Kane's fixation--

[[email protected]]

Thanks Greegor for the update and you are correct, Kane could never
understand education over legal punishment of families for not
subjecting themselves to his supervision and control. What a nightmare!
Keep posting and I will keep reading and adding bits whenI can. Don't
let the thought police run you off!



*****
Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX





Greegor>>Since you last posted, Kane has presented
>a more unified summary of himself in which he
>explains his past connections with Child Protection
>in two different capacities. He doesn't mention his
>psychology background and Military DISINFORMATION
>background of course.

Kane still seems totally perplexed by the fact
that a non-spanker by choice would be against
his desire to make spanking ILLEGAL!

Now he's trying to lump you in as a spanker
just because you won't support his Nazi like
interest in state control of family CHOICES.

Did you see Kane fall all over himself about the Cherrix case?

He seems to be a raging STATIST, exactly
why I suspect he is a socialist who pretends he
is a conservative.

I respect your CHOICE and Kane hates that!

[0:->]

wrote:
> Thanks Greegor for the update and you are correct, Kane could never
> understand education over legal punishment of families for not
> subjecting themselves to his supervision and control.

What indicates I would both not understand the difference, and that I
would, in your rhetorical try at lies, wish to subject them to my
control and supervision. Not if society doesn't agree with me, child.

And it won't be long now. More and more states are doing away with
paddling, for instance, and more and more people are saying no to
spanking.

> What a nightmare!

Lying creates nightmares, Chris. And you are lying.

> Keep posting and I will keep reading and adding bits whenI can. Don't
> let the thought police run you off!

You made a claim you weren't going to post very often. Can we hope that
you've given that oath up and will return for some more verbal
beatings, when you lie?

>
> *****
> Non-spanker by choice,
> Chris C.
> TX
>
>
>
>
>
> Greegor>>Since you last posted, Kane has presented
> >a more unified summary of himself in which he
> >explains his past connections with Child Protection
> >in two different capacities.

Since. I've posted those things for years.

> > He doesn't mention his
> >psychology background and Military DISINFORMATION
> >background of course.

I post almost weekly about working in mental health. And I've been very
clear that my background was military intelligence. They are not
"operations." Intelligence doesn USE information. It simply provides
it.

How it's used is up to...well, the users.

You are lying again.

> Kane still seems totally perplexed by the fact
> that a non-spanker by choice would be against
> his desire to make spanking ILLEGAL!

What in my posting would make it appear I'm perplexed by you, and why
do you not answer the question so often posed to you about whether or
not you have any children to "not spank?"

Could it be you are dishonest, unethical, and a liar?

> Now he's trying to lump you in as a spanker

Greg doesn't spank? Then he must have lied when he said he did in fact
spank Lisa's daughter back when she was six or seven years old.

> just because you won't support his Nazi like
> interest in state control of family CHOICES.

If I held to Nazi principles legally constituted rules of conduct that
we have by virtue of our democratic (representative democracy) would
not suffice. But they do for me.

Do they not for you?

If there were laws so enacted would you urge people to defy
them...break the law?

Greg just told someone to charge CPS with violations of their civil
rights for spanking and losing their children.

Oddly, it mentioned bruises left on the children.

Do you think it's okay to bruise, or defend people who bruise their
children as a matter of disciplining them?
>
> Did you see Kane fall all over himself about the Cherrix case?
>
No, I sure didn't.

> He seems to be a raging STATIST, exactly
> why I suspect he is a socialist who pretends he
> is a conservative.

I see you have completely fallen into lying as a way of "debate."

Refusing to address personally the person you are attacking.

And you call me a Nazi? R R R R R R

Or a socialist?

> I respect your CHOICE

Choice to what? Tell people to break the law to challenge the courts
during the adjudication of a case where she has gotten one of her
children back already with two more at risk of being lost?

> and Kane hates that!

I hate it when people break the law (he was giving legal advice...which
last I heard is illegal...and we KNOW it was legal advice as it told
her to break the law), and especially when by doing such stupid foul
things as Greg has done just like that, it puts families at risk of
losing each other.

But here you are back again, as ethical and moral as always.

Welcome back Chris.

Still afraid to debate me?

Sure looks like it.

Make up lies about me and refuse to provide proof...how Nazi like that
is of you.

0:->

[Greegor]

Kane, I'm beginning to think you don't like me.