Re: protective order scam [Archive]

0:->

November 10th 06, 07:27 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
>> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
>
> Greg wrote
>> REALLY? Citations please!
>
> Kane wrote
>> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
>
> Greg wrote
>> You think that I advised the Christine family?
>
> Kane wrote
>> I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
>> around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.
>
> Yer a mental case!
> Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
> I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!
>
> Kane wrote
>> And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
>> lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
>> newsgroup knows it.
>
> Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
> It was hysterical!
>
> Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!
>
> All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
> simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.
>
> Kane wrote
>> That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
>> reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.
>
> Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.
>
> Greg wrote
>> And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
>> was somehow my fault??
>
> Kane wrote
>> You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
>> not?
>
> You have been claiming Jen as a reference re: Dan's expertise.
> NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
> Having it BOTH ways???
>
> Kane wrote
>> And who said she had a drug relapse?
>> Who would tell you such a thing?
>
> I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
> But it was definately referred to by Dan.
>
> I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
> such a BAD example as a reference.
>
> Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
> How did you MISS that, Kane?
>
> Kane wrote
>> You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
>> you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
>> the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.
>
> You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
> How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!
>
> Kane wrote
>> They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
>> the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.
>
> Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!
>
> Greg wrote
>>> That's the best ya got?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Answer my questions and we'll decide.
>
> we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?
>
>> This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
>> trial.
>
> Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
> attributed to me?
>
> My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
> Aren't they USUALLY?
>
>
>> From: Greg Hanson - view profile
>> Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
>> Email: (Greg Hanson)
>> Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
>>
>>
>> Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
>> Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.
>>
>> Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
>> vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?
>>
>> Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
>> Does that fit "emaciated" kids?
>>
>> Did they have distended bellies?
>> (As in REAL starvation?)
>>
>> Are there standards for malnourishment?
>> Does a vegetarian diet conform? "
>
> Who wrote this part below?

I did. Can't you see the quotes at the end of your little q and a?

The end YOUR part, and whatever comes after isn't yours any more, stupid.

>> You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
>> testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
>> established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
>> one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
>> and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
>> injury, that then went untreated.
>>
>> So much for your honesty.
>
> For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?
>
> My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
> questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?

Well, let's see exactly what you were doing. This case was well along,
these issues had been discussed previously, and the media had cover all
such questions already.

> Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!

Let's take another look at your questions and let people decide who is
the mental case here. Either the media had covered these or the answers
have long been known, stupid.

">>" means it's YOUR comment, stupid, and [[ ]] means it's mine.

>> Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?

[[ How could you ask such a stupid question? It was noted very plainly
by professional health workers these children were far beyond "thin."
They were malnourished, severely. ]]

>> Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

[[ You and others seem to presume that vegetarianism produces thinness
by default. It does not. I lived for about 6 years on a vegetarian diet
and had trouble keeping my weight down, even with heavy outdoor labor
almost constantly. I ran up to 230, fat for me at about 6'1" ]]

>>
>> Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
>> vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

[[ One of your usual insinuating rhetorically formatted questions. There
is NO "longer life expectancy" other than rumor for vegetarianism. It's
total caloric intake over time, stupid, that tends to lengthen life. On
the other hand, periods of long term starvation do NOT do that...and it
is especially dangerous in children, as they may not have the nutrients
for building essential body components, like brain, and internal organ
tissue. They aren't made from air. ]]

>>
>> Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
>> Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

[[ Another totally stupid innuendo. What would keep them in the hospital
longer? If they are being fed properly it can be done in home with
period outpatient checkups. I suspect that is exactly what happened.
There is no reason to keep someone that is malnourished in hospital for
any particular length of time unless they have suffered some system
failure...even the child with the UNTREATED fractured skull and the
UNTREATED suppurating infected head wound could have been released in
that time on and outpatient status. ]]

>>
>> Did they have distended bellies?
>> (As in REAL starvation?)

[[ Another lie. Distended bellies aren't necessarily a part of "REAL"
starvation as opposed to something "unreal," Greg. Your choice of "REAL"
indicates you were trying to sway people to the concept they were not
starving. A flat out lie, liar. One can be severely malnourished and
have no such condition. ]]

>>
>> Are there standards for malnourishment?

[[ Obviously there are, stupid. ]]

>> Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

[[ Another stupid rhetorical question trying to portray the parents as
innocent, rather than stupid...which I believe they actually were. I
could see NO malice by them purposefully. Just stupidity and a ranting
political agenda they subjected their children to. -- Diet as politics
was going heavy duty in the 70's with lots of it continuing to the
present. ]]

And one wouldn't ask if vegetarianism conformed to standards for
malnourishment. (actually that is made up word, it should be
"undernourishment") It does not, if it is done correctly. I was
certainly not malnourished when I stuck to a strict vegetarian diet. But
I refused to put my children on such a diet.

It is far too complicated, there systems are not fully functional and
being built, and people vary in their ability to adequately metabolize
some foods. You can't tell until you are an adult what that is for a
person. It's far to risky to put children on such diets.

My understanding was that they might have been in fact applying a
"Macrobiotic" diet to their children. This is well known to have risks
even to adults.

Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the stupidity of
Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.

They didn't get a chance to grow up and be responsible parents. ****ant
vultures like you got hold of them and kept them from getting their
children back by using Brian and Ruth as their political lab rats.

You and they welcomed the terrible loss THEY SUFFERED because YOU wanted
to do your "Gee ain't CPS just awful" blood dance.

Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
challenge the court and child protection system.

You are sick little ****ants, Greg. You need to get that through your
head. And your sickness endangers people like Ruth and Brian who might
make mistakes but CAN recover from it and walk away wiser but WITH THEIR
CHILDREN and not locked up in jail.

You stupid little chicken****.

0:->

0:->

November 10th 06, 08:32 PM

Greegor wrote:
> You are many yet I have you surrounded.

You mean you discount all those that have posted in your support?

****, you not only attack your imagined "enemies" but your buddies as well?

R R R RR ...

Well, that's consistent with your treatment of your girlfriend. So go
figger, eh?

0:->

>
> dragonsgirl wrote:
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
>>>> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> REALLY? Citations please!
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> You think that I advised the Christine family?
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
>>>> around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.
>>> Yer a mental case!
>>> Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
>>> I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!
>> Funny? It's one of your favorite angles.
>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
>>>> lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
>>>> newsgroup knows it.
>>> Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
>>> It was hysterical!
>>>
>>> Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!
>>>
>>> All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
>>> simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.
>>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
>>>> reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.
>>> Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.
>>>
>>> Greg wrote
>>>> And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
>>>> was somehow my fault??
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
>>>> not?
>>> You have been claiming Jen as a reference re: Dan's expertise.
>>> NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
>>> Having it BOTH ways???
>>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> And who said she had a drug relapse?
>>>> Who would tell you such a thing?
>>> I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
>>> But it was definately referred to by Dan.
>>>
>>> I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
>>> such a BAD example as a reference.
>>>
>>> Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
>>> How did you MISS that, Kane?
>>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
>>>> you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
>>>> the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.
>>> You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
>>> How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!
>>>
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
>>>> the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.
>>> Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!
>>>
>>> Greg wrote
>>>>> That's the best ya got?
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> Answer my questions and we'll decide.
>>> we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?
>>>
>>>> This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
>>>> trial.
>>> Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
>>> attributed to me?
>>>
>>> My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
>>> Aren't they USUALLY?
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Greg Hanson - view profile
>>>> Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
>>>> Email: (Greg Hanson)
>>>> Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
>>>> Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.
>>>>
>>>> Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
>>>> vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?
>>>>
>>>> Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
>>>> Does that fit "emaciated" kids?
>>>>
>>>> Did they have distended bellies?
>>>> (As in REAL starvation?)
>>>>
>>>> Are there standards for malnourishment?
>>>> Does a vegetarian diet conform? "
>>> Who wrote this part below?
>>>
>>>> You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
>>>> testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
>>>> established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
>>>> one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
>>>> and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
>>>> injury, that then went untreated.
>>>>
>>>> So much for your honesty.
>>> For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?
>>>
>>> My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
>>> questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
>>> Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!
>>>
>

Greegor

November 11th 06, 11:31 PM

Kane wrote
> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously
> bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

vs.

Kane wrote
> Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the
> stupidity of Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.

I asked questions.

Kane wrote]
> Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
> challenge the court and child protection system.

Oh! We CAN'T HAVE THAT! They must NOT challenge the
Child Protection INDUSTRY and their courts... <sarcasm>

I cannot take the credit for that!
You flatterer you!

Greegor

November 13th 06, 05:36 AM

Exhibit A. Direct question
Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?

Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.

Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?

Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
Kane wrote
> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.

Kane asked a direct question, and when given
a direct and complete answer he didn't want,
attempted to switch context of his own question.

Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what
Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint,
so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint.

Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral?

0:->

November 13th 06, 06:02 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Exhibit A. Direct question
> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>
> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>
> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>
> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
> Kane wrote
> > The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> > challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.

Absolutely. This IS the issue.

Would you have told her, for instance, NOT to commit the crime, if you
would later tell her to use that crime as a tactical effort in a court
case?

You are weaseling.

> Kane asked a direct question, and when given
> a direct and complete answer he didn't want,
> attempted to switch context of his own question.

No, you did NOT give me a direct and complete answer. You knew
perfectly well that you did in fact tell her to use that crime in court
to challenge the law, when in fact she was not FIGHTING that law, she
was fighting to get her children back and that law on recording had
ZERO to do with her case.

Is that not correct, Greg?

> Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what
> Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint,
> so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint.

I conceded that that was the case, as you stated it, that she had
already committed the crime.

YOU seem to not wish to pursue anything other than that, Greg. Why
would that be, eh?

Did you not advise her to try and use her crime to get herself arrested
in court to challenge that law when that law had nothing to do with her
case?

>
> Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral?

Nope. I mistated the issue, and corrected it, when you pointed out she
had, as you said correctly, already committed the crime.

I asked the next obvious question in the series of events.

Your advice to USE that crime as a tactic to get her children back by
challenging the recording laws in her state....totally irrelevant to
her case, as the judge would have told her right after ordering the
bailiff to arrest her and hold her for charges on her self confessed
law breaking.

Now move on to the question at hand, Greg. The one that has underlaid
this discussion, not some ****assed 'you accused me falsely' bull****.

I already conceeded I had mistated.

That does NOT get you off the hook for what you did after she broke the
law.

Answer the question asked.

Did you not advise her to, after breaking the law, try to use that in
court to get herself arrested?

0:->

Greegor

November 13th 06, 10:07 PM

Exhibit A. Direct question
Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?

Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.

Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?

Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
Kane wrote
The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.

Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
> Absolutely. This IS the issue.

Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?

Dan Sullivan

November 13th 06, 10:15 PM

Greegor

November 13th 06, 10:54 PM

> Greegor wrote:
> > Exhibit A. Direct question
> > Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
> >
> > Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
> > Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
> >
> > Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
> > Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
> >
> > Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
> > Kane wrote
> > The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> > challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
> >
> > Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
> > > Absolutely. This IS the issue.
> >
> > Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
> > How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
> > between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?

> Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
> an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
>
> The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
>
> Just a suggestion, but the next time you jump into a dumpster for the
> bottles and cans... do the world a favor and stay there.

Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.

Short on dazzling logic?

Dan Sullivan

November 13th 06, 11:09 PM

> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
>
> Short on dazzling logic?

Not at all.

You must have overlooked this the first time.

Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.

The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.

Greegor

November 13th 06, 11:29 PM

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.

Greg wrote > Short on dazzling logic?

Dan wrote
> Not at all.
>
> You must have overlooked this the first time.
>
> Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
> an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
>
> The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.

Please try to rescue Kane from this one!
Show us your masterful logic!
Kane got caught between Exhibit A, Exhibit D and comments about
Exhibiut D.

Can you argue without ad hom (arguing to the man)?

Show us how you dazzle those caseworkers with logic, Dan!

Greegor wrote:
> Exhibit A. Direct question
> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>
> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>
> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>
> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
> Kane wrote
> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.

Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
> Absolutely. This IS the issue.

Greg wrote
> Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
> How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
> between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?

Dan Sullivan

November 13th 06, 11:49 PM

0:->

November 13th 06, 11:52 PM

Greegor wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Exhibit A. Direct question
>>> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>>>
>>> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
>>> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>>>
>>> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
>>> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>>>
>>> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
>>> Kane wrote
>>> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
>>> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
>>>
>>> Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
>>>> Absolutely. This IS the issue.
>>> Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
>>> How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
>>> between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?
>
>
>> Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
>> an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
>>
>> The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
>>
>> Just a suggestion, but the next time you jump into a dumpster for the
>> bottles and cans... do the world a favor and stay there.
>
> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
>
> Short on dazzling logic?

Did you miss this part?

"Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.

The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact."

He is pointing YOU don't debate. That IS a valid topic OF debate.

And elegantly logical.

You have done nothing but dodge, not debate. The opponent's (us)
challenge has been made. The suspect perp, YOU, have refused to answer
the challenges made.

What more is their to do but remind you of it until you do answer, or
you simply go on with dodges like the above?

No, Greg, the lab rat, there IS no way out of this one.

Every thread with you in it is fair game for restating the challenge,
and pointing out you have dodged yet again.

Every subject other than two, at this point, the proof of your
accusation of a "computer felony" and the proof that telling someone to
challenge the court by admitting to a crime in the course of a child
welfare trial, a CIVIL trial at that, is a valid way for someone to get
their children back.

Show us a single instance, ONE instance, where someone committed a crime
and did in fact thereby get their children back from CPS.

And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
their children.

"Brain should have pulled the trigger." Remember? And remember your
argument with the cop that objected to the use of lethal force?

Answer the challenges Greg. Or run.

You are just another thug only too cowardly to act....like your coward
friends you want others to be your lab rats and then when they lose,
your excuse for yourself because "CPS is evil."

0:->

0:->

November 14th 06, 12:03 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
>
> Greg wrote > Short on dazzling logic?
>
> Dan wrote
>> Not at all.
>>
>> You must have overlooked this the first time.
>>
>> Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
>> an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
>>
>> The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
>
> Please try to rescue Kane from this one!
> Show us your masterful logic!
> Kane got caught between Exhibit A, Exhibit D and comments about
> Exhibiut D.
>
> Can you argue without ad hom (arguing to the man)?
>
> Show us how you dazzle those caseworkers with logic, Dan!
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> Exhibit A. Direct question
>> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>>
>> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
>> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>>
>> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
>> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>>
>> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
>> Kane wrote
>> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
>> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
>
> Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
>> Absolutely. This IS the issue.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
>> How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
>> between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?

You want to be careful about trying to use an "Exact words" argument
Greg. Next time I might not be so generous in excusing your exact words,
and allow you explain what you meant...and that it didn't mean you
believed in the use of lethal force against caseworkers.

It's not a "change." It's an explanation of what I meant. Just as you
were allowed to say you had NOT meant to mean lethal force was
okay...after I asked for over two years before you finally got the message.

How can you explain that you still refuse to answer the actual
challenge, other than by a sick little dodge, that you told someone to
take a chance getting arrested on criminal charges during a civil trial
and risk losing her children?

Any time now, Greg.

Or run again. Up to you.

0:->

Greegor

November 14th 06, 12:05 PM

Kane wrote
> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
> their children.

My buddies? Who exactly are you referring to?
You're blaming me for something "my buddies" said??
About an incident from YEARS ago?

> "Brain should have pulled the trigger." Remember?

Is THAT what you said?

> And remember your
> argument with the cop that objected to the use of lethal force?

You're quoting it wrong.

What was the FAKE cops name? "Oliver Sutton"??

George Truro

November 14th 06, 12:40 PM

"Greegor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Kane wrote
>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
>> their children.

Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's not
citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting violence.

The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents not
citizens.

0:->

November 14th 06, 01:36 PM

George Truro wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Kane wrote
>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
>>> their children.
>
> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's not
> citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting violence.
>
> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents not
> citizens.

Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?

If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
field of fire in a shootout even at close range.

Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal of
their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were
motivated by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and
to be lab rats for your failed political and personal agendas.

Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.

0:->

George Truro

November 14th 06, 01:49 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> George Truro wrote:
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
>>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
>>>> and
>>>> their children.
>>
>> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's
>> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
>> violence.
>>
>> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents
>> not citizens.
>
> Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
> Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
>
> If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
> field of fire in a shootout even at close range.

You're not too ****in bright are ya Butch?? And your reading comprehension
needs some work too.

Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?

Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -

Can I be any clearer??

>
> Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
> have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
> Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
> children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal of
> their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were motivated
> by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and to be lab
> rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
>
> Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
>
> 0:->
>
>

0:->

November 14th 06, 03:47 PM

George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>> Kane wrote
> >>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
> >>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
> >>>> and
> >>>> their children.
> >>
> >> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's
> >> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
> >> violence.
> >>
> >> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents
> >> not citizens.
> >
> > Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
> > Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
> >
> > If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
> > field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
>
> You're not too ****in bright are ya Butch?? And your reading comprehension
> needs some work too.
>
> Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
>
> Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -

Federal agents? From what federal agency, and could you provide some
supporting evidence, by link please?

> Can I be any clearer??

Yes.

As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
are interested in it going up ours.

But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
causing them to make the errors they did.

Were I one of you ****ants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.

Run suckers, run.

0:->

>
>
>
> >
> > Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
> > have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
> > Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
> > children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal of
> > their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were motivated
> > by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and to be lab
> > rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
> >
> > Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> >

George Truro

November 14th 06, 06:21 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> George Truro wrote:
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>> Kane wrote
>> >>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain,
>> >>>> consider
>> >>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> their children.
>> >>
>> >> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision.
>> >> It's
>> >> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
>> >> violence.
>> >>
>> >> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by
>> >> Agents
>> >> not citizens.
>> >
>> > Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that
>> > incited
>> > Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
>> >
>> > If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
>> > field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
>>
>> You're not too ****in bright are ya Butch?? And your reading
>> comprehension
>> needs some work too.
>>
>> Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
>>
>> Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -
>
> Federal agents? From what federal agency, and could you provide some
> supporting evidence, by link please?

You've accused Greg and his 'buddies' of instigating violence.

You provide some proof.

Or are you falsely accusing again.

The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to join
these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no anti-gov
groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!

FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
have committed without theirinstigation.

>
>> Can I be any clearer??
>
> Yes.
>
> As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
> are interested in it going up ours.
>
> But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
> clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
> causing them to make the errors they did.
>
> Were I one of you ****ants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
> highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
> to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.
>
> Run suckers, run.
>
> 0:->
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
>> > have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
>> > Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
>> > children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal
>> > of
>> > their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were
>> > motivated
>> > by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and to be lab
>> > rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
>> >
>> > Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
>> >
>> > 0:->
>> >
>> >
>

0:->

November 14th 06, 06:48 PM

George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> George Truro wrote:
>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>> news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>> George Truro wrote:
>>>>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> Kane wrote
>>>>>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain,
>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> their children.
>>>>> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision.
>>>>> It's
>>>>> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
>>>>> violence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by
>>>>> Agents
>>>>> not citizens.
>>>> Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that
>>>> incited
>>>> Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
>>>>
>>>> If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
>>>> field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
>>> You're not too ****in bright are ya Butch?? And your reading
>>> comprehension
>>> needs some work too.
>>>
>>> Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
>>>
>>> Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -
>> Federal agents? From what federal agency, and could you provide some
>> supporting evidence, by link please?
>
> You've accused Greg and his 'buddies' of instigating violence.

Yep.

>
> You provide some proof.

Nope. It was in the news. Likely archived in media morgues by now and
requiring paid subscriptions to access.

Those that followed the story know the truth.

Brian didn't get the idea of using a gun all by his little lonesome.

> Or are you falsely accusing again.

Never have, stupid.

> The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to join
> these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no anti-gov
> groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!

You seem to be a nice honest fellow that requires proof. How about you
provide some?

> FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
> have committed without theirinstigation.

Identify them please, with proof.

As you've said, you are just a troll, so your word is useless. Trolls
will say what they will to get attention, being frustrated narcissists
in the real world, where they are afraid to babble their mindless
attention getting bull****.

>
>>> Can I be any clearer??
>> Yes.
>>
>> As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
>> are interested in it going up ours.
>>
>> But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
>> clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
>> causing them to make the errors they did.
>>
>> Were I one of you ****ants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
>> highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
>> to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.

Like I said,

>>
>> Run suckers, run.
>>
>> 0:->

And thanks once MORE, troll. You like having your little leash jerked on
do you? R R R R R R R ... you are mine, stupid. All mine, and I'll use
you every time you post here. Fancy that, eh?

0:->

>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
>>>> have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
>>>> Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
>>>> children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal
>>>> of
>>>> their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were
>>>> motivated
>>>> by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and to be lab
>>>> rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
>>>>
>>>> Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> 0:->
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

George Truro

November 14th 06, 07:26 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
...
> George Truro wrote:
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> George Truro wrote:
>>>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>>>> news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>>>>> George Truro wrote:
>>>>>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>> Kane wrote
>>>>>>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain,
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> their children.
>>>>>> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
>>>>>> violence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by
>>>>>> Agents
>>>>>> not citizens.
>>>>> Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that
>>>>> incited
>>>>> Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
>>>>> field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
>>>> You're not too ****in bright are ya Butch?? And your reading
>>>> comprehension
>>>> needs some work too.
>>>>
>>>> Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
>>>>
>>>> Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -
>>> Federal agents? From what federal agency, and could you provide some
>>> supporting evidence, by link please?
>>
>> You've accused Greg and his 'buddies' of instigating violence.
>
> Yep.
>
>>
>> You provide some proof.
>
> Nope. It was in the news. Likely archived in media morgues by now and
> requiring paid subscriptions to access.

You are a liar. Greg Hanson never appeared in news stories about Brian and
Ruth.

>
> Those that followed the story know the truth.

I followed the story - and I know you are a liar making false accusations -
just as CPS trained you.

>
> Brian didn't get the idea of using a gun all by his little lonesome.

Your delusions that you can read peoples minds and know their thoughts and
motives just shows how desperate you are to make **** up and blame it on
someone.

>
>> Or are you falsely accusing again.
>
> Never have, stupid.

Of course you are - Greg had no part in Brian and Ruths case. Your
accusations and insinuations are false. False accusations - the same kind
you used to destroy folks when you worked for CPS.

>
>> The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to
>> join these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no
>> anti-gov groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!
>
> You seem to be a nice honest fellow that requires proof. How about you
> provide some?

Its been archived. I've posted it here numerous times. That CPS slime like
you ignore the proof - its not my responsibility. You got a keyboard - look
it up.

>
>> FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
>> have committed without theirinstigation.
>
> Identify them please, with proof.

The video and audio is still secret - as soon as we determine it safe for
assholes like you to review I'll drop you an email.

>
> As you've said, you are just a troll, so your word is useless. Trolls will
> say what they will to get attention, being frustrated narcissists in the
> real world, where they are afraid to babble their mindless attention
> getting bull****.

I've provided as much as you - so if it's true of me, it's true of you.

>
>
>>
>>>> Can I be any clearer??
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
>>> are interested in it going up ours.
>>>
>>> But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
>>> clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
>>> causing them to make the errors they did.
>>>
>>> Were I one of you ****ants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
>>> highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
>>> to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.
>
> Like I said,
>
>>>
>>> Run suckers, run.
>>>
>>> 0:->
>
> And thanks once MORE, troll. You like having your little leash jerked on
> do you? R R R R R R R ... you are mine, stupid. All mine, and I'll use you
> every time you post here. Fancy that, eh?
>
> 0:->
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he
>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>> have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
>>>>> Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of
>>>>> their
>>>>> children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal
>>>>> of
>>>>> their children, YOU ****ants advised him to do things that were
>>>>> motivated
>>>>> by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and to be lab
>>>>> rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0:->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

Greegor

November 14th 06, 08:28 PM

I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!

If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
at least get to know who they are!

Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.

Many people think being against the government is treason.
To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.

US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
government.

After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?

Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?

0:->

November 14th 06, 08:51 PM

Greegor wrote:
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!

You don't think you have any?

Or you don't know who they are?

Which is it?

> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!

You aren't. You are getting blamed for what you do.

> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.

