

No, as a fact.

> Not a cause and effect relationship.
>
> But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you
> were kicked out both times!

Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg.

> Why don't you fess up and stop trying to
> goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?!

Whose privacy?

Mine?

Be my guest.

You have my permission.

> > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
> > that they felt I was working against families.
> >
> > And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
> > of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
> > claim over and over in his posts.
>
> At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks.

Prove your claim, Greg.

Greegor

November 29th 06, 09:26 AM

Kane wrote
> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.

Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.

Greg wrote
> And Dan complains that I and my SO's documents are too aggressive.
> Ironically, Dan's OWN posting history is aggressive and verbally assaultive.
> And THAT is a crucial part of why Dan has been ejected from Family Rights groups.
> If Dan can't "finesse" Bob then what hope would he have with a malicious caseworker?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/35086d5205566273/#
Tread Title: DanKane My Family and Bragging Rights
1 From: Greegor - Date: Thurs, Nov 9 2006 3:36 am
Kane the rabid system suck and Dan, acted as personal ""references""
for each other.
Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups.
Dan claimed his strength was to finesse (my word) caseworkers into
submission.
Yet he can't even "finesse" enough just to get along in these Family
Rights groups?
And Dan complains that I and my SO's documents are too aggressive.
Ironically, Dan's OWN posting history is aggressive and verbally
assaultive.
And THAT is a crucial part of why Dan has been ejected from Family
Rights groups.
If Dan can't "finesse" Bob then what hope would he have with a
malicious caseworker?
How much "finesse" or smooth talking does that reveal?
Or more to the point, how could Dan advise FAMILY how to "finesse"
their caseworker?
Was Dan aggressive about the caseworker he claims he got fired?
Or did Dan "finesse" the caseworker out of her job?

Oh yeah! Did I mention Dan got CAUGHT using a fraudulent name
and IP address trickery that made him appear to be all over the globe?
Oliver Sutton? To poke back into a private web site he was kicked out
of?

GOSH, It's sure tough to figure out why when somebody named
Jennifer Buckley appears posting glowing comments about
our ""smooth talking"" (sic) Dan, they would be presumed to be a sock,
a fake....

Why, Oliver Sutton himself has to ask if he did something wrong! Duh?

Apparently I am some worthless piece of stuff, but Dan and
Kane sure seem to belly ache and complain about me
OBSESSIVELY and in every unrelated thread.
In one thread I posted links to photos of the subject matter and Dan
tried bitching about me and his perceptions of my issues yet again.
Would they really do that if I was so inneffectual?

Like hate mail from HITLER, Dan and Kane et alia pay me the
highest compliments every time they try to insult or demean me.

Dan and Kane posed for ages as Family Rights advocates,
but gradually as they gave advice and complained, their
true motives were revealed. Dan's recent IP fakery, identity fraud,
intrusion and message privacy violations have certainly clarified
that personal attacks are a priority for Dan Sullivan.

Kane hopes to pretend what Dan did was "moral or ethical" undoubtedly.

My family has had various ups and downs as have
the caseworkers and even the court system.

My wee voice as part of various Family Rights groups has
advised many families, with varying results I would attribute
MOSTLY to the point in their case in which they asked for help.

Many wait too long before realizing that the caseworker
is dragging their family straight down to hell.

Getting to parents EARLY in their cases, or getting the word
out to families before it's even an issue is the single most
important deciding factor about whether advice will help them.

It's a self help thing, people help themselves.
Give them information, validation and comeraderie and
it's AMAZING what people can do to CPS!

It's not about ego, personal references or a scorecard for me.

I do not "claim" anybody whom I have helped.

Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
> > >
> > > Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
> > >
> > > Kane wrote > Nope.
> > >
> > > Yup! see below.
> > >
> > > Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
> > >
> > > Greg wrote
> > > > OH WAIT!
> > > > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> > > > How intelligent is that?
> > > > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> > > > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> > > > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
> > >
> > > Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> > > I clearly see another explanation!
> >
> > Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?
>
> Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times?
>
> > > Greg wrote
> > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people
> > > > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> > > > parents and Family Rights people concluded
> > > > you are working AGAINST families.
> > >
> > > This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> > > was booted out.
> > >
> > > Ironic isn't it?
> >
> > You did say "Bad advice," Greg.
>
> Yes, as an ironic aside.
> Not a cause and effect relationship.
>
> But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you
> were kicked out both times!
>
> Why don't you fess up and stop trying to
> goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?!
>
> > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
> > that they felt I was working against families.
> >
> > And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
> > of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
> > claim over and over in his posts.
>
> At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks.
>
> > > Greg wrote
> > > > Your reposting of messages from a private
> > > > SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
> > > > newsgroup would likely get you expelled
> > > > from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
> > > > group that exists or will exist.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that you or one of your minions
> > > > lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
> > > > web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
> > > > and posted them in a public newsgroup
> > > > would certainly prove your intentions.
> > >
> > > Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

Dan Sullivan

November 29th 06, 09:33 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups.

Greg,

Post the names of the 4 Family Rights goups.

Post the proof with appropriate links that I was kicked out.

Post the reasons with appropriate links that I was kicked out.

I'll be waiting for your inadequate response.

Greegor

November 29th 06, 09:42 AM

> > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
> > > > > advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
> > > >
> > > > Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
> > > >
> > > > Kane wrote > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Yup! see below.
> > > >
> > > > Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
> > > >
> > > > Greg wrote
> > > > > OH WAIT!
> > > > > You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
> > > > > How intelligent is that?
> > > > > It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
> > > > > You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
> > > > > on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
> > > >
> > > > Does this say "because of bad advice"?
> > > > I clearly see another explanation!
> > >
> > > Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?
> >
> > Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times?
>
> Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg.

The part you already posted yourself is enough.

>
> > > > Greg wrote
> > > > > Ironically you have been caught giving people
> > > > > such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
> > > > > parents and Family Rights people concluded
> > > > > you are working AGAINST families.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
> > > > was booted out.
> > > >
> > > > Ironic isn't it?
> > >
> > > You did say "Bad advice," Greg.
> >
> > Yes, as an ironic aside.
>
> No, as a fact.
>
> > Not a cause and effect relationship.
> >
> > But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you
> > were kicked out both times!
>
> Post all the evidence necessary for you to prove your claim, Greg.
>
> > Why don't you fess up and stop trying to
> > goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?!
>
> Whose privacy?
>
> Mine?
>
> Be my guest.
>
> You have my permission.

Who is your attorney?

> > > If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
> > > that they felt I was working against families.
> > >
> > > And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
> > > of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
> > > claim over and over in his posts.
> >
> > At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks.
>
> Prove your claim, Greg.

You already did.

Greegor

November 29th 06, 09:52 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups.

Dan wrote
> Greg,
>
> Post the names of the 4 Family Rights goups.
>
> Post the proof with appropriate links that I was kicked out.
>
> Post the reasons with appropriate links that I was kicked out.
>
> I'll be waiting for your inadequate response.

Present your stipulations first, and I'll fill in what I can.
You are being honest aren't you?
Or is this "hide the salami" tactic one you advise people to use?

Do you think it plays well to force the opponent to prove even the
obvious?

Dan Sullivan

November 29th 06, 10:08 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Dan was kicked OUTof at least 4 Family Rights groups.
>
> Dan wrote
> > Greg,
> >
> > Post the names of the 4 Family Rights goups.
> >
> > Post the proof with appropriate links that I was kicked out.
> >
> > Post the reasons with appropriate links that I was kicked out.
> >
> > I'll be waiting for your inadequate response.
>
> Present your stipulations first, and I'll fill in what I can.

No stipulations.

> You are being honest aren't you?

Far more than you are, Greg.

> Or is this "hide the salami" tactic one you advise people to use?

I don't know what a "hide the salami" tactic is.

> Do you think it plays well to force the opponent to prove even the
> obvious?