I don't have any problem with being anti Government. I've been accused
of it myself.

The difference between us is I'm not delusional, and I won't lie, and I
point to real problems not ones made up as you do.

> Many people think being against the government is treason.

I'm not one of those. Are you trying to claim I am?

> To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.

Nope. You don't know the definition of treason.

> US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
> government.

They also get told to think very carefully before refusing an order.

Are you in the military then?

> After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
> what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?

Yet another obscure and segued piece of garbage tossed in?

So, what did the military find, Greg?

> Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
> communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?

The more I watch you the more I think you are a CPS plant.

I once took out a "spy" when I was in the military. He was really what I
suspected, but I had to treat him as a real foreign spy in my
intelligence unit.

He was, of course, what we called OSI, office of special operations, who
did internal police investigations on crime and security issues.

And his trademark? To be the dumbest spy in the world. He tried to lift
some classified material from my desk, and though he outranked me I
arrested him on the spot. I waited for the military police to come pick
him up. It was kind of fun at that point...as he'd been pulling this
kind of stuff for a couple of months and had taken down some people of
higher rank than me.

He really couldn't tell if I'd pull the trigger on the .45 I had up his
nose or not. But rather than a courts martial I would have faced had he
gotten away with that classified report, yes, I would have.

Even though I suspected he was a shill, like I'm beginning to strongly
suspect you are. I told him so, when I told him I'd enjoy seeing his
brains spattered on the door behind him. I don't like shills, or spies.

If I was one of your buddies I wouldn't trust you for a minute, Greg.

0:->

0:->

November 14th 06, 09:00 PM

Greegor wrote:
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!
>
> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.

You need to read the Federalist Papers, stupid.

They were not anti government. They were anti Monarchy.

Big difference.

They created a government. That's hardly an anti government act.

You pinhead geeks are always running this garbage on each other puffing
yourselves up thinking you are wise and clever, when you in fact are
stupid buffoons.

Fact is, much of the argument central to the founding of this government
we enjoy today had to do with argumentation between one faction of
special interests and another.

A few wiser heads managed to pull it out, as they say, and set up a
workable system by slightly to severely crippling ALL PARTIES.

That's the wonder of it....create a tension that holds the whole shaky
(as all human societies are politically) edifice for so very long as it
has.

Even little ****ants like you that would prefer your sick chaos where
you can beat children and get away with it can't stand up to that kind
of genius. They GOTCHA.

> Many people think being against the government is treason.

Go talk to the many then. I'm not them.

> To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.

Bull****. The Supreme Court has been doing that for a very long time now.

In fact, any new amendment after the BOR would fall into that category
of yours. All those involved with the passage of those would be traitors.

Just how stupid are you, Greg...or how long have you worked for the
government and are here to provoke treason?

0:->

>
> US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
> government.
>
> After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
> what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?
>
> Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
> communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?
>

Dan Sullivan

November 14th 06, 09:03 PM

Greegor wrote:
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!

Whatsisname et alia.

> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!
>
> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.

That's why they created their own government.

Right, Gre?

Greegor

November 14th 06, 09:39 PM

> Greegor wrote > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!

Dan Sullivan wrote > Whatsisname et alia.

I don't know anybody by that name.
Please be more specific.

G> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> > at least get to know who they are!
> >
> > Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> > The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.

Dan Sullivan wrote
> That's why they created their own government.
>
> Right, Gre?

Right Da!

Except the Bill of Rights was NOT established
to protect citizens from the Monarchy!

George Truro

November 14th 06, 09:41 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
news:POudnX8Zv7rEscfYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
> Greegor wrote:
>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> You don't think you have any?
>
> Or you don't know who they are?
>
> Which is it?
>
>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>> at least get to know who they are!
>
> You aren't. You are getting blamed for what you do.
>
>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>
> I don't have any problem with being anti Government. I've been accused of
> it myself.
>
> The difference between us is I'm not delusional, and I won't lie, and I
> point to real problems not ones made up as you do.
>
>> Many people think being against the government is treason.
>
> I'm not one of those. Are you trying to claim I am?
>
>> To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.
>
> Nope. You don't know the definition of treason.
>
>> US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
>> government.
>
> They also get told to think very carefully before refusing an order.
>
> Are you in the military then?
>
>> After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
>> what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?
>
> Yet another obscure and segued piece of garbage tossed in?
>
> So, what did the military find, Greg?
>
>> Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
>> communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?
>
> The more I watch you the more I think you are a CPS plant.

Yeah - ok Don - hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah

>
> I once took out a "spy" when I was in the military. He was really what I
> suspected, but I had to treat him as a real foreign spy in my intelligence
> unit.

You're a delusional CPS worker - you've been attacking and falsely accusing
parents here for years.

You are the scum of the earth - now retired - so taken up with falsely
accusing on usenet - you pervs crack me up.

Every day you collect your 'pension' you dance in the blood of the victim
families you've destroyed. You can't take up fishing or camping, but instead
fester your hatred against parents on usenet - you fancy yourself a victim
and are out to get your revenge.

Too bad - so sad - your disgusting with your false allegations.

>
> He was, of course, what we called OSI, office of special operations, who
> did internal police investigations on crime and security issues.
>
> And his trademark? To be the dumbest spy in the world. He tried to lift
> some classified material from my desk, and though he outranked me I
> arrested him on the spot. I waited for the military police to come pick
> him up. It was kind of fun at that point...as he'd been pulling this kind
> of stuff for a couple of months and had taken down some people of higher
> rank than me.
>
> He really couldn't tell if I'd pull the trigger on the .45 I had up his
> nose or not. But rather than a courts martial I would have faced had he
> gotten away with that classified report, yes, I would have.
>
> Even though I suspected he was a shill, like I'm beginning to strongly
> suspect you are. I told him so, when I told him I'd enjoy seeing his
> brains spattered on the door behind him. I don't like shills, or spies.

And your delusions of grandure - well I thought Dan had the biggest ego in
the nut house -

Are you and Dan related?? Both pervs -- both narcissistic kookshots - like
sucking each other off on usenet -both live in a moral vacuum where your
incredible hubris is your only guide.

Both are laughingstocks and CPS suckups, shills, employees.

>
> If I was one of your buddies I wouldn't trust you for a minute, Greg.
>
> 0:->

0:->

November 14th 06, 10:21 PM

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> Whatsisname et alia.

He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
pulled the trigger."

> > If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> > at least get to know who they are!
> >
> > Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> > The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>
> That's why they created their own government.
>
> Right, Gre?

Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
love....etc."

The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.

They didn't hate all government.

And they didn't hate the one they created.

Nor were they "anti" it.

Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.

They are government haters.

Big difference.

We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.

And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
be administered.

If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.

Both parents and children have rights.

Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.

0:->

George Truro

November 14th 06, 10:54 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>> > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>
>> Whatsisname et alia.
>
> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
> pulled the trigger."

You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have pulled
the trigger. You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
this, but only you nutball, only you.

In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2

>
>> > If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>> > at least get to know who they are!
>> >
>> > Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>> > The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>>
>> That's why they created their own government.
>>
>> Right, Gre?
>
> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
> love....etc."
>
> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>
> They didn't hate all government.
>
> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>
> Nor were they "anti" it.
>
> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
>
> They are government haters.
>
> Big difference.
>
> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>
> And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
> be administered.
>
> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>
> Both parents and children have rights.
>
> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>
> 0:->
>

0:->

November 15th 06, 01:12 AM

Greegor wrote:
>> Greegor wrote > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote > Whatsisname et alia.
>
> I don't know anybody by that name.
> Please be more specific.

Of course you do. Please don't be so obtuse.

> G> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>>> at least get to know who they are!
>>>
>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> That's why they created their own government.
>>
>> Right, Gre?
>
> Right Da!

Dan is your father?

> Except the Bill of Rights was NOT established
> to protect citizens from the Monarchy!

Then your claim is that the Bill of Rights is an anti government tirade?

I tend to see it as the ground rules we the people created and create
still for how we will govern ourselves.

You seem to continue to have this isolationist mindset about what
government really is, separating yourself, and us by implication, from
OUR government.

No such condition exists except in the delusional world of disaffected
impotent mindless little droning fools like you, Greg.

I can tell from your own testimony to the HW&MC.

You take NO responsibility for our government....have no real solutions
for progressive change other than penalties. You run from the real
problems, you refuse to participate in the actual DOING of government,
unless you predict a win that will reward you with money you have not
earned.

You are what the Constitution warns us about.

An irresponsible citizen that has to be controlled because he cannot
control himself.

When did you last vote?

When did you last write a letter to a congressman?

When did you last pick a candidate and campaign for him or her?

How many school board meetings have you attended in your community?

Do you speak out on the issue drugs and alcohol addiction and it's
effect on your community?

Do you do anything but sit on your ass posting to this rather isolated
newsgroup rather than risk real world confrontations?

As much as I post, I have times set aside where, for better or for
worse, I actively participate in the community, the state, and the
nation's business. MY business.

My government.

And yours, Greg, that you wish to misuse to some foul benefit for a foul
cause, that YOU created by refusing to remove your needy little self
from the presence of a mother and child that needed each other, and most
likely did not need you.

There you sit, and insult to human kind, and to our nation because you
delude yourself into thinking YOU are doing something to fix it.

What a sad little man.

0:->

0:->

November 15th 06, 02:27 AM

George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger."
>
> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have pulled
> the trigger.

Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.

> You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> this,

Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
are still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?

> but only you nutball, only you.

Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
you read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
talking about.

My quote was of course a paraphrase. This good enough for you, Deakin?

Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&

In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
putting the gun to a workers head:

.... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
gun to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.

They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...

Recognize it?

Look like my name in the author's field?

> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.

Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
case or guns and triggers, etc.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2

Try this link:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&

You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
the poster of the post from which it came?

Interesting.

Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
there is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
"Brian Christine's" taking of children at gun point.

What did I miss?

Oh, that I dream things up?

Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
Dennis.

And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact
a liar.

You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.

Like they all are.

And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.

Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
didn't really mean it?

Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?

Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:

Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
children at gunpoint in the rest area parking.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&

.... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
lot. At least there would have been one
less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
their BS will not for much longer be
tolerated. ...

Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
someone for just being on your property.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12

.... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.

No, I am advocating self defense for families.

If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.

Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.

If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
to be asked.

I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
response. ...

Still having problems with reality, Dennis?

From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:

.... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
powertripping and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...

And it's not just one of you, Dennis:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13

.... Bob

> I'm in an awful way.

Destroycps!
Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.

Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
escape.

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...

For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
to shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
possibly this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in
agreement with the sentiments express in:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62

.... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> died.

How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
and children
suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?

Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.

I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
deserved as I
will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.

> How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?

Who is joking?

> You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.

No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.

> Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> of the future of this species.

Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...

Want some more?

In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&

I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
accountable fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their
wrongful acts against innocent citizens.

But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this is
about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for justice.
...

.... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
anti-family fascists. ...

Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?

Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?

Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
there. We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R
R R R ... 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of
the people in the US.

Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
someone tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
threat file on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's
lives who are working hard for abused and neglected children.

You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.

Got that you ****ant coward?

Recognize the following?

"... Killing CPS caseworkers

Amusing, isn't it?

Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
you.

The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a crater.

Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.

Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
assure you of that.

And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
happened ... "

Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make high
explosives?

Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have more.

And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself to
CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems
HE thinks exist:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en

.... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
and his address should about take care of it....

Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
that strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?

Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
challenged me to produce proof, stupid?

Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
bringing all this up again?

Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.

Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
sleep tonight:

Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
child abuser.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en

.... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
one of a Dachau executioner. ...

Any thoughts, stu-pod?

Kane

>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>>>> at least get to know who they are!
>>>>
>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>>> That's why they created their own government.
>>>
>>> Right, Gre?
>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
>> love....etc."
>>
>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>>
>> They didn't hate all government.
>>
>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>>
>> Nor were they "anti" it.
>>
>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
>>
>> They are government haters.
>>
>> Big difference.
>>
>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>>
>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
>> be administered.
>>
>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>>
>> Both parents and children have rights.
>>
>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>
>

George Truro

November 15th 06, 03:15 AM

"0:->" > wrote in message
...
> George Truro wrote:
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>>> pulled the trigger."
>>
>> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger.
>
> Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
>
> > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
>> this,
>
> Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You are
> still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
>
>> but only you nutball, only you.
>
> Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if you
> read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am talking
> about.
>
> My quote was of course a paraphrase.

Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'. In fact your
paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the original
meaning. There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
statements. You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
paraphrase'.

Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.

You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
except in your empty head.

Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
spanking it newsgroup.

> This good enough for you, Deakin?
>
> Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>
> In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
> putting the gun to a workers head:
>
> ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun
> to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little
> reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
>
> They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
>
> Recognize it?
>
> Look like my name in the author's field?
>
>> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
>> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
>> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
>
> Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
> case or guns and triggers, etc.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
>
> Try this link:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>
> You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
> the poster of the post from which it came?
>
> Interesting.
>
> Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun," there
> is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is "Brian
> Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
>
> What did I miss?
>
> Oh, that I dream things up?
>
> Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
> Dennis.
>
> And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
> you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact a
> liar.
>
> You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
>
> Like they all are.
>
> And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
>
> Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
> didn't really mean it?
>
> Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
>
> Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
>
> Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the children
> at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
>
> ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
> lot. At least there would have been one
> less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
> their BS will not for much longer be
> tolerated. ...
>
> Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
> about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
> someone for just being on your property.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>
> ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
>
> No, I am advocating self defense for families.
>
> If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
> in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
>
> Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
> leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
>
> If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
> empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
> to be asked.
>
> I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
> response. ...
>
> Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
>
> From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
>
> ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
> force, to protect one's family from the predations of these powertripping
> and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
>
> And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
>
> ... Bob
>
> > I'm in an awful way.
>
> Destroycps!
> Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
> kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
> The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
>
> Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
> escape.
>
> Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
>
> For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes to
> shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be, possibly
> this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement with the
> sentiments express in:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
>
> ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> > died.
>
> How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
> and children
> suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
>
> Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
>
> I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
> deserved as I
> will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
>
> > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
>
> Who is joking?
>
> > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
>
> No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
>
> > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> > of the future of this species.
>
> Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
> harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
>
> Want some more?
>
> In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
>
> I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held accountable
> fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful acts
> against innocent citizens.
>
> But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
> majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this is
> about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for justice.
> ...
>
> ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
> not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow anti-family
> fascists. ...
>
> Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
>
> Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
>
> Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
> first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative there.
> We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R R ...
> 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the people in
> the US.
>
> Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time someone
> tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous threat file
> on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who are
> working hard for abused and neglected children.
>
> You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
> might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
>
> Got that you ****ant coward?
>
> Recognize the following?
>
> "... Killing CPS caseworkers
>
> Amusing, isn't it?
>
> Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
> face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
> you.
>
> The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
> number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a crater.
>
> Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
> pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
>
> Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
> assure you of that.
>
> And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
> happened ... "
>
> Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make high
> explosives?
>
> Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have more.
>
> And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself to
> CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems HE
> thinks exist:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
>
> ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
> and his address should about take care of it....
>
> Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying that
> strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
>
> Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
> challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
>
> Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate bringing
> all this up again?
>
> Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
>
> Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
> sleep tonight:
>
> Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted child
> abuser.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
>
> ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
> one of a Dachau executioner. ...
>
> Any thoughts, stu-pod?
>
> Kane
>
>
>>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>>>>> at least get to know who they are!
>>>>>
>>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>>>> That's why they created their own government.
>>>>
>>>> Right, Gre?
>>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
>>> love....etc."
>>>
>>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>>>
>>> They didn't hate all government.
>>>
>>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>>>
>>> Nor were they "anti" it.
>>>
>>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
>>>
>>> They are government haters.
>>>
>>> Big difference.
>>>
>>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
>>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
>>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>>>
>>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
>>> be administered.
>>>
>>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
>>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>>>
>>> Both parents and children have rights.
>>>
>>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>>>
>>> 0:->
>>>
>>

0:->

November 15th 06, 11:55 AM

George Truro wrote:
......the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
newsgroup....

"George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
serious thought to what you are claiming.

To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.

And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
indicate to your badly effected mind.

And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.

Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.

Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.

> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
> >>> pulled the trigger."
> >>
> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
> >> pulled the trigger.
> >
> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> >
> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> >> this,
> >
> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You are
> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> >
> >> but only you nutball, only you.
> >
> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if you
> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am talking
> > about.
> >
> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
>
> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.

Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search

All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
paraphrase.

Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
**** of your ignorance. You do it enough.

> In fact your
> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the original
> meaning.

Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.

> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
> statements.

Really?

What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
other's posts in that thread?

They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
the use of lethal force he executed.

However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
clients inside.

Did you miss that?

You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
about it claiming the rest does not exist.

Stupid little boy.

> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
> paraphrase'.

Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->

Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
Simply in different order, same sentiments.

" ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
a gun
to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little
reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "

That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.

Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
a link to?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&

Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?

> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.

Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.

> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
> except in your empty head.

Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"

Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
pull the trigger while it is there. "

> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
> spanking it newsgroup.

Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
it?

So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12

" ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
parking
lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
longer be tolerated. ..."

You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
as before.

Nothing to it. You are stupid.

> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
> >
> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >
> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
> > putting the gun to a workers head:
> >
> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun
> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little
> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
> >
> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
> >
> > Recognize it?
> >
> > Look like my name in the author's field?
> >
> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
> >
> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
> >
> > Try this link:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >
> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
> > the poster of the post from which it came?
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun," there
> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is "Brian
> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
> >
> > What did I miss?
> >
> > Oh, that I dream things up?
> >
> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
> > Dennis.
> >
> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact a
> > liar.
> >
> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
> >
> > Like they all are.
> >
> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
> >
> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
> > didn't really mean it?
> >
> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
> >
> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
> >
> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the children
> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
> >
> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
> > lot. At least there would have been one
> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
> > their BS will not for much longer be
> > tolerated. ...
> >
> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
> > someone for just being on your property.
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
> >
> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
> >
> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
> >
> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
> >
> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
> >
> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
> > to be asked.
> >
> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
> > response. ...
> >
> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
> >
> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
> >
> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these powertripping
> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
> >
> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
> >
> > ... Bob
> >
> > > I'm in an awful way.
> >
> > Destroycps!
> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
> >
> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
> > escape.
> >
> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
> >
> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes to
> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be, possibly
> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement with the
> > sentiments express in:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
> >
> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> > > died.
> >
> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
> > and children
> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
> >
> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
> >
> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
> > deserved as I
> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
> >
> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
> >
> > Who is joking?
> >
> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
> >
> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
> >
> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> > > of the future of this species.
> >
> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
> >
> > Want some more?
> >
> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
> >
> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held accountable
> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful acts
> > against innocent citizens.
> >
> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this is
> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for justice.
> > ...
> >
> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow anti-family
> > fascists. ...
> >
> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
> >
> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
> >
> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative there.
> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R R ...
> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the people in
> > the US.
> >
> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time someone
> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous threat file
> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who are
> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
> >
> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
> >
> > Got that you ****ant coward?
> >
> > Recognize the following?
> >
> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
> >
> > Amusing, isn't it?
> >
> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
> > you.
> >
> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a crater.
> >
> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
> >
> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
> > assure you of that.
> >
> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
> > happened ... "
> >
> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make high
> > explosives?
> >
> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have more.
> >
> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself to
> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems HE
> > thinks exist:
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
> >
> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
> > and his address should about take care of it....
> >
> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying that
> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
> >
> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
> >
> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate bringing
> > all this up again?
> >
> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
> >
> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
> > sleep tonight:
> >
> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted child
> > abuser.
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
> >
> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
> >
> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
> >
> > Kane
> >
> >
> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right, Gre?
> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
> >>> love....etc."
> >>>
> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
> >>>
> >>> They didn't hate all government.
> >>>
> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
> >>>
> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
> >>>
> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
> >>>
> >>> They are government haters.
> >>>
> >>> Big difference.
> >>>
> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
> >>>
> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
> >>> be administered.
> >>>
> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
> >>>
> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
> >>>
> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
> >>>
> >>> 0:->
> >>>
> >>

George Truro

November 15th 06, 12:42 PM

I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
own -

I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George Truro wrote:
> .....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
> newsgroup....
>
> "George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
> serious thought to what you are claiming.
>
> To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
> denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
>
> And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
> indicate to your badly effected mind.
>
> And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
>
> Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
> joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
>
> Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> >>>> Greegor wrote:
>> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should
>> >>> have
>> >>> pulled the trigger."
>> >>
>> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
>> >> pulled the trigger.
>> >
>> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
>> >
>> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
>> >> this,
>> >
>> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
>> > are
>> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
>> >
>> >> but only you nutball, only you.
>> >
>> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
>> > you
>> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
>> > talking
>> > about.
>> >
>> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
>>
>> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
>
> Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
>
> All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
> as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
> paraphrase.
>
> Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
> little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
> **** of your ignorance. You do it enough.
>
>> In fact your
>> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the
>> original
>> meaning.
>
> Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
>
>> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
>> statements.
>
> Really?
>
> What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
> other's posts in that thread?
>
> They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
> the use of lethal force he executed.
>
> However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
> Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
> the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
> the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
> clients inside.
>
> Did you miss that?
>
> You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
> easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
> about it claiming the rest does not exist.
>
> Stupid little boy.
>
>> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
>> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
>> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
>> paraphrase'.
>
> Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
>
> Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
> It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
> point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
> Simply in different order, same sentiments.
>
> " ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
> a gun
> to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
> little
> reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
>
> That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
> the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
>
> Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
> a link to?
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>
> Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
>
>> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
>
> Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
> Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
>
>> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
>> except in your empty head.
>
> Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
>
> Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
> there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
> Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
> pull the trigger while it is there. "
>
>> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
>> spanking it newsgroup.
>
> Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
> it?
>
> So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
> referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>
> " ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
> parking
> lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
> it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
> longer be tolerated. ..."
>
> You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
> as before.
>
> Nothing to it. You are stupid.
>
>> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
>> >
>> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >
>> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point
>> > after
>> > putting the gun to a workers head:
>> >
>> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
>> > gun
>> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
>> > little
>> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
>> >
>> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
>> >
>> > Recognize it?
>> >
>> > Look like my name in the author's field?
>> >
>> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't
>> >> even
>> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case.
>> >> You
>> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
>> >
>> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
>> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
>> >>
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
>> >
>> > Try this link:
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >
>> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and
>> > not
>> > the poster of the post from which it came?
>> >
>> > Interesting.
>> >
>> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
>> > there
>> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
>> > "Brian
>> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
>> >
>> > What did I miss?
>> >
>> > Oh, that I dream things up?
>> >
>> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer
>> > here,
>> > Dennis.
>> >
>> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted
>> > because
>> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in
>> > fact a
>> > liar.
>> >
>> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
>> >
>> > Like they all are.
>> >
>> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
>> >
>> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
>> > didn't really mean it?
>> >
>> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
>> >
>> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
>> >
>> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
>> > children
>> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
>> >
>> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
>> > parking
>> > lot. At least there would have been one
>> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
>> > their BS will not for much longer be
>> > tolerated. ...
>> >
>> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
>> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
>> > someone for just being on your property.
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>> >
>> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
>> >
>> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
>> >
>> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve
>> > themselves
>> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
>> >
>> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
>> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
>> >
>> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
>> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions
>> > needing
>> > to be asked.
>> >
>> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
>> > response. ...
>> >
>> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
>> >
>> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
>> >
>> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
>> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
>> > powertripping
>> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
>> >
>> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
>> >
>> > ... Bob
>> >
>> > > I'm in an awful way.
>> >
>> > Destroycps!
>> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
>> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
>> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
>> >
>> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack
>> > and
>> > escape.
>> >
>> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
>> >
>> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
>> > to
>> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
>> > possibly
>> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement with
>> > the
>> > sentiments express in:
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
>> >
>> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
>> > > died.
>> >
>> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
>> > and children
>> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
>> >
>> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
>> >
>> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
>> > deserved as I
>> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
>> >
>> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
>> >
>> > Who is joking?
>> >
>> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
>> >
>> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
>> >
>> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
>> > > of the future of this species.
>> >
>> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
>> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
>> >
>> > Want some more?
>> >
>> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
>> >
>> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
>> > accountable
>> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful acts
>> > against innocent citizens.
>> >
>> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
>> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this
>> > is
>> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for
>> > justice.
>> > ...
>> >
>> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
>> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
>> > anti-family
>> > fascists. ...
>> >
>> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
>> >
>> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
>> >
>> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
>> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
>> > there.
>> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R R
>> > ...
>> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the people
>> > in
>> > the US.
>> >
>> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
>> > someone
>> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous threat
>> > file
>> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who are
>> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
>> >
>> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
>> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
>> >
>> > Got that you ****ant coward?
>> >
>> > Recognize the following?
>> >
>> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
>> >
>> > Amusing, isn't it?
>> >
>> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
>> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
>> > you.
>> >
>> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
>> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a
>> > crater.
>> >
>> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
>> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
>> >
>> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
>> > assure you of that.
>> >
>> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
>> > happened ... "
>> >
>> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make
>> > high
>> > explosives?
>> >
>> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have
>> > more.
>> >
>> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself
>> > to
>> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems
>> > HE
>> > thinks exist:
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
>> >
>> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr
>> > Tally
>> > and his address should about take care of it....
>> >
>> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
>> > that
>> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
>> >
>> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
>> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
>> >
>> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
>> > bringing
>> > all this up again?
>> >
>> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
>> >
>> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
>> > sleep tonight:
>> >
>> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
>> > child
>> > abuser.
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
>> >
>> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
>> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
>> >
>> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
>> >
>> > Kane
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Right, Gre?
>> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
>> >>> love....etc."
>> >>>
>> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>> >>>
>> >>> They didn't hate all government.
>> >>>
>> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
>> >>>
>> >>> They are government haters.
>> >>>
>> >>> Big difference.
>> >>>
>> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we
>> >>> don't
>> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
>> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>> >>>
>> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they
>> >>> will
>> >>> be administered.
>> >>>
>> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
>> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>> >>>
>> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
>> >>>
>> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>> >>>
>> >>> 0:->
>> >>>
>> >>
>

0:->

November 15th 06, 01:12 PM

George Truro wrote:
> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
> own -
>
> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.

Can't argue the actual issue, eh?

Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.

You claim I made one up.

I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
done.

You want to argue the use of quote marks.

What a liar you are.

And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.

0:->

>
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > George Truro wrote:
> > .....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
> > newsgroup....
> >
> > "George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
> > serious thought to what you are claiming.
> >
> > To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
> > denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
> >
> > And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
> > indicate to your badly effected mind.
> >
> > And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
> >
> > Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
> > joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
> >
> > Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
> >
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > George Truro wrote:
> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
> >> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
> >> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should
> >> >>> have
> >> >>> pulled the trigger."
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
> >> >> pulled the trigger.
> >> >
> >> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> >> >
> >> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> >> >> this,
> >> >
> >> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
> >> > are
> >> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> >> but only you nutball, only you.
> >> >
> >> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
> >> > you
> >> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
> >> > talking
> >> > about.
> >> >
> >> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
> >>
> >> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
> >
> > Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
> >
> > All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
> > as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
> > paraphrase.
> >
> > Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
> > little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
> > **** of your ignorance. You do it enough.
> >
> >> In fact your
> >> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the
> >> original
> >> meaning.
> >
> > Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
> >
> >> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
> >> statements.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
> > other's posts in that thread?
> >
> > They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
> > the use of lethal force he executed.
> >
> > However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
> > Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
> > the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
> > the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
> > clients inside.
> >
> > Did you miss that?
> >
> > You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
> > easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
> > about it claiming the rest does not exist.
> >
> > Stupid little boy.
> >
> >> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
> >> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
> >> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
> >> paraphrase'.
> >
> > Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
> >
> > Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
> > It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
> > point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
> > Simply in different order, same sentiments.
> >
> > " ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
> > a gun
> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
> > little
> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
> >
> > That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
> > the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
> >
> > Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
> > a link to?
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >
> > Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
> >
> >> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
> >
> > Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
> > Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
> >
> >> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
> >> except in your empty head.
> >
> > Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
> >
> > Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
> > there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
> > Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
> > pull the trigger while it is there. "
> >
> >> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
> >> spanking it newsgroup.
> >
> > Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
> > it?
> >
> > So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
> > referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
> >
> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
> >
> > " ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
> > parking
> > lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
> > it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
> > longer be tolerated. ..."
> >
> > You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
> > as before.
> >
> > Nothing to it. You are stupid.
> >
> >> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
> >> >
> >> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >> >
> >> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point
> >> > after
> >> > putting the gun to a workers head:
> >> >
> >> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
> >> > gun
> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
> >> > little
> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
> >> >
> >> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
> >> >
> >> > Recognize it?
> >> >
> >> > Look like my name in the author's field?
> >> >
> >> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't
> >> >> even
> >> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case.
> >> >> You
> >> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
> >> >
> >> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
> >> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
> >> >
> >> > Try this link:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >> >
> >> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and
> >> > not
> >> > the poster of the post from which it came?
> >> >
> >> > Interesting.
> >> >
> >> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
> >> > there
> >> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
> >> > "Brian
> >> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
> >> >
> >> > What did I miss?
> >> >
> >> > Oh, that I dream things up?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer
> >> > here,
> >> > Dennis.
> >> >
> >> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted
> >> > because
> >> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in
> >> > fact a
> >> > liar.
> >> >
> >> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
> >> >
> >> > Like they all are.
> >> >
> >> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
> >> >
> >> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
> >> > didn't really mean it?
> >> >
> >> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
> >> >
> >> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
> >> >
> >> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
> >> > children
> >> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
> >> >
> >> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
> >> > parking
> >> > lot. At least there would have been one
> >> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
> >> > their BS will not for much longer be
> >> > tolerated. ...
> >> >
> >> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
> >> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
> >> > someone for just being on your property.
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
> >> >
> >> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
> >> >
> >> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
> >> >
> >> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve
> >> > themselves
> >> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
> >> >
> >> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
> >> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
> >> >
> >> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
> >> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions
> >> > needing
> >> > to be asked.
> >> >
> >> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
> >> > response. ...
> >> >
> >> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
> >> >
> >> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
> >> >
> >> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
> >> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
> >> > powertripping
> >> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
> >> >
> >> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
> >> >
> >> > ... Bob
> >> >
> >> > > I'm in an awful way.
> >> >
> >> > Destroycps!
> >> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
> >> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
> >> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
> >> >
> >> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack
> >> > and
> >> > escape.
> >> >
> >> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
> >> >
> >> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
> >> > to
> >> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
> >> > possibly
> >> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement with
> >> > the
> >> > sentiments express in:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
> >> >
> >> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> >> > > died.
> >> >
> >> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
> >> > and children
> >> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
> >> >
> >> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
> >> >
> >> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
> >> > deserved as I
> >> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
> >> >
> >> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
> >> >
> >> > Who is joking?
> >> >
> >> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
> >> >
> >> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
> >> >
> >> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> >> > > of the future of this species.
> >> >
> >> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
> >> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
> >> >
> >> > Want some more?
> >> >
> >> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
> >> >
> >> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
> >> > accountable
> >> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful acts
> >> > against innocent citizens.
> >> >
> >> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
> >> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this
> >> > is
> >> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for
> >> > justice.
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
> >> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
> >> > anti-family
> >> > fascists. ...
> >> >
> >> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
> >> >
> >> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
> >> >
> >> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
> >> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
> >> > there.
> >> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R R
> >> > ...
> >> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the people
> >> > in
> >> > the US.
> >> >
> >> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
> >> > someone
> >> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous threat
> >> > file
> >> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who are
> >> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
> >> >
> >> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
> >> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
> >> >
> >> > Got that you ****ant coward?
> >> >
> >> > Recognize the following?
> >> >
> >> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
> >> >
> >> > Amusing, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
> >> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
> >> > you.
> >> >
> >> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
> >> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a
> >> > crater.
> >> >
> >> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
> >> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
> >> >
> >> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
> >> > assure you of that.
> >> >
> >> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
> >> > happened ... "
> >> >
> >> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make
> >> > high
> >> > explosives?
> >> >
> >> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have
> >> > more.
> >> >
> >> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself
> >> > to
> >> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems
> >> > HE
> >> > thinks exist:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
> >> >
> >> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr
> >> > Tally
> >> > and his address should about take care of it....
> >> >
> >> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
> >> > that
> >> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
> >> >
> >> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
> >> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
> >> >
> >> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
> >> > bringing
> >> > all this up again?
> >> >
> >> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
> >> >
> >> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
> >> > sleep tonight:
> >> >
> >> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
> >> > child
> >> > abuser.
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
> >> >
> >> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
> >> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
> >> >
> >> > Kane
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> >> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> >> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
> >> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Right, Gre?
> >> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
> >> >>> love....etc."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> They didn't hate all government.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> They are government haters.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Big difference.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we
> >> >>> don't
> >> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
> >> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they
> >> >>> will
> >> >>> be administered.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
> >> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 0:->
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >

George Truro

November 15th 06, 02:00 PM

"0:->" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> George Truro wrote:
>> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
>> own -
>>
>> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
>
> Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
>
> Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.

You are the only person I know that has threatened violence here, agent.

>
> You claim I made one up.
>
> I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
> done.
>
> You want to argue the use of quote marks.

Respond to new thread with your ridiculous whine.

>
> What a liar you are.
>
> And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.

You sure like to use the slur 'stupid' - wassa matter Butch -- is that what
your abuser called you before you were rescued by adoption??

>
> 0:->
>
>
>
>>
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > George Truro wrote:
>> > .....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
>> > newsgroup....
>> >
>> > "George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
>> > serious thought to what you are claiming.
>> >
>> > To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
>> > denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
>> >
>> > And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
>> > indicate to your badly effected mind.
>> >
>> > And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
>> >
>> > Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
>> > joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
>> >
>> > Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
>> >
>> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >>>> Greegor wrote:
>> >> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>> >> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> >> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should
>> >> >>> have
>> >> >>> pulled the trigger."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> pulled the trigger.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
>> >> >
>> >> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
>> >> >> this,
>> >> >
>> >> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation.
>> >> > You
>> >> > are
>> >> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> >> but only you nutball, only you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because
>> >> > if
>> >> > you
>> >> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
>> >> > talking
>> >> > about.
>> >> >
>> >> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
>> >
>> > Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
>> >
>> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
>> >
>> > All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
>> > as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
>> > paraphrase.
>> >
>> > Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
>> > little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
>> > **** of your ignorance. You do it enough.
>> >
>> >> In fact your
>> >> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the
>> >> original
>> >> meaning.
>> >
>> > Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
>> >
>> >> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
>> >> statements.
>> >
>> > Really?
>> >
>> > What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
>> > other's posts in that thread?
>> >
>> > They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
>> > the use of lethal force he executed.
>> >
>> > However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
>> > Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
>> > the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
>> > the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
>> > clients inside.
>> >
>> > Did you miss that?
>> >
>> > You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
>> > easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
>> > about it claiming the rest does not exist.
>> >
>> > Stupid little boy.
>> >
>> >> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
>> >> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
>> >> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
>> >> paraphrase'.
>> >
>> > Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
>> >
>> > Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
>> > It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
>> > point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
>> > Simply in different order, same sentiments.
>> >
>> > " ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
>> > a gun
>> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
>> > little
>> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
>> >
>> > That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
>> > the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
>> >
>> > Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
>> > a link to?
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >
>> > Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
>> >
>> >> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
>> >
>> > Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
>> > Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
>> >
>> >> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
>> >> except in your empty head.
>> >
>> > Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
>> >
>> > Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
>> > there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
>> > Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
>> > pull the trigger while it is there. "
>> >
>> >> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
>> >> spanking it newsgroup.
>> >
>> > Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
>> > it?
>> >
>> > So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
>> > referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
>> >
>> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>> >
>> > " ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
>> > parking
>> > lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
>> > it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
>> > longer be tolerated. ..."
>> >
>> > You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
>> > as before.
>> >
>> > Nothing to it. You are stupid.
>> >
>> >> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
>> >> >
>> >> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >> >
>> >> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point
>> >> > after
>> >> > putting the gun to a workers head:
>> >> >
>> >> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
>> >> > a
>> >> > gun
>> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
>> >> > little
>> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
>> >> >
>> >> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Recognize it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Look like my name in the author's field?
>> >> >
>> >> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that
>> >> >> didn't
>> >> >> even
>> >> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut
>> >> >> case.
>> >> >> You
>> >> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
>> >> >
>> >> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the
>> >> > Christine
>> >> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
>> >> >
>> >> > Try this link:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >> >
>> >> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and
>> >> > not
>> >> > the poster of the post from which it came?
>> >> >
>> >> > Interesting.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
>> >> > there
>> >> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
>> >> > "Brian
>> >> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
>> >> >
>> >> > What did I miss?
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, that I dream things up?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer
>> >> > here,
>> >> > Dennis.
>> >> >
>> >> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted
>> >> > because
>> >> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in
>> >> > fact a
>> >> > liar.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
>> >> >
>> >> > Like they all are.
>> >> >
>> >> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
>> >> > didn't really mean it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
>> >> >
>> >> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
>> >> >
>> >> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
>> >> > children
>> >> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
>> >> >
>> >> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
>> >> > parking
>> >> > lot. At least there would have been one
>> >> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning
>> >> > that
>> >> > their BS will not for much longer be
>> >> > tolerated. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead
>> >> > wrong
>> >> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not
>> >> > shoot
>> >> > someone for just being on your property.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>> >> >
>> >> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
>> >> >
>> >> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve
>> >> > themselves
>> >> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had
>> >> > best
>> >> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
>> >> >
>> >> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
>> >> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions
>> >> > needing
>> >> > to be asked.
>> >> >
>> >> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
>> >> > response. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
>> >> >
>> >> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
>> >> >
>> >> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
>> >> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
>> >> > powertripping
>> >> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
>> >> >
>> >> > ... Bob
>> >> >
>> >> > > I'm in an awful way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Destroycps!
>> >> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
>> >> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you.
>> >> > Remember:
>> >> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack
>> >> > and
>> >> > escape.
>> >> >
>> >> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
>> >> >
>> >> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it
>> >> > comes
>> >> > to
>> >> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
>> >> > possibly
>> >> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement
>> >> > with
>> >> > the
>> >> > sentiments express in:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
>> >> >
>> >> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
>> >> > > died.
>> >> >
>> >> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families,
>> >> > parents
>> >> > and children
>> >> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
>> >> >
>> >> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
>> >> >
>> >> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
>> >> > deserved as I
>> >> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at
>> >> > all.
>> >> >
>> >> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
>> >> >
>> >> > Who is joking?
>> >> >
>> >> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you
>> >> > > out
>> >> > > of the future of this species.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
>> >> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Want some more?
>> >> >
>> >> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
>> >> >
>> >> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
>> >> > accountable
>> >> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful
>> >> > acts
>> >> > against innocent citizens.
>> >> >
>> >> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
>> >> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions,
>> >> > this
>> >> > is
>> >> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for
>> >> > justice.
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects
>> >> > too...
>> >> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
>> >> > anti-family
>> >> > fascists. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
>> >> >
>> >> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
>> >> >
>> >> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when
>> >> > we
>> >> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
>> >> > there.
>> >> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R
>> >> > R
>> >> > ...
>> >> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the
>> >> > people
>> >> > in
>> >> > the US.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
>> >> > someone
>> >> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
>> >> > threat
>> >> > file
>> >> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who
>> >> > are
>> >> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions
>> >> > it
>> >> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
>> >> >
>> >> > Got that you ****ant coward?
>> >> >
>> >> > Recognize the following?
>> >> >
>> >> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
>> >> >
>> >> > Amusing, isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
>> >> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no
>> >> > more
>> >> > you.
>> >> >
>> >> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
>> >> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a
>> >> > crater.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
>> >> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
>> >> >
>> >> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
>> >> > assure you of that.
>> >> >
>> >> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time
>> >> > it
>> >> > happened ... "
>> >> >
>> >> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make
>> >> > high
>> >> > explosives?
>> >> >
>> >> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have
>> >> > more.
>> >> >
>> >> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine
>> >> > himself
>> >> > to
>> >> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all
>> >> > problems
>> >> > HE
>> >> > thinks exist:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
>> >> >
>> >> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr
>> >> > Tally
>> >> > and his address should about take care of it....
>> >> >
>> >> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
>> >> > that
>> >> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
>> >> >
>> >> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
>> >> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
>> >> > bringing
>> >> > all this up again?
>> >> >
>> >> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a
>> >> > restful
>> >> > sleep tonight:
>> >> >
>> >> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
>> >> > child
>> >> > abuser.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
>> >> >
>> >> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I
>> >> > would
>> >> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
>> >> >
>> >> > Kane
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>> >> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>> >> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>> >> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Right, Gre?
>> >> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
>> >> >>> love....etc."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> They didn't hate all government.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> They are government haters.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Big difference.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we
>> >> >>> don't
>> >> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among
>> >> >>> us
>> >> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they
>> >> >>> will
>> >> >>> be administered.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he'
>> >> >>> d
>> >> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 0:->
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >
>

0:->

November 15th 06, 03:39 PM

George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
> >> own -
> >>
> >> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
> >
> > Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
> >
> > Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.
>
> You are the only person I know that has threatened violence here, agent.

One, you don't "know" "me" at all. You think you do.

And no, I have not threatened anyone with "violence." I have mentioned
legal actions. And they are still in place if needed.

And your use of the word 'here' is suspect. Do you really think the
perpetrator of threats does not check in 'here' from time to time?

'Here' is this newsgroup. Present and PAST. The threats were made.

I have linked too them.

If you wish to argue they weren't threats, go to the narrative and
explain to us how the word choices are not "threats," if you will.

>
> >
> > You claim I made one up.
> >
> > I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
> > done.
> >
> > You want to argue the use of quote marks.
>
> Respond to new thread with your ridiculous whine.

What new thread?

How about you respond to this one?

> >
> > What a liar you are.
> >
> > And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.
>
> You sure like to use the slur 'stupid'

Yep. And you are.

> - wassa matter Butch --

Homophobic and delusional? Sure looks like it.

> is that what
> your abuser called you before you were rescued by adoption??

Never been adopted, and never abused. But if I were, what would that
indicate?

You are lying, Dennis and making a fool of yourself yet again.

And as I said, stupidly taking risks, again.

0:-|

>
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > George Truro wrote:
> >> > .....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
> >> > newsgroup....
> >> >
> >> > "George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
> >> > serious thought to what you are claiming.
> >> >
> >> > To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
> >> > denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
> >> >
> >> > And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
> >> > indicate to your badly effected mind.
> >> >
> >> > And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
> >> >
> >> > Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
> >> > joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
> >> >
> >> > Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > George Truro wrote:
> >> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
> >> >> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
> >> >> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should
> >> >> >>> have
> >> >> >>> pulled the trigger."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should
> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >> pulled the trigger.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> >> >> >> this,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation.
> >> >> > You
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> but only you nutball, only you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
> >> >> > talking
> >> >> > about.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
> >> >
> >> > Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
> >> >
> >> > All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
> >> > as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
> >> > paraphrase.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
> >> > little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
> >> > **** of your ignorance. You do it enough.
> >> >
> >> >> In fact your
> >> >> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the
> >> >> original
> >> >> meaning.
> >> >
> >> > Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
> >> >
> >> >> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
> >> >> statements.
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >> >
> >> > What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
> >> > other's posts in that thread?
> >> >
> >> > They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
> >> > the use of lethal force he executed.
> >> >
> >> > However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
> >> > Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
> >> > the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
> >> > the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
> >> > clients inside.
> >> >
> >> > Did you miss that?
> >> >
> >> > You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
> >> > easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
> >> > about it claiming the rest does not exist.
> >> >
> >> > Stupid little boy.
> >> >
> >> >> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
> >> >> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
> >> >> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
> >> >> paraphrase'.
> >> >
> >> > Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
> >> >
> >> > Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
> >> > It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
> >> > point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
> >> > Simply in different order, same sentiments.
> >> >
> >> > " ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
> >> > a gun
> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
> >> > little
> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
> >> >
> >> > That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
> >> > the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
> >> >
> >> > Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
> >> > a link to?
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >> >
> >> > Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
> >> >
> >> >> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
> >> >
> >> > Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
> >> > Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
> >> >
> >> >> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
> >> >> except in your empty head.
> >> >
> >> > Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
> >> >
> >> > Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
> >> > there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
> >> > Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
> >> > pull the trigger while it is there. "
> >> >
> >> >> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
> >> >> spanking it newsgroup.
> >> >
> >> > Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
> >> > it?
> >> >
> >> > So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
> >> > referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
> >> >
> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
> >> >
> >> > " ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
> >> > parking
> >> > lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
> >> > it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
> >> > longer be tolerated. ..."
> >> >
> >> > You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
> >> > as before.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to it. You are stupid.
> >> >
> >> >> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point
> >> >> > after
> >> >> > putting the gun to a workers head:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > gun
> >> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
> >> >> > little
> >> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Recognize it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Look like my name in the author's field?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that
> >> >> >> didn't
> >> >> >> even
> >> >> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut
> >> >> >> case.
> >> >> >> You
> >> >> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the
> >> >> > Christine
> >> >> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Try this link:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > the poster of the post from which it came?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Interesting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
> >> >> > "Brian
> >> >> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What did I miss?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh, that I dream things up?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer
> >> >> > here,
> >> >> > Dennis.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted
> >> >> > because
> >> >> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in
> >> >> > fact a
> >> >> > liar.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Like they all are.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
> >> >> > didn't really mean it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
> >> >> > children
> >> >> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
> >> >> > parking
> >> >> > lot. At least there would have been one
> >> >> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > their BS will not for much longer be
> >> >> > tolerated. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead
> >> >> > wrong
> >> >> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not
> >> >> > shoot
> >> >> > someone for just being on your property.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve
> >> >> > themselves
> >> >> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had
> >> >> > best
> >> >> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
> >> >> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions
> >> >> > needing
> >> >> > to be asked.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
> >> >> > response. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
> >> >> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
> >> >> > powertripping
> >> >> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... Bob
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I'm in an awful way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Destroycps!
> >> >> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
> >> >> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you.
> >> >> > Remember:
> >> >> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > escape.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it
> >> >> > comes
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
> >> >> > possibly
> >> >> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > sentiments express in:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> >> >> > > died.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families,
> >> >> > parents
> >> >> > and children
> >> >> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
> >> >> > deserved as I
> >> >> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at
> >> >> > all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who is joking?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you
> >> >> > > out
> >> >> > > of the future of this species.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
> >> >> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Want some more?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
> >> >> > accountable
> >> >> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful
> >> >> > acts
> >> >> > against innocent citizens.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
> >> >> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions,
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for
> >> >> > justice.
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects
> >> >> > too...
> >> >> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
> >> >> > anti-family
> >> >> > fascists. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
> >> >> > there.
> >> >> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R R R
> >> >> > R
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the US.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
> >> >> > someone
> >> >> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
> >> >> > threat
> >> >> > file
> >> >> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives who
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Got that you ****ant coward?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Recognize the following?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Amusing, isn't it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
> >> >> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
> >> >> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a
> >> >> > crater.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
> >> >> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
> >> >> > assure you of that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > happened ... "
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make
> >> >> > high
> >> >> > explosives?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have
> >> >> > more.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine
> >> >> > himself
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all
> >> >> > problems
> >> >> > HE
> >> >> > thinks exist:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr
> >> >> > Tally
> >> >> > and his address should about take care of it....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
> >> >> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
> >> >> > bringing
> >> >> > all this up again?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a
> >> >> > restful
> >> >> > sleep tonight:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
> >> >> > child
> >> >> > abuser.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kane
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> >> >> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> >> >> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
> >> >> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Right, Gre?
> >> >> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
> >> >> >>> love....etc."
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> They didn't hate all government.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> They are government haters.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Big difference.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we
> >> >> >>> don't
> >> >> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among
> >> >> >>> us
> >> >> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how they
> >> >> >>> will
> >> >> >>> be administered.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he'
> >> >> >>> d
> >> >> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> 0:->
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >
> >

Greegor

November 18th 06, 04:15 AM

Is that Dennis?
Where is this proof this person lied?
Where exactly did they get caught?

Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?

0:->

November 18th 06, 04:29 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Is that Dennis?
> Where is this proof this person lied?
> Where exactly did they get caught?
>
> Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
> telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?

Ah ah ah, not more attribution abortion. It immediately sets the alarm
bells ringing indicating you have likely tried to hide something.

But I will respond to one part that fascinated me.

You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.

Care to give it a shot?

( I know who it is. I'm just playing with you and him.)

You game, stupid?

0:->

0:->

November 18th 06, 04:47 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Is that Dennis?
> Where is this proof this person lied?

Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
threatened violence?

Where's HIS proof that I did, and where is HIS proof that no one else
threatened violence?

> Where exactly did they get caught?

In my prior posts where they lied.

By virtue of my having posted links and quotes of those who did in fact
threaten to kill, violently.

> Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
> telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?

How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?

They are the very words of those that made the threats.

Can't you read?

Can't you remember?

Read the quotes in my prior post. Click the links, and read the threads
wherein the threats were made.

And don't give me any bull**** that those were "if" statements.

Conditions were set that would be impossible for either cop or
caseworker to meet and do their jobs, without reason for murder as
stated by the writer.

If I tell you you can't proceed to your car without getting by me and I
stand in your way so you can't get by, and I tell you that I'll kill
you if you do get by me, what effect does that have on you getting to
your car?

And if you are a taxi driver?

I would have just threatened you with death for doing your job.

Now, show me where I lacked any proof the poster lied, when he claim I
was the only one here that threatened violence.

Go for it.

Greegor

November 18th 06, 09:53 AM

Kane wrote
> You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Is that Dennis?
> > Where is this proof this person lied?
>
> Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
> threatened violence?

Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.

Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?

I just want to be clear on that.

Is this like when Michael said he hopes
somebody does [horrible things] to you,
and you decided that was a threat?

You decided to posture as if that is a "threat of violence", right?

Kane wrote
> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.

What butt crack did you post these links to?

> > Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
> > telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
>
> How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?
>
> They are the very words of those that made the threats.

The very words I saw said x should have happenned,
or that a person hopes somebody does z to you.

You call those THREATS??

> Can't you read?
> Can't you remember?

You want me to track YOUR delusions? Ya freakin' nut case?

Meth Watcher

November 18th 06, 10:50 AM

"0:->" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> George Truro wrote:
>> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of
>> >> it's
>> >> own -
>> >>
>> >> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
>> >
>> > Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
>> >
>> > Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.
>>
>> You are the only person I know that has threatened violence here, agent.
>
> One, you don't "know" "me" at all. You think you do.
>
> And no, I have not threatened anyone with "violence." I have mentioned
> legal actions. And they are still in place if needed.
>
> And your use of the word 'here' is suspect. Do you really think the
> perpetrator of threats does not check in 'here' from time to time?
>
> 'Here' is this newsgroup. Present and PAST. The threats were made.
>
> I have linked too them.
>
> If you wish to argue they weren't threats, go to the narrative and
> explain to us how the word choices are not "threats," if you will.
>
>>
>> >
>> > You claim I made one up.
>> >
>> > I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
>> > done.
>> >
>> > You want to argue the use of quote marks.
>>
>> Respond to new thread with your ridiculous whine.
>
> What new thread?
>
> How about you respond to this one?
>
>> >
>> > What a liar you are.
>> >
>> > And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.
>>
>> You sure like to use the slur 'stupid'
>
> Yep. And you are.
>
>
>> - wassa matter Butch --
>
> Homophobic and delusional? Sure looks like it.
>
>> is that what
>> your abuser called you before you were rescued by adoption??
>
> Never been adopted, and never abused. But if I were, what would that
> indicate?

A common complaint of innocent families abused by CPS crazies is that many
caseworkers have 'issues' of abuse -- and use their power to abuse innocent
families for the crimes of their 'abuser'. It's rather common - nutjobs like
you with issues using CPS to punish your 'abusers'.

>
> You are lying, Dennis and making a fool of yourself yet again.

Fist I'm a Bob - now I'm a Dennis.

Hey Don,you CPS scumsucker - we're sure glad we know who somebody is around
hers

>
> And as I said, stupidly taking risks, again.

Hell - grease 'em up and let 'em roll Butch. lol.

>
> 0:-|
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > 0:->
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> > .....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
>> >> > newsgroup....
>> >> >
>> >> > "George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give
>> >> > some
>> >> > serious thought to what you are claiming.
>> >> >
>> >> > To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
>> >> > denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
>> >> >
>> >> > And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange
>> >> > might
>> >> > indicate to your badly effected mind.
>> >> >
>> >> > And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
>> >> > joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
>> >> >
>> >> > Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
>> >> >
>> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > George Truro wrote:
>> >> >> >> "0:->" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Greegor wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>> >> >> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> >> >> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian
>> >> >> >>> should
>> >> >> >>> have
>> >> >> >>> pulled the trigger."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> pulled the trigger.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
>> >> >> >> this,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and
>> >> >> > insinuation.
>> >> >> > You
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> but only you nutball, only you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify,
>> >> >> > because
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
>> >> >> > talking
>> >> >> > about.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
>> >> >
>> >> > All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I
>> >> > DID,
>> >> > as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
>> >> > paraphrase.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned
>> >> > very
>> >> > little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in
>> >> > the
>> >> > **** of your ignorance. You do it enough.
>> >> >
>> >> >> In fact your
>> >> >> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the
>> >> >> original
>> >> >> meaning.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
>> >> >
>> >> >> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
>> >> >> statements.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really?
>> >> >
>> >> > What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
>> >> > other's posts in that thread?
>> >> >
>> >> > They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian
>> >> > and
>> >> > the use of lethal force he executed.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
>> >> > Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
>> >> > the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
>> >> > the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
>> >> > clients inside.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you miss that?
>> >> >
>> >> > You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
>> >> > easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
>> >> > about it claiming the rest does not exist.
>> >> >
>> >> > Stupid little boy.
>> >> >
>> >> >> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
>> >> >> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
>> >> >> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of
>> >> >> course a
>> >> >> paraphrase'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
>> >> >
>> >> > Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling,
>> >> > stupid.
>> >> > It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
>> >> > point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
>> >> > Simply in different order, same sentiments.
>> >> >
>> >> > " ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to
>> >> > put
>> >> > a gun
>> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
>> >> > little
>> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
>> >> >
>> >> > That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing
>> >> > out
>> >> > the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I
>> >> > provided
>> >> > a link to?
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
>> >> >
>> >> > Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
>> >> > Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
>> >> >
>> >> >> You dreamed **** up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even
>> >> >> true -
>> >> >> except in your empty head.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
>> >> > there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
>> >> > Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not
>> >> > to
>> >> > pull the trigger while it is there. "
>> >> >
>> >> >> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> spanking it newsgroup.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now
>> >> > doesn't
>> >> > it?
>> >> >
>> >> > So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
>> >> > referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
>> >> >
>> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>> >> >
>> >> > " ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
>> >> > parking
>> >> > lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing
>> >> > and
>> >> > it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for
>> >> > much
>> >> > longer be tolerated. ..."
>> >> >
>> >> > You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as
>> >> > easily
>> >> > as before.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nothing to it. You are stupid.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > This good enough for you, Deakin?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun
>> >> >> > point
>> >> >> > after
>> >> >> > putting the gun to a workers head:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to
>> >> >> > put
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > gun
>> >> >> > to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > little
>> >> >> > reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Recognize it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Look like my name in the author's field?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that
>> >> >> >> didn't
>> >> >> >> even
>> >> >> >> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut
>> >> >> >> case.
>> >> >> >> You
>> >> >> >> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the
>> >> >> > Christine
>> >> >> > case or guns and triggers, etc.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Try this link:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said,
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > the poster of the post from which it came?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Interesting.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a
>> >> >> > "gun,"
>> >> >> > there
>> >> >> > is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
>> >> >> > "Brian
>> >> >> > Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What did I miss?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Oh, that I dream things up?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the
>> >> >> > dreamer
>> >> >> > here,
>> >> >> > Dennis.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted
>> >> >> > because
>> >> >> > you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > fact a
>> >> >> > liar.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Like they all are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > didn't really mean it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
>> >> >> > children
>> >> >> > at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
>> >> >> > parking
>> >> >> > lot. At least there would have been one
>> >> >> > less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on
>> >> >> > warning
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > their BS will not for much longer be
>> >> >> > tolerated. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead
>> >> >> > wrong
>> >> >> > about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not
>> >> >> > shoot
>> >> >> > someone for just being on your property.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/2f7c568562140051?q=shoot+worker&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=12
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection
>> >> >> > workers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, I am advocating self defense for families.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve
>> >> >> > themselves
>> >> >> > in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and
>> >> >> > families.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had
>> >> >> > best
>> >> >> > leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am
>> >> >> > fully
>> >> >> > empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions
>> >> >> > needing
>> >> >> > to be asked.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
>> >> >> > response. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including
>> >> >> > deadly
>> >> >> > force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
>> >> >> > powertripping
>> >> >> > and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/9afe62070a42c3db?q=author:destroycps%40email.com+% 2Bkill&start=10&hl=en&lr=&rnum=13
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... Bob
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > I'm in an awful way.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Destroycps!
>> >> >> > Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you.
>> >> >> > Remember:
>> >> >> > The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can
>> >> >> > attack
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > escape.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!!
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it
>> >> >> > comes
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
>> >> >> > possibly
>> >> >> > this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in agreement
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > sentiments express in:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why
>> >> >> > she
>> >> >> > > died.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families,
>> >> >> > parents
>> >> >> > and children
>> >> >> > suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so
>> >> >> > justly
>> >> >> > deserved as I
>> >> >> > will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at
>> >> >> > all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Who is joking?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized
>> >> >> > > society.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like
>> >> >> > > you
>> >> >> > > out
>> >> >> > > of the future of this species.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to
>> >> >> > edit
>> >> >> > harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Want some more?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/eebfbdd9705262cb?hl=en&
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
>> >> >> > accountable
>> >> >> > fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their wrongful
>> >> >> > acts
>> >> >> > against innocent citizens.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the
>> >> >> > vast
>> >> >> > majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions,
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for
>> >> >> > justice.
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects
>> >> >> > too...
>> >> >> > not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
>> >> >> > anti-family
>> >> >> > fascists. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it
>> >> >> > when
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a
>> >> >> > relative
>> >> >> > there.
>> >> >> > We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R
>> >> >> > R R
>> >> >> > R
>> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> > 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of the
>> >> >> > people
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the US.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every
>> >> >> > time
>> >> >> > someone
>> >> >> > tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
>> >> >> > threat
>> >> >> > file
>> >> >> > on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's lives
>> >> >> > who
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > working hard for abused and neglected children.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal
>> >> >> > actions
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Got that you ****ant coward?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Recognize the following?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "... Killing CPS caseworkers
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Amusing, isn't it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The office where you work, at a time I found would have the
>> >> >> > largest
>> >> >> > number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > crater.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the
>> >> >> > water
>> >> >> > pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I
>> >> >> > can
>> >> >> > assure you of that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever
>> >> >> > time
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > happened ... "
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to
>> >> >> > make
>> >> >> > high
>> >> >> > explosives?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > more.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine
>> >> >> > himself
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all
>> >> >> > problems
>> >> >> > HE
>> >> >> > thinks exist:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of
>> >> >> > Mr
>> >> >> > Tally
>> >> >> > and his address should about take care of it....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider
>> >> >> > applying
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
>> >> >> > bringing
>> >> >> > all this up again?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your
>> >> >> > cause.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a
>> >> >> > restful
>> >> >> > sleep tonight:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a
>> >> >> > convicted
>> >> >> > child
>> >> >> > abuser.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > one of a Dachau executioner. ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any thoughts, stu-pod?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kane
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>> >> >> >>>>> at least get to know who they are!
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>> >> >> >>>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>> >> >> >>>> That's why they created their own government.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Right, Gre?
>> >> >> >>> Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one
>> >> >> >>> you
>> >> >> >>> love....etc."
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> They didn't hate all government.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> And they didn't hate the one they created.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Nor were they "anti" it.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government
>> >> >> >>> reformers.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> They are government haters.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Big difference.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that
>> >> >> >>> we
>> >> >> >>> don't
>> >> >> >>> like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest
>> >> >> >>> among
>> >> >> >>> us
>> >> >> >>> admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> And our form of government determines what those are and how
>> >> >> >>> they
>> >> >> >>> will
>> >> >> >>> be administered.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it,
>> >> >> >>> he'
>> >> >> >>> d
>> >> >> >>> know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Both parents and children have rights.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> 0:->
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

0:->

November 18th 06, 03:42 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Is that Dennis?
>>> Where is this proof this person lied?
>> Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
>> threatened violence?
>
> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
>
> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?

No. That was only one of many. You know this.
>
> I just want to be clear on that.
>
You don't want to be clear on anything, Greg. You are churning the
information to create as much fog as possible.

> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
> and you decided that was a threat?

Do you think that is not a threat?

> You decided to posture as if that is a "threat of violence", right?

I don't decide to "posture" at any time.

There is such a thing as implied intent.

One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.

Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.

> Kane wrote
>> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
>> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
>
> What butt crack did you post these links to?

None.

This group though I just posted them a few days ago. Don't you read?

>>> Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
>>> telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
>> How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?
>>
>> They are the very words of those that made the threats.
>
> The very words I saw said x should have happenned,
> or that a person hopes somebody does z to you.

Then you didn't look at all the words I posted on this matter from this
newsgroup.
>
> You call those THREATS??
>
I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
"threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.

Go look at the posts on violence that I provided links to and get back
to us when you've read all of them.

Pop up your browser and google ascps for references to poison, guns,
triggers, C4, and explore a little for yourself.

I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
frantically attempting to make me out as being one.

Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
doing their job, Greg.

>> Can't you read?
>> Can't you remember?
>
> You want me to track YOUR delusions? Ya freakin' nut case?

Well, if YOU are going to accuse me of having delusions about something
I posted here just a few days ago that is proof of intent of those whose
comments I posted, with linked references, yes, Greg, ya freakin' nut
case, I DO expect you to provide proof.

But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
behave like the little hapless ****ant you really are...I WILL provide
you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
George Truro, yet another ****ing low life scum liar like you.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/a3384ae63418e8bd?hl=en&
http://tinyurl.com/twv75

[[[ I have only snipped the tail end three deep attributed remarks,
mostly my own, as they do not apply to the current issue ]]]

George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger."

> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
pulled
> the trigger.

Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.

> You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said

> this,

Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
are still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?

> but only you nutball, only you.

Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
you read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
talking about.

My quote was of course a paraphrase. This good enough for you, Deakin?

Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06...

In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
putting the gun to a workers head:

.... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
gun to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.

They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...

Recognize it?

Look like my name in the author's field?

> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
> dream **** up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.

Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
case or guns and triggers, etc.

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/...

Try this link:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06...

You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
the poster of the post from which it came?

Interesting.

Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
there is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
"Brian Christine's" taking of children at gun point.

What did I miss?

Oh, that I dream things up?

Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
Dennis.

And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact
a liar.

You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.

Like they all are.

And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.

Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
didn't really mean it?

Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?

Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:

Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
children at gunpoint in the rest area parking.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea...

.... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
lot. At least there would have been one
less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
their BS will not for much longer be
tolerated. ...

Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
someone for just being on your property.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

.... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.

No, I am advocating self defense for families.

If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.

Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.

If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
to be asked.

I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
response. ...

Still having problems with reality, Dennis?

From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:

.... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
powertripping and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...

And it's not just one of you, Dennis:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

.... Bob

> I'm in an awful way.

Destroycps!
Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.

Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
escape.

Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...

For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
to shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
possibly this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in
agreement with the sentiments express in:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

.... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> died.

How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
and children
suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?

Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.

I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
deserved as I
will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.

> How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?

Who is joking?

> You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.

No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.

> Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> of the future of this species.

Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...

Want some more?

In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
accountable fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their
wrongful acts against innocent citizens.

But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this is
about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for justice.
...

.... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
anti-family fascists. ...

Tired yet of being shown for a lying little ****, Dennis?

Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?

Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
there. We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R
R R R ... 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of
the people in the US.

Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
someone tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
threat file on all the other ****ants like you that threaten people's
lives who are working hard for abused and neglected children.

You are a sick ****, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bull****.

Got that you ****ant coward?

Recognize the following?

"... Killing CPS caseworkers

Amusing, isn't it?

Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
you.

The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a crater.

Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.

Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
assure you of that.

And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
happened ... "

Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make high
explosives?

Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have more.

And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself to
CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems
HE thinks exist:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

.... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
and his address should about take care of it....

Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
that strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?

Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
challenged me to produce proof, stupid?

Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
bringing all this up again?

Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.

Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
sleep tonight:

Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
child abuser.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...

.... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
one of a Dachau executioner. ...

Any thoughts, stu-pod?

Kane "
.................................................. ...........
That was the post in full, sans the unrelated tail end comments from
prior posts.

Care to comment, you lying little sack of chicken ****?

Naw, you'll run.

You always run when you are cornered. You can't handle being wrong.

Kane

Greegor

November 19th 06, 08:43 AM

0:->

November 19th 06, 11:11 PM

0:->

November 20th 06, 12:32 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:QuWdnVGrOpM6ef3YnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
> . . .
>
>> Now come back and tell me that public opinion would save you twits
>> because they so hate CPS.
>>
>> That's YOUR fantasy world, Greg, from your buddies stuffin' themselves
>> and their agenda up your happily receptive butt.
>>
>> The public HATES child abusers and KNOWS that the job of caseworkers is
>> nearly impossible for ordinary people to do.
>>
>> I think you'd be lucky to escape a lynching if Don Fisher or family were
>> hurt. As for myself, you can go **** up a rope. I'm not the least afraid
>> of you twits, but if I became afraid you can be sure there would be
>> action.
>>
>> 0:->
>
> You are Don Fisher, you toothless ****.

You are looking mighty foolish, boy.

> If you were in so much goddamn fear from being here, why the **** did you
> come here? Why do you return daily?

Cause I don't scare easily and I have something to do here I wish to do.

Are you suggesting I should be scared away?
>
> Who the **** you trying to bull**** into not stating what they want here?
>
I LOVE that you and others state what they want here. That's part of
what I want to do here, why I'm here.

> I hope you hang by the neck with your own entrails.

That's nice.

>
> Does that fear you? Dumbass.
>

Nope. Am I a "dumbass" not to be afraid of you?

> I hope some of my old classmates choke to death on your specially bred
> broccoli too.

Weird. You want other people you know to die as a result of eating my
broccoli.

Did I mention how foolish you are making yourself appear?

> Hell, I'll make it easy. I hope all government workers get hung by their
> coworkers' entrails. Now by your stupid logic, the next worker to be
> murdered will make me a suspect and I'm going down for my public wishing.

You didn't read for comprehension, as usual. Presuming. The very thing
that will take you down one day, most likely. And I probably will have
nothing to do with it.

Unless you know the person, and you have contributed in some way to that
government worker being identified, and the perp doesn't name YOU as
being part of what inspired his attack, you haven't a damn thing to
worry about...unless of course someone takes your silly assed bull****
seriously. Read Oregon's law on assault.

I have.

> I don't think anyone would waste their time injuring you, Don. But then I
> don't know what havoc you have wreaked on people throughout your 70 some
> years on this old earth.

Presuming you mean me, Kane, I don't really think so either, but I see
people trying hard to get someone else to do it.

Actually I've wreaked very little damage on anyone, and tend to do the
very opposite, except to self inflating ****ants.

> One thing for certain, if you were in such fear, a public newsgroup sure
> isn't the smartest place to hide out.

The Constitution does not require one to be "smartest." Have you met Greg?

> The way you act toward people here that disagree with you doesn't seem
> like a man in fear.

Yeah. I noticed that myself.

> Seems more like an old, dried-up has been that tries
> to get people to hush-up when they post something he doesn't like.

No no. I'd have NO reason to be here where that the case. I love to
engage you ****ant idiots on your stupidity...for the danger it presents
to the unwary that might take you seriously before becoming acquainted
with your severe thinking errors.

> Your bull**** about a paper trail works both ways, wrinkle dick.

Sure. The problem is, I have given no expressions of wishing anyone
death...well, except a teeny bit for Greg.

I have no means.

I have not encouraged anyone else to do anything to him that I know or
can even speak to, and I've only suggested HE do himself in.

I sure don't have much influence over that. Unless of course he's been
buying up rope lately.

AND he's not, to my knowledge, a member of a targeted risk prone
profession.

> Tell Ann Dear I say hello.

I can't. I lost their phone number.

By the way, is that meant to scare me....imply a threat?

You would try to bring some totally innocent bystanders in to this silly
business?

My you ARE a noble and moral sort of guy. Such courage. I'm just in awe.

0:-]

0:->

November 20th 06, 01:28 AM

Michael© wrote:
.....snipping the pants ****er's drivel......

0:->

November 20th 06, 01:37 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:psadnYDpBuEmmfzYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
>> Michael© wrote:
>> ....snipping the pants ****er's drivel......
>>
>
> Poor Don has his depends all in a bunch.

Nope, just snipping the pants ****er's tiresome repetitious escapist
drivel and hoping to save him some embarrassment for being such a hate
filled cowardly putz as to attack someone's wife...no big deal. You
don't have to thank me.

0:->

November 20th 06, 04:30 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:BqidncKFFolom_zYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
> > Michael© wrote:
> >> "0:->" > wrote in
> >> news:psadnYDpBuEmmfzYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
> >>
> >>> Michael© wrote:
> >>> ....snipping the pants ****er's drivel......
> >>>
> >>
> >> Poor Don has his depends all in a bunch.
> >
> > Nope, just snipping the pants ****er's tiresome repetitious escapist
> > drivel and hoping to save him some embarrassment for being such a hate
> > filled cowardly putz as to attack someone's wife...no big deal. You
> > don't have to thank me.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Explain how I'm ****ing my pants here, Don.

Kane here. Feel.

>
> Why would I be embarrassed by expressing my feelings?
>

You shouldn't be. Yet when you attack innocent people that aren't
involved, and someone's wife, figure it out, hero.

> How am I being a coward?

You have not argument so you attack the poster, ****ant.
>
> You forget so easily, Don when it suits you. You don't recall the attacks
> on my mother that you initiated? Poor Don. Such a selective memory.

Post'm. Did I say she was suckin' my dick. If so I apologize to your
mother. Tell her so.

Kane

>
>
> --
> Michael©

Greegor

November 21st 06, 01:52 AM

Greg wrote
> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?

Kane wrote
> No. That was only one of many. You know this.

Greg wrote
> You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
> You're contradicting yourself.

Kane wrote
> No I'm not. I did not mention only the Christine case.

You quoted somebody else as saying
"Brian should have pulled the trigger" as part of
your claims of threats of violence.
Please DENY this Kane! I love it when you squirm.

Kane wrote
> And no, it would not be a threat of violence. There is a very different
> definition of this civil and criminal violation.
>
> And a case for it has to be built that requires repetition, <smile>,
> lots of violent allusions <smile> and possibly information classified as
> "means" to carry out a crime.
>
> The only references I've ever posted to an actual simple threat of
> violence does not concern anyone posting here these days...unless of
> course they are back with a sock on their head.

Then WHY do you keep repeating it OVER and OVER? PTSD?

Kane wrote
> It's being set up for possible violence, as a way to try and
> force me out of this newsgroup, Greg. You are cowards
> that when you lose can only escalate to such behavior.

When you did that you were SPECIAL, right?

Greg wrote
> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
> and you decided that was a threat?

Kane wrote
> Do you think that is not a threat?

Greg wrote
> WHY do you think it is?
> Mental malfunction?

Kane wrote
> I didn't say I think it is.
> I asked you if you thought it's "not a threat."

Kane wrote
> Simply answer the question, Greg. Failure to do so is a mental malfunction.

Is that a "finesse" tactic that works on caseworkers?