Well, Greg, if you claim the answers to those questions are obvious,
and then you fail to post those obvious answers, then obviously you are
a liar.

0:->

November 29th 06, 05:32 PM

Greegor wrote:
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> You made specific accusations that Dan gave such bad
>>>> advice it caused him to be kicked off of support groups.
>>> Greg wrote > Severely flawed characterization.
>>>
>>> Kane wrote > Nope.
>>>
>>> Yup! see below.
>>>
>>> Greg wrote > Got an exact citation and a link?
>>>
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> OH WAIT!
>>>> You were KICKED OUT of that support group site!
>>>> How intelligent is that?
>>>> It's the 3rd or 4th group you've been kicked OUT of.
>>>> You seem incapable of constructive criticism, focusing
>>>> on your EGO, destructive criticism or ridicule.
>>> Does this say "because of bad advice"?
>>> I clearly see another explanation!
>> Destructive criticism doesn't mean bad advice?
>
> Hasn't Dan told you why he was kicked out both times?

Let's clear up this accusation of yours against me, first, Greg.

This is not the only thing you said, you happy little context snipper.

You asked if I was going to make up quotes again.

And I've quoted YOU, nothing made up.

Got anything to say now that you have been caught lying <sigh> yet again?

You want to carry on a discussion with me when you lie like that?

You expect to have your questions answered when in instances where they
have been you come back in denial just like this lie?

And your question is a dodge. I asked YOU to prove your claim he was
kicked off for cause.

Get with the program, stupid.

>>> Greg wrote
>>>> Ironically you have been caught giving people
>>>> such BAD advice that quite a bunch of
>>>> parents and Family Rights people concluded
>>>> you are working AGAINST families.
>>> This doesn't state bad advice as the reason he
>>> was booted out.
>>>
>>> Ironic isn't it?
>> You did say "Bad advice," Greg.
>
> Yes, as an ironic aside.
> Not a cause and effect relationship.

You do understand that is using sophistry, dodging, to lie, don't you Greg?

I asked you to prove that he gives bad advice, now you wish to change it
to, "the reason he was kicked off," which I really don't care about,
knowing the kind of nut cases like YOU that hang out there and his lack
of patience with people that endanger families.

I can make a fair guess as to why we was barred.

Now, get back to the "bad advice" you claim he has given.

Let's see it.

> But then, Dan, YOU KNOW exactly why you
> were kicked out both times!

I have a surprise for you. Dan may know, but he may not. Unlike you, Dan
is not psychic. There may have been reasons by those in control that
none of us can know, and Dan least of all..outside of making an educated
guess.
>
> Why don't you fess up and stop trying to
> goad me into violating privacy the way you did ?!

Fess up to what?

You don't have to violate privacy. Post DAN'S words. He's not concerned
about keeping private his advice.

Feel free to block out any names of others.

Let's see his "bad advice," liar.

>> If you're referring to FightCPS there were only two lunatics who posted
>> that they felt I was working against families.
>>
>> And one of them, Bob Lynn Jarovits, eventually was banned by the owner
>> of the website, Linda Martin, because he couldn't stop making that
>> claim over and over in his posts.
>
> At the exact same time you were, for your hostile remarks.

I hope he gave the ****ing advice to destroy families giving bull****
artist a real eyeful. You are a pack of dangerous twits.

Bob almost reaches your level. Apologized for the "admit to a crime in
court" bull**** yet, have you, Greg?

>>> Greg wrote
>>>> Your reposting of messages from a private
>>>> SUPPORT GROUP web site into a public
>>>> newsgroup would likely get you expelled
>>>> from EVERY SINGLE Family Rights
>>>> group that exists or will exist.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you or one of your minions
>>>> lifted messages from a private SUPPORT GROUP
>>>> web site that you had been KICKED OUT OF
>>>> and posted them in a public newsgroup
>>>> would certainly prove your intentions.
>>> Does THIS say that Dan was kicked out for bad advice?

You tell us, then stop dodging and show us the Bad Advice you claim Dan
gave to families.

We are waiting.

0:->