Kane wrote
> There is such a thing as implied intent.

Greg wrote
> Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
> you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
> often making references to someone shooting me or
> the grandfather assaulting me.

Kane wrote
> Absolutely. NOW you get it.
> We, however, don't want you to go away, just get your just deserts.
>
> You aren't being targeted as a member of a special class so as to build
> up hatred of you by membership. You have done specific things YOU have
> confessed to here in this newsgroup.

And yet you refer to me as "you guys" etc...

> What have I done that warrants someone wishing me dead? And describing
> how to do it? And claiming I'm someone specific whose address was once
> posted here? And that I'm supposedly a member of a high risk hated class
> of people?

What you have done here is like a white person who
walks into Harlem swearing and yelling the n-word over and over.

It's a bit like "death by cop" suicide.

Except you chose to do this using an anonymous identity.

AND you worked MUCH HARDER to insult the residents.

AND here you are WHINING about how oppressed you are??

> Don't ask for proof of the name and address. I have proof the post was
> removed, stupid. There is always a trace of that. I already had a copy
> of course, with full headers. It's certainly NOT gone.

Please send me a copy and quit bitching at me about it.

Greg wrote
> Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!

Kane wrote
> I'm tired of teaching you. Look it up.
> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.

Greg wrote
> Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
>
> Not until a crime takes place. although...... there IS a criminal
> classification that depends on the perception of the person targeted.
>
> You seem to have forgotten I taught you this before, a couple of times,
> if memory serves.
>
> I've not accused anyone of a crime.

Kane wrote
> Because none has happened...well, except some years back when some
> members of this ng contacted me personally and issued real threats, and
> bragged of their capacity to execute those threats. That IS a crime.

Was it charged? Please send records.

Didn't you just get done saying you never accused anyone of a crime?

> Should such threats be acted upon and anyone hurt, those that assisted
> in locating me will have some explaining to do.

Right after you explain why you didn't remove yourself from the
situation.

Kane wrote
> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.

G > But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!

Kane wrote
> You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
> You really are stupid.

If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?
Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?

Kane wrote
> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.

G> Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.

K > Nope. I've done so already.

Didn't you just get done saying the message was deleted?

K > And if you have trouble finding them, it's time
> you learned to use google's group search tools.

G> Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
> or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.

K> I didn't make that claim.
>
> Though there are circumstances based on how that gloating and ill wish
> is framed, the words used, that can indeed result in a crime committed.
>
> But I'm easy, up to a point. At this particular one, I simple not that
> they go to state of mind.
>
> The actual specific threats that frightened me and made me fear for my
> safety and that of my family were made off line. How many times have I
> told you this now?

Yes, as I recall it was not even somebody from a newsgroup,
but a former caseworker angry you cost him his job.
Is that the story you are referring to?

> And here are gloating and ill wishes being expressed in very similar
> language. Fancy that. And periodically up it comes again. I say we have
> a series, a significant sequel being created over a few years time. Very
> significant when in argument.
>
> And don't do your stupid "citations please," bull**** because there
> isn't a poster here that's honest that doesn't know that I have posted
> the answers to you before.
>
> > ...
> > Kane wrote
> >> I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
> >> "threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
> >
> > Allergic to the truth Kane?
>
> Can't see it, Greg?
>
> > You say that threats of violence have been made here,
>
> I posted the words, and links to the posts where those words were
> spoken. If you wish to argue, go to the posts and quote them and show
> they are not threats. YOU show how they are not.
>
> Show they are NOT calculated to instill fear. And look up the law on that.
>
> > but you clearly intend to be VAGUE and not give particulars?
>
> Links to posts and direct quotes are "VAGUE?"
> >
> > Would you base legal action on such VAGUERY?
> >
> Non sequitur. I wasn't vague.
>
> I've not taken any "legal" action as yet. I don't need to as yet.

I haven't smacked my head against a brick wall, yet. So what?
You are such a BS artist.

> If they are involved in providing some means, even sufficient
> encouragement, they could well find themselves in court.

With a jury.

> Ask the man that was financially wiped out by the Oregon Mulugeta Seraw
> case. Hate crime of murder. Inspired by the man I mentioned that never
> laid a finger on him, never saw, him didn't even know his name before
> the killing.

Sounds like an agency supervisor! So what?

Inspired by the man you mentioned?

You mean they had absolutely no connection to each other, right?

The only connection between them was IN YOUR MIND right?

Who was Mulugeta Seraw?

Was this person a sadist hiding behind internet anonymity?

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=racial+violence+mulugeta+seraw+Oregon&spell=1
>
> It could be argued that fomenting hatred toward a class or profession to
> the point that someone actually acts against them based on that
> fomenting would engage the perps of said fomenting in both a civil AND
> criminal action.
>
> You may operate in the deep vacuum of ignorance, Greg, but I do not.

It could be argued differently.

> If I suggest something serious, you can be sure I've the knowledge to
> not only back it up, but the tactical ability to not spill too much that
> might get in my way should it need to finish it to my desired outcome.

Wow! That makes your implied threats more threatening doesn't it?

> There is considerable case law to back up legal action for hate crimes
> of all kinds, including class or group.

Like some a-hole former caseworker who is so psychologically
perverse that he intends to torture parents who are innocent and
fighting the steam roller action of the system?

> Remember the serial killing of abortion doctors? Look that one up.

I find Nuremberg to be more appropo...

What WOULD they have done had Judge Roland Friesler
survived to have been put on trial???

Impeccable legal mind, yet perverted justice on a grand scale.

> > Kane wrote
> >> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
> >> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
> >> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
> >
> > Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
>
> Then you'd like to see me killed or injured? Explain please, in full.
>
> Or isn't that what you meant?

You have gone out of your way to incite such anger.
Please do not expect me to feel sorry for you if it catches up to you.

Kane wrote
> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
> doing their job, Greg.

Kane wrote > Why did you NOT respond to this challenge above, Greg?

Greg wrote > What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?

I asked for clarification of something that made no sense.

> No one is perfect, anywhere in the world, Greg. No caseworker can avoid
> violating the delusional requirements for correct casework you ****ants
> dream up.

You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?

Kane wrote
> You set it up, just like cons do, that no official intervention,
> including initial investigation, is valid unless the case is already
> PROVEN.

I set this up?

Kane wrote > The circular reasoning of the criminal mind.

You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?

Kane
> And if you have a beef with how a worker practices their assigned task
> you go to your legislature and you ask that the process be changed.

Yeah, yeah, the check is in the mail.
People HATE bureaucracy for a reason.
Bunch of CYA morons that take advantage of their government clout.

> Or you go to the agency in question, lodge your complaints and work your
> way up, if you don't like what you hear at each level.

We gave them that chance. The tape will haunt them.

> Shooting or stabbing the worker is illegal. And it's unethical. And it's
> immoral.

If you falsely accuse an innocent person of something
as horrible as what CPS does, and cause the kind of harm
using those lies as CPS does, OCCASIONALLY you will
find out that even docile peaceful people will react violently.

Is all war illegal, unethical and immoral?
When CPS declares war on a family, they take their chances.

The family is merely DEFENDING themselves.

I do not condone violence against CPS.
I do understand it.

> On what basis do you compare, as you do below, the Holocaust to CPS?
>
> > Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
>
> I've no idea. He was not a social worker.
>
> > He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
>
> I've not noticed any workers claiming they made an error, or that the
> law inconvenienced YOU Greg, because they were only a pencil pusher.

Actually they HAVE used the excuse they are "just doing their job"
which of course is absolutely NOT true when they LIE maliciously.

> Every single one has exhibited to me that they are very clear on how
> serious their job is. None have denied that children are removed, and
> that they go into foster care. None have denied that children have been
> abused or even killed in foster care. Hence they are nothing like Eichmann.

The exact things denied are different of course.
The realizations they get on the witness stand are similar.

> You and your crazed associates have created this bull**** Gestapo CPS
> out of whole-cloth.

Anybody who truly experiences it from the family side, just knows.

Kane wrote
> If you don't like how CPS is run you use legal means to change it.

Which you have ridiculed repeatedly! Law suits!

>
> Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
> caseworkers or other CPS workers?
>
> If not, please explain what you mean?
>
> Do you wish to take caseworkers to court?
> Feel free. Go for it.

Like we needed YOUR permission??? ROFL!

> The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on, Greg.

That's not what our lawyer says.

> So the only outlet you have for your class warfare is the wish for death
> of your opponents. Is that not a correct assumption, Greg?

That would make it harder to sue them.
That's much more fun!

> Have you ever bother to review your posts?

I don't obsess about it.

> > Kane wrote
> >> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
> >
> > Kane wrote
> >> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
> >> behave like the little hapless ****ant you really are...I WILL provide
> >> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
> >> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
> >> George Truro, yet another ****ing low life scum liar like you.
> >
> > Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
>
> Last time I ran the gauntlet yes. Who knows today. I might be bedbug
> crazy. No one in the real world has suggested it to me, or behaved as
> though I am doing irrational things.

Hey buddy! How ya doin? Oh by the way YOU NEED HELP!

> On the other hand, here, appropriate anger at real threats

Links please. No more mapquest junk or linking to your own wind
bagging.

> is not a sign
> of bad mental health. Nor being alert to the possibility others are
> setting me up even indirectly. Or gloating over deaths of CPS workers.
>
> > Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>
> Nope. "Wishing" is not. Wish all you want.
>
> Exercise your right of free speech, and then, as you fail to think about
> it's limitations (there are some). You could be seen as and proven as
> doing more than silently wishing.
>
> Providing some means may well be illegal IF a caseworker involved has
> horrible things visited on them. Information would be the means.
>
> I keep Don alert to this subject here. He will read this when I send it
> to you. He might share it with others. I have no control over it once it
> leaves my workstation.

Thanks for making Don an accessory to all of your previous
implied threats. He will no doubt need to identify you and
since you know him in real life, or ARE HIM, that should be easy.

> > Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>
> I never claimed it was. I claimed it was something else.
>
> But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
> way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
> was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
> to act violently, you would be wrong.
>
> Many people that thought they were in the clear, find they are not. It
> gets decided NOT here, but in court. Look up case law.
>
> > Neither is a "threat of violence".
>
> Ah, now there you are wrong.
>
> Read up on assault laws in various states.
>
> I just posted some statute here recently.
>
> Paraphrasing: "It is a crime of assault to cause others, by threat of
> violence, to fear for their lives or personal safety."

That's referring to a direct threat you idiot.
Gloating or wishing you ill is NOT a threat.

<snip!>

0:->

November 21st 06, 05:37 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Greg wrote
>> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
>> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
>> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
>
> Kane wrote
>> No. That was only one of many. You know this.
>
> Greg wrote
>> You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
>> You're contradicting yourself.
>
> Kane wrote
>> No I'm not. I did not mention only the Christine case.
>
> You quoted somebody else as saying
> "Brian should have pulled the trigger" as part of
> your claims of threats of violence.
> Please DENY this Kane! I love it when you squirm.

I didn't deny I quoted that. Are you on something today?

I said no to there being ONLY this comment.

> Kane wrote
>> And no, it would not be a threat of violence. There is a very different
>> definition of this civil and criminal violation.
>>
>> And a case for it has to be built that requires repetition, <smile>,
>> lots of violent allusions <smile> and possibly information classified as
>> "means" to carry out a crime.
>>
>> The only references I've ever posted to an actual simple threat of
>> violence does not concern anyone posting here these days...unless of
>> course they are back with a sock on their head.
>
> Then WHY do you keep repeating it OVER and OVER? PTSD?

That, as they used to say an still do in your circles of childish
friends, is for me to know, and you to find out.

As you may.

> Kane wrote
>> It's being set up for possible violence, as a way to try and
>> force me out of this newsgroup, Greg. You are cowards
>> that when you lose can only escalate to such behavior.
>
> When you did that you were SPECIAL, right?

Did what? Learn to write.

> Greg wrote
>> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
>> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
>> and you decided that was a threat?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Do you think that is not a threat?
>
> Greg wrote
>> WHY do you think it is?
>> Mental malfunction?
>
> Kane wrote
>> I didn't say I think it is.
>> I asked you if you thought it's "not a threat."
>
> Kane wrote
>> Simply answer the question, Greg. Failure to do so is a mental malfunction.
>
> Is that a "finesse" tactic that works on caseworkers?

This is a simple question, Greg. Stop trying to unethically dodge it.

I didn't say it was, YOU tried to put words in my mouth with your
rhetorical question pretending I had made a claim rather than as a
question.

Your first question was rhetorical as you defined the answer in the
question.

>
> Kane wrote
>> There is such a thing as implied intent.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
>> you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
>> often making references to someone shooting me or
>> the grandfather assaulting me.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Absolutely. NOW you get it.
>> We, however, don't want you to go away, just get your just deserts.
>>
>> You aren't being targeted as a member of a special class so as to build
>> up hatred of you by membership. You have done specific things YOU have
>> confessed to here in this newsgroup.
>
> And yet you refer to me as "you guys" etc...

Are you not one of the guys? Is 'guys' a specially targeted group here
for descriptions of an occasional urgings to kill you?

I've only asked that you kill yourself. You have a special status not as
part of a group of "guys" but as Greg the cretin.

By the way, Doan is failing you. Don't you think you ought to be honest
and write your own comebacks?

>> What have I done that warrants someone wishing me dead? And describing
>> how to do it? And claiming I'm someone specific whose address was once
>> posted here? And that I'm supposedly a member of a high risk hated class
>> of people?
>
> What you have done here is like a white person who
> walks into Harlem swearing and yelling the n-word over and over.

Really. What word have I been yelling here?

And is it legal and moral for a black person to kill someone that is
yelling the N-word?

Why didn't some black person in the audience then kill Richard,
recently...you know, Kramer from Seinfeld, when he went of with n this
and n that at a heckler recently?

It would have been right thing to do according to your argument.
>
> It's a bit like "death by cop" suicide.
>
Really? Words of accusation "threatening" death have that power?

And yet you are arguing that Gloating or Ill Wishes are not Threats of
Violence, are you not?

> Except you chose to do this using an anonymous identity.

Yep. Which takes us back to destorycps (yes that's how he started
spelling it for some strange reason...R R R R R), bobb, two version of
little 'o' over in aps, Chris from Texas, and your favorite little old
child hating lady, Fern the Plant.

Or is her name really Fern and a number? Hell, stupid. I know her name,
and I still would not use it, because someone might catch on one day to
the horror show she is, and having been beaten by their parent with
Fern's approval, as in the Georgia congregation might look her up.

I'm protecting the old biddy, while you boys shows clearly you want me
and my family hurt.

Aren't you the brave little souls though.

> AND you worked MUCH HARDER to insult the residents.

No one resides here.

All are visitors. And no matter my language, or the well deserved
beatings and exposure I give YOU GUYS, you have NO right to put me at
risk..and certainly not my family.

You are sick ****s and I have you lined up nicely if anything should
happen. Trust me on this.
>
> AND here you are WHINING about how oppressed you are??

"Oppressed?" Where do you get these fanciful ideas. Do I post like I
think I'm "oppressed?" Or look oppressed to you?

You ****ants can't do a ****ing thing I haven't got covered or figured
out miles ahead of you.

You are dumb **** fundy boneheads with nothing but bells in your head.

>> Don't ask for proof of the name and address. I have proof the post was
>> removed, stupid. There is always a trace of that. I already had a copy
>> of course, with full headers. It's certainly NOT gone.
>
> Please send me a copy and quit bitching at me about it.

Nope. You get what I want to give and not anything more. And I'll say
what I want here and implied threats will be noted. As usual.

> Greg wrote
>> Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!
>
> Kane wrote
>> I'm tired of teaching you. Look it up.
>> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
>> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
>>
>> Not until a crime takes place. although...... there IS a criminal
>> classification that depends on the perception of the person targeted.
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten I taught you this before, a couple of times,
>> if memory serves.
>>
>> I've not accused anyone of a crime.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Because none has happened...well, except some years back when some
>> members of this ng contacted me personally and issued real threats, and
>> bragged of their capacity to execute those threats. That IS a crime.
>
> Was it charged? Please send records.

None of your business. It's a legal matter and my attorney and I both
know how to lay the groundwork for a case if it's decided one needs to
be made.

> Didn't you just get done saying you never accused anyone of a crime?

That's right. Preparing for charging someone for a crime doesn't mean
it's been committed yet.

Jump when I say "it's time."

>> Should such threats be acted upon and anyone hurt, those that assisted
>> in locating me will have some explaining to do.
>
> Right after you explain why you didn't remove yourself from the
> situation.

And allow my rights to free speech to be removed from me?

Do you tell people they shouldn't have been in that part of town,
because they get mugged?

I make sure either the mugger is going to get hurt, or he is going to
know beforehand I'm not a good little prey animal. That's why you are
asking these questions. And you can go tell him he'll be the first to go
down. As he well knows.

> Kane wrote
>> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
>
> G > But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!

I know.

> Kane wrote
>> You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
>> You really are stupid.
>
> If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?

I beg your pardon? YOU would ask such a question? You can sue someone in
this country for sneezing on you and giving you a cold stupid, and you'd
be likely to get something for your trouble...unless of course he
counter sued you for speaking to him and making him turn toward the
bright sunlight, causing him to sneeze (some folks are sensitive to
light) and knock his glasses of, embarrass him in public and generally
make a nuisance of yourself.

You are almost too dumb to remember to breath, aren't you child?

> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?

Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.

And you are trying to sue the state and don't know these things?

Stay stupid. It's fun to watch you.

> Kane wrote
>> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
>> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
>
> G> Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.
>
> K > Nope. I've done so already.
>
> Didn't you just get done saying the message was deleted?

Nope. Different post, different subject. One was a threat by posting a
lot of information about someone that is supposed to be me. The other
was the long list of quotes and links I've provided from various former
members of this ng.

> K > And if you have trouble finding them, it's time
>> you learned to use google's group search tools.
>
> G> Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
>> or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.
>
> K> I didn't make that claim.
>> Though there are circumstances based on how that gloating and ill wish
>> is framed, the words used, that can indeed result in a crime committed.
>>
>> But I'm easy, up to a point. At this particular one, I simple not that
>> they go to state of mind.
>>
>> The actual specific threats that frightened me and made me fear for my
>> safety and that of my family were made off line. How many times have I
>> told you this now?
>
> Yes, as I recall it was not even somebody from a newsgroup,
> but a former caseworker angry you cost him his job.
> Is that the story you are referring to?

Nope. Different issue, and it was a supervisor, not a caseworker.

He's never posted here to my knowledge. Although one never knows, does
one.....R R R R R RR R R R R

>> And here are gloating and ill wishes being expressed in very similar
>> language. Fancy that. And periodically up it comes again. I say we have
>> a series, a significant sequel being created over a few years time. Very
>> significant when in argument.
>>
>> And don't do your stupid "citations please," bull**** because there
>> isn't a poster here that's honest that doesn't know that I have posted
>> the answers to you before.
>>
>>> ...
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
>>>> "threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
>>> Allergic to the truth Kane?
>> Can't see it, Greg?
>>
>>> You say that threats of violence have been made here,
>> I posted the words, and links to the posts where those words were
>> spoken. If you wish to argue, go to the posts and quote them and show
>> they are not threats. YOU show how they are not.
>>
>> Show they are NOT calculated to instill fear. And look up the law on that.
>>
>>> but you clearly intend to be VAGUE and not give particulars?
>> Links to posts and direct quotes are "VAGUE?"
>>> Would you base legal action on such VAGUERY?
>>>
>> Non sequitur. I wasn't vague.
>>
>> I've not taken any "legal" action as yet. I don't need to as yet.
>
> I haven't smacked my head against a brick wall, yet. So what?
> You are such a BS artist.

Sure you have. You are in a state of perpetual dizziness and confusion. 0:->

Why would you think I've taken legal action already? As I said, that's
something I decide, not you, not someone else. And I have no need to at
the moment.

If I do I will. You'll be among the first to know. Honest. I wouldn't
kid you.
>
>> If they are involved in providing some means, even sufficient
>> encouragement, they could well find themselves in court.
>
> With a jury.

Yep, or not.

>> Ask the man that was financially wiped out by the Oregon Mulugeta Seraw
>> case. Hate crime of murder. Inspired by the man I mentioned that never
>> laid a finger on him, never saw, him didn't even know his name before
>> the killing.
>
> Sounds like an agency supervisor! So what?

Agency? He was the leader of a skinhead cult of racist hate driven thugs.

>
> Inspired by the man you mentioned?

You are losing your signal there, bunky. See if you can tune out the
noise in your head and ask that question so we know what man you speak
of. The attacked, the instigator, what?
>
> You mean they had absolutely no connection to each other, right?
>
None what so ever. Metzger was in S. California, Mulugeta was a gentle
unpresuming immigrant from East Africa, who had never hurt anyone and
was trying, like most of our ancestors, to work his way up honestly. He
wasn't suing anybody. He was dying for someone's racial hatred.

They hit him in the back of the head, and crushed his skull, then
continued to beat him with a baseball bat as he lay dying on the street.

> The only connection between them was IN YOUR MIND right?

No, the connection was that the local chapter of the organization that
Metzger lead had recruited and trained the boys that killed Mulugeta. In
fact not too long after Metzger or his son, I forget which, visited
Portland to give and 'inspirational' pep talk to the boys.

> Who was Mulugeta Seraw?

A gentle African immigrant. Small, slender, not even a fighter of any
kind. He worked some low paying job, but he worked, Greg, and he got by
and hoped to make a life here and eventually have a family of his own. A
very nice man if his family is to be believed, and the white folks that
lived on the same block with him.

I believe he was Sudanese or some other of the upper East African nations.
>
> Was this person a sadist hiding behind internet anonymity?

You know someone like that? Fern perhaps who excuses AND defends the
beaters of children in church? Maybe SueCPSBob who has had his share of
interesting wishes for CPS workers. bobb the apologist for just about
everything anti authoritarian? Take your pick.

I didn't any but possibly Fern that I'd speculate on them being sadists
though.

Do you think I'm a sadist? If so, would you mind providing some rational
arguments based on actual evidence you present?

>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=racial+violence+mulugeta+seraw+Oregon&spell=1
>>
>> It could be argued that fomenting hatred toward a class or profession to
>> the point that someone actually acts against them based on that
>> fomenting would engage the perps of said fomenting in both a civil AND
>> criminal action.
>>
>> You may operate in the deep vacuum of ignorance, Greg, but I do not.
>
> It could be argued differently.

The moon is made of green cheese too.

>> If I suggest something serious, you can be sure I've the knowledge to
>> not only back it up, but the tactical ability to not spill too much that
>> might get in my way should it need to finish it to my desired outcome.
>
> Wow! That makes your implied threats more threatening doesn't it?

Do my words imply that you should be killed?

I admit to urging suicide of course, but that's not a crime.

>> There is considerable case law to back up legal action for hate crimes
>> of all kinds, including class or group.
>
> Like some a-hole former caseworker who is so psychologically
> perverse that he intends to torture parents who are innocent and
> fighting the steam roller action of the system?

Can't say. Don't know any of those. Do you?

>> Remember the serial killing of abortion doctors? Look that one up.
>
> I find Nuremberg to be more appropo...

Yes, not much difference, but sadly you don't get that you are the folks
behind the bar of justice.

> What WOULD they have done had Judge Roland Friesler
> survived to have been put on trial???

Darned if I know. Obscure references without explanation mean nothing
but that your head is rattle bone again.
>
> Impeccable legal mind, yet perverted justice on a grand scale.
>

Yeah yeah. Like some here for that matter.

>>> Kane wrote
>>>> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
>>>> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
>>>> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
>>> Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
>> Then you'd like to see me killed or injured? Explain please, in full.
>>
>> Or isn't that what you meant?
>
> You have gone out of your way to incite such anger.

That depends on which side of the question you are, your perspective as
it were.

Some might think I have been more than patient and restrained, given the
kind of violent vicious crap you spew, like sending that poor
grandmother off (hopefully she did do it) to admit in court, where her
daughter was fighting for her children, that she had committed a crime
in the course and progress of the case.

And you are surprised that I bring such things to your attention and
call it "inciting?"

There is only one legal and moral way to support your claim. That would
be if I threatened someone with injury or death, had the means, and took
actions to bring it about. People have a right to self defense in such
situations.

> Please do not expect me to feel sorry for you if it catches up to you.

Please do not expect me to expect you to feel sorry for me. Save that
for yourself.

> Kane wrote
>> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
>> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
>> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
>> doing their job, Greg.
>
> Kane wrote > Why did you NOT respond to this challenge above, Greg?
>
> Greg wrote > What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?
>
> I asked for clarification of something that made no sense.
>
>> No one is perfect, anywhere in the world, Greg. No caseworker can avoid
>> violating the delusional requirements for correct casework you ****ants
>> dream up.
>
> You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?

Nope. For the most part they do work hard to create laws that policy is
derived from that practice attempts to follow.

And your claim of 'qualified immunity' is proof the congress, the
legislators, and the people that elect them understand that the job
cannot be done if NO room for error is allowed.

> Kane wrote
>> You set it up, just like cons do, that no official intervention,
>> including initial investigation, is valid unless the case is already
>> PROVEN.
>
> I set this up?

Yep. Your posts have been full of requirements of workers that are
impossible to consistently perform in the real world.

Any mistake is a full blown attack directed at YOU, which is funny since
YOU don't have a case in the Lisa case.

> Kane wrote > The circular reasoning of the criminal mind.
>
> You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?

It's possible there is some of that in any of those. Lots of people are
in fact not very good with ethics and making reality fit them. They take
shortcuts, or try to get something for nothing.

> Kane
>> And if you have a beef with how a worker practices their assigned task
>> you go to your legislature and you ask that the process be changed.
>
> Yeah, yeah, the check is in the mail.

Odd, I've made that work many times and seen others do so. I once
watched a woman with a disabled child in a state that at that time had
NO services to help her, a single woman, stand frightened and quivering
before a state legislative body..the entire house..alone. And speak for
services for disabled children.

Some years later she was elected governor of that state. A very fine
women a I respect highly. I got to actually live in her neighborhood for
some few years, and we'd walk our dogs together in the very early morning.

> People HATE bureaucracy for a reason.

Yeah, because it's designed to sort out the chaos and not let one class
or person exploit another. Sadly it's far from perfect, but so far our
system has been superior to most.

Fascism looks good to you kooks but you have to have an oppressed class
to make it work.

Your silliness about the East African victim, instead of actually going
to the citations I offered, shows just how easily you dismiss someone
and relegate them to oppressible status.

> Bunch of CYA morons that take advantage of their government clout.

I run into it from time to time. I tend to help them lose their jobs if
I can. Witness the CPS supervisor I helped bring down.
>
>> Or you go to the agency in question, lodge your complaints and work your
>> way up, if you don't like what you hear at each level.
>
> We gave them that chance. The tape will haunt them.

Good. If you were right, justified, and it made a real difference.

Stupid if all it did was embarrass some worker and not advance your
case, just your ego.

>
>> Shooting or stabbing the worker is illegal. And it's unethical. And it's
>> immoral.
>
> If you falsely accuse an innocent person of something
> as horrible as what CPS does, and cause the kind of harm
> using those lies as CPS does, OCCASIONALLY you will
> find out that even docile peaceful people will react violently.

Is that a rationale for murder by your thinking?

> Is all war illegal, unethical and immoral?

Nope.

> When CPS declares war on a family, they take their chances.

Wrong. You sound like whatshisname now. Are you really getting this stupid?

You spouting the propaganda the hooked Brian, if I'm not mistaken. And I
have a hunch your source for your parroting the party line may well be
the same one's that helped he and Ruth get their children back from CPS
and go happily off, without them, to prison for a few years.

Am I right?

> The family is merely DEFENDING themselves.

Yep. Looks like it.

Merely defending themselves by killing others? Deliberate murder?

The last I heard was that in this country we try to cleave to the
concepts and limits and uses of rule of law, Greg.

> I do not condone violence against CPS.

Sure you do. You just did. You portrayed CPS as declaring and making WAR
on parents and families, thus providing the excuse for declaring war on
them, which means open season.

> I do understand it.

No you don't. You want people to do things that, as Dan said, will lead
them deeper into the quagmire.

This is a perfect example.

Your words are much the same as has been ranted at families that were
CPS clients and they did, on rare occasions, do as your words suggest,
presume war and that war presumes you kill "the enemy." And they did.

I believe I've mentioned you are a very dangerous person.

You incite. Obviously. Others here have done so.

I predict that you are so without morals, and you are so stupid, that
you will continue in this direction. That you lack self control to a
degree that you will create a world of your own that allows for such
thinking to be acted upon.

At present, because you are a coward, you attempt to incite others to
stupidity, and or violence, but in time you'll fall into moments when
you think you are invincible, others even sicker than you will have set
you up to act, convincing, as Brian was convinced, that violence is
right and acceptable against 'gestapo CPS.'

Of course there IS no such organization, and that's a product of your
fertile imagination driven by your need to feel like something you are
not...a man.

>> On what basis do you compare, as you do below, the Holocaust to CPS?
>>
>>> Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
>> I've no idea. He was not a social worker.
>>
>>> He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
>> I've not noticed any workers claiming they made an error, or that the
>> law inconvenienced YOU Greg, because they were only a pencil pusher.
>
> Actually they HAVE used the excuse they are "just doing their job"

That can be said of everyone that works, if you ask them why they did
some particular work related thing. A plumber will tell you that, when
he hooks your vent line up above a certain point so water won't rise in
it and spill into the next level of vent back into other portions of the
system. It's black water and polluted.

> which of course is absolutely NOT true when they LIE maliciously.

If you have found one or more that lied "maliciously" you might have a
case.

You might even have a morally righteous case...so that you'll be able to
live with the outcome, should you win.

On the other hand, we have seen so much immoral comment by you in these
newsgroups it's very hard to take seriously that anyone could dream up
much that would be a lie about you or malicious.

You are a thoroughgoing little thug, Greg.

Anyone that would urge someone to use a crime they committed to try to
fight a CPS case has to have something loose in the head.

That women might have been simple enough to believe you and could now be
off on your crusade. And help her daughter lose her children to CPS.

I know it's nearly impossible for you to take your own words seriously
as to how they could influence, and that you are terribly short on
taking responsibility, but do you really miss the point here?

>> Every single one has exhibited to me that they are very clear on how
>> serious their job is. None have denied that children are removed, and
>> that they go into foster care. None have denied that children have been
>> abused or even killed in foster care. Hence they are nothing like Eichmann.
>
> The exact things denied are different of course.
> The realizations they get on the witness stand are similar.

You are being obscure again. You must be up past your bedtime.

>> You and your crazed associates have created this bull**** Gestapo CPS
>> out of whole-cloth.
>
> Anybody who truly experiences it from the family side, just knows.

We've seen one such example here. His rant didn't fly either.

CPS must behave, out of the enforcement section, in ways very like
police. They must question, they must examine, they must observe, and
from time to time they must remove children.

It isn't a choice, Greg. It's what society has assigned as a duty to an
agency.

If someone is abusing the methods, there are ways to stop them that
work. Yours don't work.

I have six years of evidence. Don't YOU?

You keep insisting on doing the same stupid things over and over again.
Threats, wild claims, rants, standing around looking threating, using
the language of a paranoid....in everything "they are out to get me."

> Kane wrote
>> If you don't like how CPS is run you use legal means to change it.
>
> Which you have ridiculed repeatedly! Law suits!

No I haven't. NOT ONCE. I even told you to sue, stupid.

The ONLY time I've criticized the use of suit is when CPS has your
children, and your case has not closed, and you are in the earlier
stages where suing slams everything to a dead stop.

Kids can be in care until their majority while little dim heroes like
you, sue. Or commit a crime then run to court and confess it to FORCE
CPS to release the children from slavery, a violation of the 13th
amendment.

Don't you SEE how ridiculous and nutty you look, Greg.

All these years Dan has gone quietly about his work (it would bore guys
like you to tears, because he doesn't go for some grandstand bull****
for the thrill) doing exactly what it takes, as unspectacular as that
can seem, and getting children out of foster care, back home, and their
parents off the founded hook.

As far as I know he has NEVER told anyone to sue, until AFTER they had
their child safely home.

I suppose if he found a tactical situation that he felt strongly after
analyzing REAL FACTS, he might give that advice.

The difference is you get your facts from fools like you. People that
try to incite YOU to take chances you should not if it's your child at
risk.

Are you getting any of this? ANYTHING at all?

>> Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
>> caseworkers or other CPS workers?
>>
>> If not, please explain what you mean?
>>
>> Do you wish to take caseworkers to court?
>> Feel free. Go for it.
>
> Like we needed YOUR permission??? ROFL!

I was urging you on, not giving permission. I don't operate under a set
of delusions about other people's reality, Greg, as you seem to.

I see you skipped a paragraph.

Let us try this again. I'm really quite patient you know. Oh yes, I
forgot, you DO know that much about reality.

I believe your last comment that I was responding to was:

">>> He claimed he was only a pencil pusher."

And I asked:

"Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
caseworkers or other CPS workers?

If not, please explain what you mean?"

Will you answer the questions asked?

>> The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on, Greg.
>
> That's not what our lawyer says.

Fee based or split the take?

I told you, Greg, a lawyer can gamble on a few cases to hit it big, and
even if many don't, almost all will bring in a few thou from nuisance
settlements.

You can become a Thousandaire, and your lawyer can say, see I told you
we could do it.

Has your lawyer told you you are going to make millions?

>> So the only outlet you have for your class warfare is the wish for death
>> of your opponents. Is that not a correct assumption, Greg?
>
> That would make it harder to sue them.
> That's much more fun!

Then you do not make the comparison to a Nazi war criminal?
>
>> Have you ever bother to review your posts?
>
> I don't obsess about it.

Translation: "I can't stand the reality that a second reading might
reveal....keep away keep away."

>>> Kane wrote
>>>> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
>>>> behave like the little hapless ****ant you really are...I WILL provide
>>>> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
>>>> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
>>>> George Truro, yet another ****ing low life scum liar like you.
>>> Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
>> Last time I ran the gauntlet yes. Who knows today. I might be bedbug
>> crazy. No one in the real world has suggested it to me, or behaved as
>> though I am doing irrational things.
>
> Hey buddy!

Sorry, I don't date boys.

> How ya doin?

Good. No I don't want to 'party' with you, thanks anyway.

> Oh by the way YOU NEED HELP!

I've tried to be patient and nice to you, but I guess you need it
straight out. NO, I do not want to **** you.

Now as to the help I'm supposed to need, what kind?

>> On the other hand, here, appropriate anger at real threats
>
> Links please. No more mapquest junk or linking to your own wind
> bagging.

I corrected those as soon as I discovered them and reposted with the
correct links edited in. And my prior post was the requested material.

I was asked to prove that I had indeed shown Fern to have supported
certain church behaviors. Was I NOT supposed to produce my own post
where I did that?

And I've told you this before you wrote this message I respond to now.

So your idea of debate and argument is to simply lie and debate to the
presumption the lie presents.

It's called Doananation, Greg and it's very ugly
nosepickingeatingthesnot kind of tactic.

I'm embarrassed for you every time I see you do it here.

It's a game of such disgusting behavior that it's calculated to make the
opponent turn away and leave the debate.

I worked with the mentally ill, there's not much ugly that you can do
that would effect me.

>> is not a sign
>> of bad mental health. Nor being alert to the possibility others are
>> setting me up even indirectly. Or gloating over deaths of CPS workers.
>>
>>> Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>> Nope. "Wishing" is not. Wish all you want.
>>
>> Exercise your right of free speech, and then, as you fail to think about
>> it's limitations (there are some). You could be seen as and proven as
>> doing more than silently wishing.
>>
>> Providing some means may well be illegal IF a caseworker involved has
>> horrible things visited on them. Information would be the means.
>>
>> I keep Don alert to this subject here. He will read this when I send it
>> to you. He might share it with others. I have no control over it once it
>> leaves my workstation.
>
> Thanks for making Don an accessory to all of your previous
> implied threats.

How does telling him what goes on here make him an accessory, and what
threats are being implied?

The threat of he or I using our right to free speech?

> He will no doubt need to identify you and
> since you know him in real life, or ARE HIM, that should be easy.

Still buying the nonsense of your friends, eh?

Greg I asked you before and you ran. What real difference, other than a
positive, would it make in this newsgroup if I were? I've served people
well here.

Uncovered stalking vulpine thugs out to make victims of new posters.
Given solid information an practice and policy right out of the manuals.
Supported the work for helping even admitted guilty child abusers get
their children back.

What would be the terrible harm were I actually Don? A CPS worker?

All the harm has come only too YOU and your vicious pack of vile blood
sucking sickos.

That's a big plus.

Do you think I care if YOU are offended?

**** you.

What matters are the families that come here and want to win. Not you,
and your loser ****ant buddies, Greg. You are nothing to me, or do Don,
but a damn nuisance, like so many others like you in the world that
civilized responsible people have to keep working with and around.

You have to think I give a **** about you to make such stupid claims
with implied threats in them.

What ever the outcome, what I do here will continue. Trust me.

Parents that need help and can accept it will get it to the best of my
ability.

I know Dan will be here even if I age out for some reason, and it's not
hard for sane responsible people to catch on pretty quick how skilled
and dedicated he is, and how successful.

And it's easier still to read just a few of your sick posts, and that of
your buddies and see what you are...losers, whiners, and albatrosses if
they let you get too near them.

I've watched them come and go for three years plus now, and I've seen
them catch on quick.

How many have joined you and started doing what you suggest, Greg?

Name a family that has followed your lead from this newsgroup.

Hell from any source.

>>> Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>> I never claimed it was. I claimed it was something else.
>>
>> But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
>> way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
>> was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
>> to act violently, you would be wrong.
>>
>> Many people that thought they were in the clear, find they are not. It
>> gets decided NOT here, but in court. Look up case law.
>>
>>> Neither is a "threat of violence".
>> Ah, now there you are wrong.
>>
>> Read up on assault laws in various states.
>>
>> I just posted some statute here recently.
>>
>> Paraphrasing: "It is a crime of assault to cause others, by threat of
>> violence, to fear for their lives or personal safety."
>
> That's referring to a direct threat you idiot.
> Gloating or wishing you ill is NOT a threat.

You seemed to have read for speed rather than comprehension. Let me
help, I have that same failing at times. Very dangerous one when things
really matter a lot.

Here's the paragraph from above for you again. This time read slow.

"But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
to act violently, you would be wrong."

I didn't say that gloating and wishing in themselves were threats. I
said that, like the Metzger case, the perps will very likely, to ease
the pressure cop to being INFLUENCED by those that gloat and wish OUT
LOUD AND colorfully.

You will bury each other, Greg.

Deep down you KNOW how morally decrepit you are, despite all the facade
you put up to hide it.

And you know that you are drawn to your kind.

Now if YOU will tell a women to risk her daughter's children to loss to
CPS most certainly our buddies would sell you out in and instance, and
in fact, like you, will lab rat you big time.

My being here is the best protection you have got. I keep tipping you to
things that go deep that you use, whether or not you know it, that pull
you back from the brink from time to time.

I remind you there IS factual truth in the world, and wild accusatory
rants are by their volume and outrageousness obviously false.

I remind you that there are untrustworthies that while you are attracted
to, you are also aware of as being like you. Untrustworthy.

Just keep hummin along, living in your half dreamstate, listening to
them, and reading ME, here, and hopefully you'll come out alright.

Cut me off, listen solely to them and guess where you'll likely wind up.

>
> <snip!>
>

Yeah, you don't want to have to face the truth. ...snip...is your answer
to alot of reality that conflicts with your dearly held delusions.

CPS is ****ed, Greg. ALL government agencies are by their very nature as
controllers of society and business, etc.

But they aren't a Gestapo, and they aren't waging war. They are
vulnerable if you learn that, and totally unbeatable if you continue to
cultivate your delusions about what they are.

YOU make your own defeat.

Or you might become a thousandaire.

And will you thank me?

Not likely, but remember who first goaded you to sue, Greg. Remember who
kept telling you to get off your ass and DO IT.

And like Dan, I won't even send you a bill. He never does, I never do.

After, all, I think YOU are doing all the really hard work, and I think
Lisa deserves a little something for her trouble...'cause it's doubtful
the kid will come back with the nuisance flushing money.

I honestly hope you win, Greg. And while YOU won't give my goading you
any credit, I know the influence I've had on you.

We'll make a winner out of you even if we have to start at slimy
overturned rock bottom.

And besides, the kid will be old enough and big enough to tell you, when
you come a shampooin', to "**** off" ... and make it stick if you go
back to your towel deliverin' ways. I estimate she'll be 17 or more

Isn't it nice when everybody wins?

R R R R R R R R R

Geez you must hate me.

0:->

Greegor

November 21st 06, 12:00 PM

G > Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?

K > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because
> you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.

Michael wrote
> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> (libel and slander).
>
> Opinions are defensible simply because opinions are inherently not
> falsifiable.
>
> New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Kane, I can see where this issue might not ever have
come up for you. Truth as a defense doesn't work for you
because you are a compulsive liar.

You said that Fern supported the Georgia ABUSE
just because she criticized GLARING screwups by
the Georgia CPS agency. Your gripes about her were a LIE.

You have made statements about threats of violence.
When called on it you provided links to Mapquest and
a link to another of your own newsgroup posts making
the false assertions about Fern.

You have also stated in your own words that gloating
or openly wishing bad on somebody is a threat.

Later you changed your tune and HOPED TO PRETEND
you never said anybody made threats of violence.

You said you showed Fern's post (as described) to
your posse, but there never was any such post.
Did you just show them your misrepresentation
of what Fern said?

0:->

November 21st 06, 07:14 PM

Michael© wrote:

.....quite a bit of cherrypicked out of context agreeable bushwah....

Mike, do you always **** in your porridge before eating it?

> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
> . . .
> >
> >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> >
> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
> > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
>
> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> (libel and slander).

Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."

See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
or a similar qualifier, it's a **** poor source.

It's only one defense. It is not truly absolute (or there'd be no
'qualifiers').

Even the source you got that from is likely to carefully qualify it as
"almost always." There are exceptions.

BUT, why did you bring up "defamation?" So you'd have something to
argue?

Where did I say I was going to sue you?

Or anyone?

I could I suppose, but I wouldn't.

I don't need money. I need safety, like all of us.

I believe there are those here trying to take that away from me, and to
use threat of possible harm to supress my right to free speech, choice
of company I keep, and my opinion.

I'll get to the logical sequence that supports my thinking on this.
Keep reading.

I've made no claim in this thread that I was interested in any legal
action concerning defamation, or libel or slander. Against you or
anyone else.

At the risk of using some secret language of queer folk, that Greg
assures us is so, I'd say you are doing a monumental act of "conclusion
jumping."

I said Greg was trying to get ME to commit libel or slander.

He's so obvious, but it's fun to play with him.

Should I consider suing? You have certainly uncovered a real
possibility for me to look at.

R R R RR.....

When will I ever get over my continued amazement of how you fools step
on your own dicks. I should be accustomed to your stupidity after three
years here. I'm not though. Still surprised me how stupid you can be.

You and Greg seem to share the same propensity for concocting intent in
others that is not there. Not by any proof, not even by large stretches
of imagination. (Greg, did I use a queer term again, inadvertently?)

You lost the context by snipping, or Greg did along the way, the
sequence of statements under discussion, and so you moved the argument
on to one I have not initiated. Nor even considered.

Greg turned a corner on my comments and came up with the silly idea
that I was claiming libel and slander rather than pointing out he was
attempting to get ME to do it.

I was happy to argue "libel and slander" definition with him, for fun,
but I made NO claim I was personally saying anyone libeled or slandered
me. Or that I thought I would sue for it.

And I'm still not. But I could argue it easily though, were I Don
Fisher, don't you think?

More later on that subject...stay tuned.

Want to bet on that stated "opinion" not being actionable argument?

Later I'm going to prove to you that Don has a case. Though I doubt
he'd sue either. The twits here frankly aren't worth the trouble nor
have the assest that would make it worth the bother.

Last time I considered suing someone, my attorney had their list of
assets delivered to me in about two hours. It's that easy to get. I
was releaved when they settled as it would have greatly reduced the
award I could collect had they ****ed their money away on a lawyer. And
it was a copyright case, not defamation.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah.

Here is where the Gregtwit decided to take a turn into claiming intent
I had not made, and apparently led you down the garden path, Einstein.

>From our prior post, Greg is the source:

"Kane wrote
> > You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
> > You really are stupid.

If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?
Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?"
....................end of prior quoted prior post...........

The post is in this thread. Look it up.

Am I saying I want to sue anyone?

But you pop up and say you think I said I was going to sue you for your
opinion?

Bee-****in-zaar, Clyde.

Go do your hat trick with Greg. He's much more easily amused than I.
You can tell because he drools.

> Opinions are defensible simply because opinions are inherently not
> falsifiable.

So? You miss the point. You too seem to take odd turns around obscure
corners that do not come from or go to the path we are on. What's with
this?

You cherry picked that out of a reference and ignored further research
into the issue because it made you all warm and fuzzy feeling. "It
agreed with your need," as we used to tell delusional folks in group
therapy. Then we'd add, "... but that's not the full nor true story."

That's not a real argument, and yes, I've read the reference. And it's
wrong. Flat out.

In suit harm is always the first consideration. A lie is MORE harmful,
but even the truth can be, according to how it is used. And that's
the crux.

For instance, if I tell a lie about you and no harm comes to you, and
you can't support a claim of feeling intimated, or diminished in some
way, your suit, if you brought one, would not fly.

People aren't penalized for telling lies. They are penalized for DOING
HARM.

Did I say I was going to sue you for your opinion by the way? Or are
you deluding.

Eat more roughage at breakfast. Something is obviously backing up for
you, all the way to the top.

I know just enough about the law, and ask my lawyer before I speak, to
know that my issue here is both threat of harm, and more importantly
what to do and who to do it to, before and possibly after. Now follow
me here: SHOULD I OR OTHERS COME TO ACTUAL HARM.

Sorry to have to repeat that, and so loudly, but the arguments coming
back to me routinely ignore what my real stated intent is.

You boys keep making up intent for me that does not exist, except in
delusional fantasy.

Or bull**** smokescreens to avoid the trouble you've brought to
yourselves.

Defamation isn't, or wasn't, at any rate until YOU brought it up, an
interest of mine. I probably still am not interested except
academically at this point. I love good debate and fact finding.

But, back to what I am interested in MOST; I have certain things I can
do to reduce my risk by clarifying certain aspects of my exchanges with
folks here.

You see, no harm has come as yet. I don't really expect it, but I was a
Boy Scout.

Heck, I don't even feel diminished or held up to public ridicule.
Despite the attempts.

Can't speak for Don, but we'll get around to that question in good time
here today.

> New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

No link, no read. I don't do other's searching. Post a link.

Stop wasting time with that diversionary tactic. You really think the
readers and I will believe there is something signficant there if you
don't link to it?

Besides, neither of us qualify as a 'public figure.' You tried to
divert. Not as Kane, not as Michael.

> The truth is you are Don Fisher. Sue me if I'm wrong.

Your opinion of who I am isn't the question here. Outcomes are the
question. It is about such a statement being part of a sequence. What
the dull and dim never quite seem to figure out.

We'll get to that issue in time.

> In my opinion, Don, you are an ass. Sue me for my opinion.

I wouldn't, if I were you, bet on stated opinions not being actionable,
legally.

I'm not interested in suing, nor have I said I was. If my rights come
under attack I might move to consider that. But not for name calling.

Frankly, because I enjoy having a free swinging forum like this to give
MY opinions in, I don't bother with claiming other's opinions are
something to get bothered by. I think of it as our unspoken unwritten
fair trade agreement....R R R RR R R R

If the exchange does not result in harm, and there is no threat of harm
implied, what's to get one's panties in a twist about, eh?

There's no threat of harm, is there? Is there?

> > And you are trying to sue the state and don't know these things?
> >
> > Stay stupid. It's fun to watch you.
>
> Yes Don, you are remaining rather stupid.

Well, let's see now.

Where did I make a threat to sue that you imply by daring me to?

If you can't follow a thread, and sort out what was actually said, I'd
say you are the one remaining....stupid....again.

I said Greg was angling, as he has for weeks now, if not months, to get
me to slander or libel someone. He's aching for help from some of our
dear departed, one or two who are probably coaching him along.

The Internet, and especially Usenet are notorious for these heated
exchanges, and moreso for nothing coming of them even IF someone sues.
There is just too much chaff flying about for any claims to stick very
well. I wouldn't waste my time normally.

It's got to be some very serious **** to sue, and moreso to win. Name
calling at a sporting event <smile> rarely results in suits, at least
not successful ones.

I'm amused that you are so easily led around by someone of such great
intellect as Greg.

So, Mike, tell us there is no exception to the 'truth as absolute
defense," claim.

Here's a thought for you before the information.

A logical sequence assesment:

It's claimed I'm Don Fisher.

It's claimed here that Don Fisher is a CPS worker.

It's also claimed, vociferously, and with wild ranting accusations, Don
has done harm to innocent people. Or Kane has, or Don/Kane has. What
are the terms I see used, "Danced in their blood," "Destroyed
Families?" I think I have that right. But I can look it up if I need
to.

Following me so far? 0:->

Gee, do you suppose that might just constitute defamation if in fact he
never was a caseworker.

And that he had no contact with CPS clients, but instead worked with an
entirely different population only as a state employee? CPS has lots
of people working for them that do not do casework at all. Nor work in
the chain of command in case work. You know that Mike, don't you?

Would they not need proof, for an "absolute defense," that HE did harm
a specific family (Destroyed) and evidence of the harm he did have to
be presented, for "truth to be a defense?"

And as I recall the plural was used in DEFAMING DON FISHER....so it
would have to be "families" that he has destroyed. No?

You following me here?

And to prove that Don Fisher did harm to people would be a very very
difficult thing if the claim is he did harm by working for "gestapo
CPS."

You and I know, despite your raging stupidity, Mike, that that would
not fly with a jury in a defamation suit. Don would have been clearly
"falsely accused," which is 'defamation.' Look it up.

Who here has accused Don Fisher of being a CPS worker, and who has, by
claiming I am he, accused him of doing harm to "innocent families?"
"Destroyed Families" is the favorite claim.

Read this newsgroup.

I certainly have the list of names of people that called him that and
accused him of that. Some, as Greg so slap-happily points out, 'hide'
behind nyms for anonimity. 0:->

And some....<pregnant pause...a long one> either post with their names,
or have poor server tunneling software that makes them quite easy to
find.

Your claims? ****ing in the wind. Trying to divert and bluff.

And outrageous claims based on 'facts,' such as they are, that do not
actually apply.

We call that "delusional."

You say opinion is not actionable?

I KNOW the source you got that from just from your choice of words. You
looked ONLY at a source that agreed with you...like any good little
working propagandist would do.

Are you one?

Then you just must read this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/slander-and-libel

.... Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil
wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence;
or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings
against an individual or entity. The injury to good name or reputation
is effected through written or spoken words or visual images. ...

Opps!

See that line "or induce disparaging, hostile, or diagreeable opinion
or feelings against an individual or entity?"

Lots of lattitude, waaaaay beyond your understanding of the law in the
U.S. and Canada, right?

Hey we could sue each other as "Michael©" and "Kane," nyms.

Even judges need a laugh sometime.

I have no interest in games.

I have ONLY an interest in my safety and that of my family.

AND, ****ant, not having my concerns used against me to suppress my
exercising MY right of free speech. And you aren't a judge that can
simply order me to stop talking or go away. Nor is Greg.

I believe, and it's my opinion, Mike, that you and others here have
tried to use my concern for the safety of my family to suppress my
'speech' exposing a lot of floating turd advice and drive me from this
public forum.

Give that one a little thought.

For my part I have never made the least suggestion of exposing YOUR
family or YOU or others or their families to any kind of physical harm,
or even fear of it. Not from me, nor by me, nor wishing others would do
it to you, or them. Get my drift?

In fact I can point to many of my posts begging Greg, and other twits,
NOT to go away.

I admit to pointing out that the perp himself has put their own family
and pseudofamily at risk of harm though. CPS intervention and removal
and permanent loss of children. Which expresses my concern for the
chidlren and the family. It's all in writing, Mike.

Are you expressing concern for my family or Don Fisher's?

And the argument that I am "creating my own danger" by being here and
acting as I do founders easily, on the First Amendment. And shows that
those asking it or accusing me of it are in fact attempting to violate
my rights. Greg's been a major offender.

Fundies, and bigots, have a "one way street" thinking process in a two
way world.

Sadly they learn the hard way, most often, that if they wander over
into the other lane, there IS two way traffic, and this is actually a
two way street.

No, I would not waste my time suing someone that made claims about who
I am.

On the other hand, what might Don Fisher do about people making claims
that in fact have CRIMINAL and civil violation implications, claiming
he has "Destroyed Innocent Families?" He not only been defamed, he's
been accused of a crime.

Can't say. Bet you aren't smart enough to figure out what to do next,
Michael.

So you still want to claim I'm Don Fisher then? Or would you like to
debate Kane?

To your good health, and stay out of the other lane, but stay here for
more fun, and.....
.... eat your porridge.
> Michael©

Kane, no copyright.

0:->

November 21st 06, 07:46 PM

To those that foolishly cherry pick opinions on legal definition of
terms:

It's a risky business, or you are lying by failure to post other
opinions.

....snip...

> > "0:->" > wrote in
> > news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
> >
> > . . .
> > >

Greg:
> > >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> > >

Kane
> > > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
> > > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
> >

Michael:
> > Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> > (libel and slander).
>
> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>
> See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
> or a similar qualifier, it's a **** poor source.

Which brings us to the real world where One, not everyone agrees with
Michaels source, what ever that was, and Two, the real question of
definition get's covered in court more often than not, and Three, many
of the claims against me, or Don Fisher, have been of the kind I'm
going to bring up next.

So, here's another opinion:

http://www.publishlawyer.com/carousel4.htm

.... Another defense to defamation is proving that the statement was an
opinion, not an assertion of a fact. In nonfiction, always state the
facts and your opinion separately. WRONG: "My co-worker John Doe is a
filthy cheat." This is defamatory: an unproven, pejorative ("filthy"
and "cheat") statement about a private (non-public figure) individual.
....

Does that word choice ring any bells for any folks here, as regards to
the "Destroys Innocent Families" accusation?

That would be defamatory.

If you've made such a statement, you attorney would probably suggest to
you that you formally withdraw it in the same forum you presented it.
Just for safety sake, of course.

Then again, he might not. He migh suggest, as is shown in the example
below....

.... INSTEAD: "I saw John take five toner cartridges from the supply
closet and put them in his car." ...

.... that you PROVE your allegation of "Destroyed Innocent Families."

So you have a lot of choices here, folksies.

You can be quiet as little mice and steal away....AND I BELIEVE IN AND
DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, so please, please, I beg you, don't
go away.

There would be such a hole in my life if you did.

So stay, and speak right UP.

Then there is another possibility.

You could present one or more (should be more 'cause I think you have
used the plural...families) cases, names, dates, records, court
transcripts, Don's own words, his involvement by name, date,
contributions, etc.

And that would PROVE Don Fisher has destroyed families, so you have the
defense of the truth, that wonderful absolute defense spoken of
earlier.

Or, and it's my favorite of course, because we ALL benefit,
Constitutionally, personal safety, ease of mind and reduction of
tension over having to guess when the other shoe might fall, you might
take the honorable road, and withdraw your claims of Don being a filthy
family destroying CPS worker addressing him as Don and me as Kane, and
we can get on with the often painful debate, for you, that we enjoy
here.

What's it going to be, folksies?

This will never go away until you figure out what to do an do it.

Think about what you have done.

And don't waste your time arguing that I, Kane, have said things about
you.

That's an entirely other argument and does not in any way counter the
claims made that I am Don and that I have destroyed families because I
am a caseworker for CPS.

I'm not, never was.

I've never claimed Don wasn't a worker.

And I know of no evidence that he destroyed innocent or, for that
matter, any guilty families.

Your GUESS is defamatory, boys.

You MUST say, "Don Fisher, in April of 2003, destroyed the Clumpf
family by causing them to XXX and YYY, by his doing ZZZ. And it better
be provable.

You can't defame ME, but you can Don. I'm a nym. Turn me into Don, and
what have you got?.

Your solid proof of Don "Destroying Innocent Families" is all you have,
or you can rethink your positions and your lives. Got the proof? Let's
see it.

My very best wishes to you.

And I'll get word to Don on what you decide. Each and every one of you
singlely and individually

Don't let your testosterone get in your way.

Call me Kane, and nothing else, from this day forward, and I'll forget
all this, and we can get back to what for you is this unpleasant
business here. Much to my delight.

Don's promised me he'll forgive and forget if you call him Don and me
Kane. Otherwise there's not telling what that nutcase Don might do.

Sleep on it before you act. And don't try any offering of porridge from
Michael of the copyrighted name.

Kane, who does NOT dangerously out people, not even the guilty.

0:->

November 21st 06, 09:12 PM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > Michael© wrote:
> >
> > ....quite a bit of cherrypicked out of context agreeable bushwah....
> >
> > Mike, do you always **** in your porridge before eating it?
> >
> >> "0:->" > wrote in
> >> news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
> >>
> >> . . .
> >> >
> >> >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> >> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> >> > complainant.
> >>
> >> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> >> defamation (libel and slander).
> >
> > Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> > nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>
> It's a FACT, not a myth, [Kane]
>
> >
> > See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
> > or a similar qualifier, it's a **** poor source.
>
> Want the verbatim LAW?

Sure, if you wish to move the goal post, I'll watch you make a fool of
yourself.

> Would you still think that a MYTH?

Why would I think the law was a myth? It's not what I said.

We were discussing definitions, not statutes.

And yours would still hang your sorry ass if you happened to be the one
that claimed that "Don Fisher Destroyed Innocent Families." Did you do
that?

> Here's law from my state, verbatim. You can look up yours if you want,
> they will most all be the same.

Nope. Never take that chance they'll be the same.

Mine would be the same and is, in making inflamatory unprovable claims
of a serious nature that cannot be proven...opinions, in fact, illegal
if they harm or diminish the victim of the slader in any way.

The problem here is that's been done by someone in the group about Don
Fisher. By name, specific unprovable charges.

Ever play chess?

[[[ I shall comment with bracketed annotation. ]]]

> § 2739.01. Libel and slander.
>
> In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally,
> that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.

[[[ "You are Don Fisher, a CPS worker and you have Destroyed Innocent
Families." I'd say that's a fairly close paraphrase, would you not?
]]]

> If
> the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing that
> the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him.

[[[ If the above was published about Don Fisher would he have much
trouble proving they were in fact published? Was it so published in
this newsgroup? Or don't you think, "Don Fisher, the CPS worker,
Destroyed Innocent Families, is defamatory? Just imagine the damage
that could do to his reputation and possibly business if that was
spread about, eh?

And his standing in the community. His good name. He might have to pack
up and move it could get so bad....maybe the Bahamas, or Cancun, for
part of the year.

And if he were Kane a very good argument could be made the inflammatory
statement that he has destroyed families might well be seen as an
attempt to drive him and his voice from this forum, regardless of the
solicitous manner he's invited to stay. Judges and juries aren't
stupid.

I thiink there is a first amendment about denial of free speech. This
looks like an Internet example to me...but then, who am I to say. Let's
ask Don. ]]]

> In such action it is
> not necessary to set out any obscene word, but it is sufficient to state
> its import.

[[[ I think someone is in deeeeep ****. The rest is up to Don. What
will he do, eh? ]]]

>
> HISTORY: RS § 5093; S&C 985; 51 v 57, § 124; GC § 11341; Bureau of Code
> Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
>
>
> Now look at the defenses.
>
> § 2739.02. Defenses in actions for libel or slander.
>
> In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove
> the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof
> shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating
> circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
> HISTORY: RS § 5094; S&C 985; 51 v 57, § 125; 90 v 324; 94 v 295; GC §
> 11342; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
>
> See the 'proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense.' Is
> doesn't have your imaginary qualifiers, just simply, the truth is a
> complete defense.

Yeah, I sure do see that. Now what is the truth about Don Fisher having
"Destroyed Innocent Families," again?

May he and I see some evidence for this alleged destruction?

What was his job?

How did it impact families in a destructive way?

List the families and the "Destruction" they suffered.

And define precisely what that inflammatory term might actually mean.

Did he, Don Fisher, since he is named in particular, target a family
with malice and cause them loss?

What families please?

See the problem here, Mikey?

> >
> > It's only one defense. It is not truly absolute (or there'd be no
> > 'qualifiers').
> >
> > Even the source you got that from is likely to carefully qualify it as
> > "almost always." There are exceptions.
>
> No exceptions for the truth.

Not in your statute. I wasn't arguing any particular statutes.

And my point is being carefully avoided.

To say someone is a foul mouthed vile destroyer of families isn't the
truth, Mike.

It's just a defamatory opinion...and those, my friend, are actionable
legally.

Opinions are NOT excused from defamation claims.

To use "the truth" as a defense, one must speak the truth.

I will wait patiently to report to Don that you or others here have
come up with the truth that he did indeed target families with intent
to do harm and "destroy" them. And the names of those families. And the
dates, times, places and actions he took that resulted in destruction
of them.

You kiddies get all caught up in your rhetoric and you don't think.

> >
> > BUT, why did you bring up "defamation?" So you'd have something to
> > argue?
>
> Defamation is what slander and libel are referred to as.

It was not what I was discussing with Greg. It was my confronting him
with the notion he was attempting to get me to make libelous or
slanderous statements.

He moved the goal post a notch, you saw fit to move it another from his
point of planting it.

> >
> > Where did I say I was going to sue you?
> >
> > Or anyone?

You invited me to sue you in a daring way that implied I had stated I
wanted to sue someone.

Is that not correct?

> > I could I suppose, but I wouldn't.
> >
> > I don't need money. I need safety, like all of us.
> >
> > I believe there are those here trying to take that away from me, and to
> > use threat of possible harm to supress my right to free speech, choice
> > of company I keep, and my opinion.
> >
> > I'll get to the logical sequence that supports my thinking on this.
> > Keep reading.
> >
> > I've made no claim in this thread that I was interested in any legal
> > action concerning defamation, or libel or slander. Against you or
> > anyone else.
> >
> > At the risk of using some secret language of queer folk, that Greg
> > assures us is so, I'd say you are doing a monumental act of "conclusion
> > jumping."
> >
> > I said Greg was trying to get ME to commit libel or slander.
> >
> > He's so obvious, but it's fun to play with him.
> >
> > Should I consider suing? You have certainly uncovered a real
> > possibility for me to look at.
> >
> > R R R RR.....
> >
> > When will I ever get over my continued amazement of how you fools step
> > on your own dicks. I should be accustomed to your stupidity after three
> > years here. I'm not though. Still surprised me how stupid you can be.
> >
> > You and Greg seem to share the same propensity for concocting intent in
> > others that is not there. Not by any proof, not even by large stretches
> > of imagination. (Greg, did I use a queer term again, inadvertently?)
> >
> > You lost the context by snipping, or Greg did along the way, the
> > sequence of statements under discussion, and so you moved the argument
> > on to one I have not initiated. Nor even considered.
>
> What I did was to address your inaccurate statement that the truth isn't a
> defense for defamation, Don.

You did NOT do so accurately, and have now moved the goal post from
definition to statute.

One state may not have the same definition and case law may differ even
in states that have such a definition.

Goodness, that's one of the favorite arguments of some here. State laws
can be set aside, changed, modified, by caselaw. No?

Besides, you state law, thanks, by the way, makes clear that my actual
concern is covered. IN full.

Poor Don. He's been identified as a " a caseworker," or a "CPS worker,"
and even claimed to be me, and then I and of course he by that
association, been screamed at that he has ,"Destroyed Innocent
Families."

Is that not a correct version of the language in this newsgroup?

> . . .
>
> > To your good health, and stay out of the other lane, but stay here for
> > more fun, and.....
>
> I'll be here, Don.

Yes, I know.
>
> You don't go rushing off now either, Ya hear?

You'd love to drive me off. Or otherwise all those comments about
"Don's wife" and even hate filled opinions of what you'd like someone
to do to me would not have been spewed.

Your website that calls me a Cretin, or was it Kook, make pretty clear
your effort to have my exposure of the nonsense here suppressed is
pretty clear. Put that together with other things you have said and
it's a nice package.

Look at the verbiage you put down.

You are a confused boy, Mikey.

I'm not.

So, do you still think that Don Fisher Destroys Innocent Families, or
didn't you write that?

>
> > ... eat your porridge.
> >> Michael©
> >
> > Kane, no copyright.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©

Have some more porridge.

Sharon Ispay

November 21st 06, 09:55 PM

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

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > Michael© wrote:
> >
> > ....quite a bit of cherrypicked out of context agreeable bushwah....
> >
> > Mike, do you always **** in your porridge before eating it?
> >
> >> "0:->" > wrote in
> >> news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_YnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
> >>
> >> . . .
> >> >
> >> >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> >> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> >> > complainant.
> >>
> >> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> >> defamation (libel and slander).
> >
> > Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> > nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>
> It's a FACT, not a myth, [Kane]
>
> >
> > See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
> > or a similar qualifier, it's a **** poor source.
>
> Want the verbatim LAW?

Sure, if you wish to move the goal post, I'll watch you make a fool of
yourself.

> Would you still think that a MYTH?

Why would I think the law was a myth? It's not what I said.

We were discussing definitions, not statutes.

And yours would still hang your sorry ass if you happened to be the one
that claimed that "Don Fisher Destroyed Innocent Families." Did you do
that?

> Here's law from my state, verbatim. You can look up yours if you want,
> they will most all be the same.

Nope. Never take that chance they'll be the same.

Mine would be the same and is, in making inflamatory unprovable claims
of a serious nature that cannot be proven...opinions, in fact, illegal
if they harm or diminish the victim of the slader in any way.

The problem here is that's been done by someone in the group about Don
Fisher. By name, specific unprovable charges.

Ever play chess?

=============================

Don, you're a pathetic piece of ****. You come here to a support group for
parents abused by CPS - being a CPS scumbag, you take on a Nym and begin
harassing, falsely accusing and defaming anyone who dares to criticize CPS.
Then when you get outed for the CPS scum you are, when it's pointed out that
your behavior and that of your demon spawn Danno towards Mr. Hanson the past
5+ years violates Iowa statutes - well you go all daffy and begin flopping
around and ****ing all over stuff and barking and blustering -- yada yada

You and your cronies abused more innocent children in a year than all the
parents in Oregon combined. Your pathetic lying and false accusations,
combined with your rabid hatred of parents in general and spanking parents
in particular tells me you prolly have more victims than Hurricane Katrina.
And your pal Ramona, sheesh, we won't even go there.

So, suck a wet one Don. Grease 'em up, and roll 'em out you scumsucken CPS
puke.

0:->

November 21st 06, 11:55 PM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> .. . .
>>>> See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have
>>>> that, or a similar qualifier, it's a **** poor source.
>>> Want the verbatim LAW?
>> Sure, if you wish to move the goal post, I'll watch you make a fool of
>> yourself.
>>
>>> Would you still think that a MYTH?
>> Why would I think the law was a myth? It's not what I said.
>>
>> We were discussing definitions, not statutes.
>
> I was discussing defamation, and I provided statute that supported my
> contention that truth is a complete, absolute defense for defamation.

And I provided other citations.

>
> Now you go all off below on case law, yet you don't provide any to support
> your argument, Don.

Nope. I pointed out my argument wasn't actually about the defense, but
other things. You are just running.
>
>> And yours would still hang your sorry ass if you happened to be the one
>> that claimed that "Don Fisher Destroyed Innocent Families." Did you do
>> that?
>
> My ass is still here, Don.

We know that.

> Do your best to hang my ass. How much more
> clearly can I make it?

I don't recall saying it was unclear.

>>> Here's law from my state, verbatim. You can look up yours if you want,
>>> they will most all be the same.
>> Nope. Never take that chance they'll be the same.
>>
>> Mine would be the same and is, in making inflamatory unprovable claims
>> of a serious nature that cannot be proven...opinions, in fact, illegal
>> if they harm or diminish the victim of the slader in any way.
>>
>> The problem here is that's been done by someone in the group about Don
>> Fisher. By name, specific unprovable charges.
>>
>> Ever play chess?
>
> So glad you can tell that I do. I'm very good at it. Let's play.

No, actually I can tell you either don't play and are lying, or are very
bad at it if you are saying this late in the game, "Let's play."

What are pawns for?

>> [[[ I shall comment with bracketed annotation. ]]]
>>
>>> § 2739.01. Libel and slander.
>>>
>>> In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state,
>>> generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the
>>> plaintiff.
>> [[[ "You are Don Fisher, a CPS worker and you have Destroyed Innocent
>> Families." I'd say that's a fairly close paraphrase, would you not?
>> ]]]
>>
>>> If
>>> the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing
>>> that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him.
>> [[[ If the above was published about Don Fisher would he have much
>> trouble proving they were in fact published? Was it so published in
>> this newsgroup? Or don't you think, "Don Fisher, the CPS worker,
>> Destroyed Innocent Families, is defamatory? Just imagine the damage
>> that could do to his reputation and possibly business if that was
>> spread about, eh?
>>
>> And his standing in the community. His good name. He might have to pack
>> up and move it could get so bad....maybe the Bahamas, or Cancun, for
>> part of the year.
>
> Checkmate.

> You repeat, falsely, that you aren't Don Fisher.

And you claim falsely that that is the issue. I said clearly enough it's
not.

> So what
> actionable defamation would it be? None. And if you are Don Fisher, which
> you are, which Don Fisher is that, your hometown, etcetera.

I did not make a claim one way or the other. You took that, as you do,
liar, out of context, and left out "Destroyed Innocent Families"

I posted a citation for you showing, and your own state statutes shows,
that the "Destroyed Innocent Families" is defamatory.

>> And if he were Kane a very good argument could be made the inflammatory
>> statement that he has destroyed families might well be seen as an
>> attempt to drive him and his voice from this forum, regardless of the
>> solicitous manner he's invited to stay. Judges and juries aren't
>> stupid.
>
> Some are quite stupid. The prosecution plays on that often.

You are quite stupid.

>> I thiink there is a first amendment about denial of free speech. This
>> looks like an Internet example to me...but then, who am I to say. Let's
>> ask Don. ]]]
>
> Oh, someone has cut your phone lines then?
> You seem to have no problem posting as of yet.

Nervous dodge. You know what I'm talking about.

>>> In such action it is
>>> not necessary to set out any obscene word, but it is sufficient to
>>> state its import.
>> [[[ I think someone is in deeeeep ****. The rest is up to Don. What
>> will he do, eh? ]]]
>
> Your bull**** is the only thing in deep ****. Read on.

I read and commented.

>>> HISTORY: RS § 5093; S&C 985; 51 v 57, § 124; GC § 11341; Bureau of
>> Code
>>> Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now look at the defenses.
>>>
>>> § 2739.02. Defenses in actions for libel or slander.
>>>
>>> In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and
>>> prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth
>>> thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating
>>> circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
>>> HISTORY: RS § 5094; S&C 985; 51 v 57, § 125; 90 v 324; 94 v 295; GC
>> §
>>> 11342; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10-1-53.
>>>
>>> See the 'proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense.' Is
>>> doesn't have your imaginary qualifiers, just simply, the truth is a
>>> complete defense.
>> Yeah, I sure do see that. Now what is the truth about Don Fisher having
>> "Destroyed Innocent Families," again?
>
> Yes, you do see that clearly. Now about that deep **** thing?

The defamatory claim that Don Fisher has destroyed innocent families.
Can't you read.

It is defamatory to make both notorious inflammatory statements about
someone, and not have proof.

I am waiting for someone to post that proof.

>> May he and I see some evidence for this alleged destruction?
>>
>> What was his job?
>>
>> How did it impact families in a destructive way?
>>
>> List the families and the "Destruction" they suffered.
>>
>> And define precisely what that inflammatory term might actually mean.
>>
>> Did he, Don Fisher, since he is named in particular, target a family
>> with malice and cause them loss?
>>
>> What families please?
>>
>> See the problem here, Mikey?
>
> No but you seem to have missed the problem!

You only wish.

> The Plaintiff must prove his
> case. Because someone publishes the truth, it is not defamatory.

If it's the truth. Has Don Fisher destroyed any innocent families? Prove
it.

> Opinions are protected. You sure seem to have a lot of them.

The statement "Don Fisher has destroyed innocent families" is not stated
as opinion. Show where it could possibly be "opinion."

Your logic would make it possible for anyone to accuse someone of being
dishonest and a liar, and thief, a rapist, a child molester, and claim
it was just an opinion.

The form the original statement took, and I'll not post it here because
I enjoy letting the perps sweat trying to recall what they actually said
(I can hear google groups search engine whirring away even as I type
this), plainly said Don Fisher Destroys Innocent Families.

It did not say, "I believe," or "it's my opinion," or "I think." It said
HE DOES and DID.

>>>> It's only one defense. It is not truly absolute (or there'd be no
>>>> 'qualifiers').
>>>>
>>>> Even the source you got that from is likely to carefully qualify it
>>>> as "almost always." There are exceptions.
>>> No exceptions for the truth.
>> Not in your statute. I wasn't arguing any particular statutes.
>>
>> And my point is being carefully avoided.
>>
>> To say someone is a foul mouthed vile destroyer of families isn't the
>> truth, Mike.
>
> It's an opinion that may just be fact. You have the burden, Don.

No, Don would only have to point the form of the statement took. If it
did not constitute clearly statement of the writers opinion, by default
it is presented as a statement of fact.

It is the burden of the writer to prove Don has destroyed families.

>> It's just a defamatory opinion...and those, my friend, are actionable
>> legally.
>
> Show me the statute.

You posted it, stupid.

>>> In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state,
>>> generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the
>>> plaintiff.
>>
>>> If
>>> the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing
>>> that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him.
>>

All Don has to do is prove it was spoken of HIM.

It was spoken. It was defamatory. It was not stated as an opinion.

If the perp denies all the plaintiff must prove is that it was published.

It was. Here.

And the perp did not offer proof that would satisfy the "the truth is an
absolute defense."
>
>> Opinions are NOT excused from defamation claims.
>
> Sure are. Opinions are by nature not falsifiable.

You have to state it as an opinion in some form that is comprehensive
language. No such qualifying language preceded or amended the statement
that I paraphrase as "Don Fisher is a CPS worker that Destroyed Innocent
Families."

You know this, I know this, and the perp knows this.

>
>> To use "the truth" as a defense, one must speak the truth.
>
> Ok. You are Don Fisher.

Your statement then leads one to question if you wish to agree with the
rest of the full statement made....including that he Destroys Families.

Do you?

>
>> I will wait patiently to report to Don that you or others here have
>> come up with the truth that he did indeed target families with intent
>> to do harm and "destroy" them. And the names of those families. And the
>> dates, times, places and actions he took that resulted in destruction
>> of them.
>>
>> You kiddies get all caught up in your rhetoric and you don't think.
>>
>>>> BUT, why did you bring up "defamation?" So you'd have something to
>>>> argue?
>>> Defamation is what slander and libel are referred to as.
>> It was not what I was discussing with Greg. It was my confronting him
>> with the notion he was attempting to get me to make libelous or
>> slanderous statements.
>>
>> He moved the goal post a notch, you saw fit to move it another from his
>> point of planting it.
>>
>>>> Where did I say I was going to sue you?
>>>>
>>>> Or anyone?
>> You invited me to sue you in a daring way that implied I had stated I
>> wanted to sue someone.
>>
>> Is that not correct?
>>
>>>> I could I suppose, but I wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> I don't need money. I need safety, like all of us.
>>>>
>>>> I believe there are those here trying to take that away from me, and
>>>> to use threat of possible harm to supress my right to free speech,
>>>> choice of company I keep, and my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I'll get to the logical sequence that supports my thinking on this.
>>>> Keep reading.
>>>>
>>>> I've made no claim in this thread that I was interested in any legal
>>>> action concerning defamation, or libel or slander. Against you or
>>>> anyone else.
>>>>
>>>> At the risk of using some secret language of queer folk, that Greg
>>>> assures us is so, I'd say you are doing a monumental act of
>>>> "conclusion jumping."
>>>>
>>>> I said Greg was trying to get ME to commit libel or slander.
>>>>
>>>> He's so obvious, but it's fun to play with him.
>>>>
>>>> Should I consider suing? You have certainly uncovered a real
>>>> possibility for me to look at.
>>>>
>>>> R R R RR.....
>>>>
>>>> When will I ever get over my continued amazement of how you fools
>>>> step on your own dicks. I should be accustomed to your stupidity
>>>> after three years here. I'm not though. Still surprised me how stupid
>>>> you can be.
>>>>
>>>> You and Greg seem to share the same propensity for concocting intent
>>>> in others that is not there. Not by any proof, not even by large
>>>> stretches of imagination. (Greg, did I use a queer term again,
>>>> inadvertently?)
>>>>
>>>> You lost the context by snipping, or Greg did along the way, the
>>>> sequence of statements under discussion, and so you moved the
>>>> argument on to one I have not initiated. Nor even considered.
>>> What I did was to address your inaccurate statement that the truth
>>> isn't a defense for defamation, Don.
>> You did NOT do so accurately, and have now moved the goal post from
>> definition to statute.
>>
>> One state may not have the same definition and case law may differ even
>> in states that have such a definition.
>>
>> Goodness, that's one of the favorite arguments of some here. State laws
>> can be set aside, changed, modified, by caselaw. No?
>>
>> Besides, you state law, thanks, by the way, makes clear that my actual
>> concern is covered. IN full.
>>
>> Poor Don. He's been identified as a " a caseworker," or a "CPS worker,"
>> and even claimed to be me, and then I and of course he by that
>> association, been screamed at that he has ,"Destroyed Innocent
>> Families."
>>
>> Is that not a correct version of the language in this newsgroup?
>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>>> To your good health, and stay out of the other lane, but stay here
>>>> for more fun, and.....
>>> I'll be here, Don.
>> Yes, I know.
>>> You don't go rushing off now either, Ya hear?
>> You'd love to drive me off. Or otherwise all those comments about
>> "Don's wife" and even hate filled opinions of what you'd like someone
>> to do to me would not have been spewed.
>>
>> Your website that calls me a Cretin, or was it Kook, make pretty clear
>> your effort to have my exposure of the nonsense here suppressed is
>> pretty clear. Put that together with other things you have said and
>> it's a nice package.
>
> It's a wonderful opinion piece, Don.

You'd like to think so. Wouldn't you?

You might look for second opinions.

>> Look at the verbiage you put down.
>>
>> You are a confused boy, Mikey.
>>
>> I'm not.
>>
>> So, do you still think that Don Fisher Destroys Innocent Families, or
>> didn't you write that?
>
> Post me the article where I said that, Don Fisher, then you will have your
> answer.

Nope. You'll have to dig through your own posts to see if I'm talking
about you.

Or only you.

I'm asking you if you claim Don Fisher Destroyed Innocent Families.

You can answer a simple yes, or a simple no.

Dodging is not required or acceptable.

Or you can remain silent.

Get some advice before you jump this time.

You keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself, chess playing
killer dog trainer.

Well, that's my opinion at any rate....R R R R R R R
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> ... eat your porridge.
>>>>> Michael©
>>>> Kane, no copyright.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael©
>> Have some more porridge.
>
> Did Ann make it?

Your porridge. You **** in it. You get to eat it.

Start reviewing your posts. You'll be in for some surprises. I'm quite
aware you are like Greg in this regard. You don't remember the things
you post.

Or at least, 0:->, that's my opinion.

Some folks in this newsgroup have made unqualified claims, without
proof, of many libelous or slanderous defamatory statements.

Every time I've exposed a twit I did so from PROOF that is stored.

And I don't recall claiming that any DID destroy families, and named the
exact person (though Greg tried and tried till he was ****in' to get me
to) only claimed that families were put at risk by nature of the advice
offered.

That is clearly a statement of opinion. Your bull**** does not qualify
as opinion, and after the fact you can't cover your ass without a
retraction.

I accept no retractions off-line that I cannot post to the group. And
since that cannot authenticate the actually source, the perp will have
to post it himself.

Your porridge. You **** in it. YOU eat it.

Let the readers of this this, review their posts and find what I know is
there and who stated it, come forward, or start working out some other
strategy.

When and if we clear this one from the field, I have some other
statements of .. no, not opinion, flat out statements, I'd like to
review with a great legal expert. Michael.

You cannot change the past.

0:->

0:->

November 22nd 06, 12:30 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
>> To those that foolishly cherry pick opinions on legal definition of
>> terms:
>>
>> It's a risky business, or you are lying by failure to post other
>> opinions.
>>
> .. . .
>
>> Don't let your testosterone get in your way.
>>
>> Call me Kane, and nothing else, from this day forward, and I'll forget
>> all this, and we can get back to what for you is this unpleasant
>> business here. Much to my delight.
>
> I'll call you Don Fisher. I'll call you everything including late for
> supper, Don.
>
> Threats to prevent me from my opinion?
>
>> Don's promised me he'll forgive and forget if you call him Don and me
>> Kane. Otherwise there's not telling what that nutcase Don might do.
>>
>> Sleep on it before you act. And don't try any offering of porridge from
>> Michael of the copyrighted name.
>>
>> Kane, who does NOT dangerously out people, not even the guilty.
>
> You contradict yourself, Don.

Nope. You keep focusing on Don, not what claims were made about him.

Why is that?

> You're in fear for your life yet you are
> here daily.

Or I can allow you and others to attempt to make me leave.

> You want to bitch and post

I don't have an exclusive on the, Mikeyboy. Read your posting history.

> but when others do you threaten
> then into silence then remind them to stay!

Show where I've threatened them into silence.

Show the threats.

> I'm here and will be for a long time, Don. Don't like it? Tough ****.

I said I didn't like it? Where?

> Your threats of defamation

I made no such threats. In fact I said I had NO interest, other than
academically, of pursing such ideas. We are having an argument about
various aspects of the definitions, and I have thrown away about four
pawns.

Do you forget what they are used for?

> and e-mails to the State Police

That had nothing to do with this issue of defining defamation.

> does nothing
> for me other than to show how much I get under your skin because you don't
> intimidate me, Don.

You have a testosterone problem, boy.

It's not about intimidating you. It's about starting to believe you
might intend to incite someone else to attack Don, and your constant
mention of his wife leads me to some concern for her safety as well.

I'm not intimidating anyone. I told you. It's about safety.

You are running of at the mouth, Mike. And making it even easier to
ensure folks are safe.

Still, someone might be incited to act out of your pep talks that
describe your wishes of what you would like to happen to me, and of
course I wish to influence their thinking.

If they happen to be one of those that have joined in your occasional
ranting loony outbursts, all the better.

They might get the message.

Or should I prove how afraid I am by running away now?

To what end?

You think that would NOW ensure greater safety for me?

Your logic is full you what you are, Mike. ****.

I'll give you my opinion of you and your bull**** just as long as I
please. And neither you or the other ****ants here will use fear for
Don's family as a way of driving me off, or pretending I don't have a
reason to protect "because I'm still here."

No sane objective reader, judge or otherwise, could possibly miss the
malice and the style, and implied threats. Live with it stupid.

"Cut off your head and **** down your neck."

"Strangle you with a CPS worker's entrails."
LMAO what a simple testosterone impaired **** you are.

Crack crack.

0:->

Greegor

November 22nd 06, 09:03 AM

Kane, Can we talk about your assertion that Michael appeared
in your neighborhood? I was fascinated that you said the
three ""suspects"" were not video taped, but their pictures were
taken. In 2006 are you saying you expended emulsion film
to photograph people who appear in your neighborhood?

I submit to you that ALL THREE could have been Michael!

0:->

November 22nd 06, 03:58 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Can we talk about your assertion that Michael appeared
> in your neighborhood?

Sure, you can talk about anything you wish. So can I.

> I was fascinated that you said the
> three ""suspects""

Why the quote signs. I mentioned no suspects.

> were not video taped, but their pictures were
> taken.

Did I say that?

> In 2006 are you saying you expended emulsion film
> to photograph people who appear in your neighborhood?

Did I say "emulsion film?"

Do not digital cameras take pictures?

> I submit to you that ALL THREE could have been Michael!

Depends on what their names were, doesn't it.

And none of them could have been.

We'll never know unless there is some future need.

I suspect there will never be.

If someone takes your picture on a public thoroughfare does it mean you
are someone in particular?

Or would everyone in the frame, or taken a picture of that day, be
Greg?

You are a pretty sad case, Greg, but mildly amusing.

0:->

Greegor

November 22nd 06, 08:52 PM

Kane you said that pictures were taken of 3 people, one
of whom you thought was Michael.

Why only three?

Why not every stranger in your neighborhood?

What was special about those three strangers?

Did somebody leave a bag of poop on your doorstep?

0:->

November 23rd 06, 04:18 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane you said that pictures were taken of 3 people, one
> of whom you thought was Michael.

Did I? Quote me and cite the message. I'd like to discuss this with a
very clear rendition of what I actually said. Thanks.
>
> Why only three?
>
Why would I say more or less than the precise number?

> Why not every stranger in your neighborhood?

They were the only strangers during the period I was thinking about
when I mentioned it.

We take a lot of photos around here. Many people have security systems
that do.

Did you read the list of the professions of people that have retired in
my community and the professions of folks that have chosen to live
here.

We tend to be security conscious because we either worked directly in
varous areas of national security, or we worked directly with those
that tend to pose threats to society, one way or another.
>
> What was special about those three strangers?

Nothing. They were just three more that happened to wander in during
the time period I was thinking of when I mentioned this.
>
> Did somebody leave a bag of poop on your doorstep?

Not since the middle of last year, and it was three large truckloads,
which they dumped in my composting area.

None of the three were people anyone around here recognized as the
horse owners whose stable provides me with compost.

You should taste my vegetables.

0:-]

0:->

November 23rd 06, 04:27 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane you said that pictures were taken of 3 people, one
> of whom you thought was Michael.

Did I? Quote me and cite the message. I'd like to discuss this with a
very clear rendition of what I actually said. Thanks.
>
> Why only three?
>
Why would I say more or less than the precise number?

> Why not every stranger in your neighborhood?

They were the only strangers during the period I was thinking about
when I mentioned it.

We take a lot of photos around here. Many people have security systems
that do.

Did you read the list of the professions of people that have retired in
my community and the professions of folks that have chosen to live
here.

We tend to be security conscious because we either worked directly in
varous areas of national security, or we worked directly with those
that tend to pose threats to society, one way or another.
>
> What was special about those three strangers?

Nothing. They were just three more that happened to wander in during
the time period I was thinking of when I mentioned this. It is
extremely rare to see strangers in our community.

We have both natural barriers provided by the geography, and some human
provided ones. Very obvious.

> Did somebody leave a bag of poop on your doorstep?

Not since the middle of last year, and it was three large truckloads,
which they dumped in my composting area, not my doorstep.

Wish full thinking? Trying to insult?

None of the three were people anyone around here recognized as the
horse owners whose stable provides me with compost. Those folks would
not be strangers.

You should taste my vegetables.

0:-]

0:->

November 23rd 06, 04:34 AM

Greg how is it that you went on as though I had not written this post,
failed to answer any questions from this post, and resorted to obvious
snipperage or simply ignoring?

Then asked questions with such obvious answers as to be ludicrous ....
on your part?

0:->

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane, Can we talk about your assertion that Michael appeared
> > in your neighborhood?
>
> Sure, you can talk about anything you wish. So can I.
>
> > I was fascinated that you said the
> > three ""suspects""
>
> Why the quote signs. I mentioned no suspects.
>
> > were not video taped, but their pictures were
> > taken.
>
> Did I say that?
>
> > In 2006 are you saying you expended emulsion film
> > to photograph people who appear in your neighborhood?
>
> Did I say "emulsion film?"
>
> Do not digital cameras take pictures?
>
> > I submit to you that ALL THREE could have been Michael!
>
> Depends on what their names were, doesn't it.
>
> And none of them could have been.
>
> We'll never know unless there is some future need.
>
> I suspect there will never be.
>
> If someone takes your picture on a public thoroughfare does it mean you
> are someone in particular?
>
> Or would everyone in the frame, or taken a picture of that day, be
> Greg?
>
> You are a pretty sad case, Greg, but mildly amusing.
>
> 0:->

Greegor

November 23rd 06, 10:58 AM

Answer posted to a thread called SECURITY CAMERAS
under the Christine case and ROLLING thread.
It was totally off topic here.

Sharon Ispay

November 23rd 06, 11:58 AM

"0:->" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Greg how is it that you went on as though I had not written this post,
> failed to answer any questions from this post, and resorted to obvious
> snipperage or simply ignoring?
>
> Then asked questions with such obvious answers as to be ludicrous ....
> on your part?
>

Because you obsessivly bash, harass, and falsely accuse Mr. Hanson in nearly
EVERY post, in nearly EVERY thread, EVERY day, every week, every month,
every year for over 5 years now.

You are a seriously sick individual Don.

0:->

November 23rd 06, 06:08 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Answer posted to a thread called SECURITY CAMERAS
> under the Christine case and ROLLING thread.
> It was totally off topic here.

Review your own posting history, Greg.

Doug

November 23rd 06, 06:54 PM

> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
> > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.

Hi, Kane,

Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant proves
the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period. Absolute
defense.

>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>> defamation
>> (libel and slander).

>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That the
truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any manner,
shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

0:->

November 23rd 06, 07:25 PM

Sharon Ispay wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Greg how is it that you went on as though I had not written this post,
> > failed to answer any questions from this post, and resorted to obvious
> > snipperage or simply ignoring?
> >
> > Then asked questions with such obvious answers as to be ludicrous ....
> > on your part?
> >
>
> Because you obsessivly bash, harass, and falsely accuse Mr. Hanson in nearly
> EVERY post, in nearly EVERY thread, EVERY day, every week, every month,
> every year for over 5 years now.

You are lying. A recent poster who was one of his intended victims just
posted here.

Now THIS one you can't claim as a Dan sock without looking even more
ridiculous than when you tried it with others, like Chuck.

> You are a seriously sick individual Don.

I thank you spelled that wrong. It's
"G...R...E...G/D...E...N...N...I...S"

Don, if my last contact with him is any indication, not only is very
well and very sane and especially carring for family...ALL family, that
I hear he's still doing all he can to help families stay together.

Fancy that.

Kane

Ron

November 23rd 06, 08:53 PM

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
>> > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
>
> Hi, Kane,
>
> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> Absolute defense.

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news group
for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>>> defamation
>>> (libel and slander).
>
>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>
> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

Ron

Ron

November 23rd 06, 10:57 PM

"Michael©" > wrote in message
. 97.140...
> "Ron" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
>>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
>>>> > complainant.
>>>
>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>
>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
>>> Absolute defense.
>>
>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
>>
>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>>
>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>>>>> defamation
>>>>> (libel and slander).
>>>
>>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
>>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
>>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>>>
>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>
>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>
> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
>
> LMAO
>
> =====================================
> truth
>
> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
>
> ORIGIN Old English.
>
> Oxford University Press, 2006
> =====================================
>
> The truth is a fact.
>
> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
>
>
>>
>> Ron
>>

Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
is accepted as true."

Ron

Greegor

November 24th 06, 03:02 AM

Sharon Ispay wrote:
> Because you obsessivly bash, harass, and falsely accuse Mr. Hanson in nearly
> EVERY post, in nearly EVERY thread, EVERY day, every week, every month,
> every year for over 5 years now.

Kane wrote
> You are lying. A recent poster who was one of his intended victims just
> posted here.
> Now THIS one you can't claim as a Dan sock without looking even more
> ridiculous than when you tried it with others, like Chuck.

I can hardly wait.

Kane wrote
> Don, if my last contact with him is any indication, not only is very
> well and very sane and especially carring for family...ALL family, that
> I hear he's still doing all he can to help families stay together.
> Fancy that.

Sharon Ispay

November 24th 06, 12:35 PM

"Michael©" > wrote in message
. 97.140...
> "Ron" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
>>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
>>>> > complainant.
>>>
>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>
>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
>>> Absolute defense.
>>
>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
>>
>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>>
>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>>>>> defamation
>>>>> (libel and slander).
>>>
>>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
>>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
>>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>>>
>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>
>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>
> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
>
> LMAO

At CPS High, truth is ALWAYS variable.

>
> =====================================
> truth
>
> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
>
> ORIGIN Old English.
>
> Oxford University Press, 2006
> =====================================
>
> The truth is a fact.
>
> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
>
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©
> We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very
> average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something
> very special.
>
> Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989
>

Dan Sullivan

November 24th 06, 01:16 PM

Ron

November 24th 06, 04:02 PM

"Michael©" > wrote in message
. 97.140...
> "Ron" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Michael©" > wrote in message
>> . 97.140...
>>> "Ron" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
>>>>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
>>>>>> > complainant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
>>>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
>>>>> Period. Absolute defense.
>>>>
>>>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
>>>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>>>>>>> defamation
>>>>>>> (libel and slander).
>>>>>
>>>>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
>>>>>>you'll nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
>>>>>>actually say, "in almost every instance truth is an absolute
>>>>>>defense."
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
>>>>> That the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
>>>>> in any manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>>>
>>>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>>>
>>> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
>>>
>>> LMAO
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>> truth
>>>
>>> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
>>> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false.
>>> 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
>>>
>>> ORIGIN Old English.
>>>
>>> Oxford University Press, 2006
>>> =====================================
>>>
>>> The truth is a fact.
>>>
>>> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>
>> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
>> that is accepted as true."
>
> The name is Michael, not Mikey.

I call them as I see them mikey, and after watching your antics here, right
along with your ongoing fallacious claim of copyright protections for your
posts, you sure do seem to be quite infantile. But hey, I'm willing to
entertain a differing viewpoint, assuming of course that you are willing to
cut all the childish antics and behave like an adult.

> You're like a little child. You can't even understand the simplest
> principal of the truth being a fact.
>
> What part of 'a fact' didn't you understand?

(snip the inane)

>
> Think, Ronaldo! How foolish you look by not understanding a simple concept
> such as the truth is a fact!

I guess that you just are not capable of comprehending the point. Let's see
if I can help you out in this.

The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
perspective and personal belief structure. What you may believe to be the
"truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact. Its the
reason there are two different words and two different definitions. "Truth"
is a product of an individuals belief structure and may or may not be based
on the available facts. "Truth" is a leap of faith, the belief that what
you hold as being the truth may or may not be supported by what is.

"Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It can
be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still remains
as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is what
changes, not the fact itself.

Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS NOT.
Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept. Even if you are not
capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not consider it a waste
of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as well, and they may
be able to understand what you fail to. 2. You may indeed have that little
light bulb inside your head flash on with the comprehension of a difficult
concept and thereby have realized one of the basic constants of the
universe. 3. Even if you cannot find it in yourself to expand your
understanding of the universe, its been kind of fun poking holes in your
belief structure, even if just for a second.

Ron

>
> And diff'ring judgements serve but to declare
> That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where.
>
> William Cowper (1731 - 1800)
> British poet.
> "Hope"
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©
> Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms
> of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.
>
> Albert Einstein
>

0:->

November 24th 06, 08:51 PM

Michael© wrote:
........snip....

> So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
> extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
> correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?

Myself?

Deflationary. Yes, most assuredly the Deflationary.

0:-]

"What is "Truth" is not necessarily what is "True, for "truth" like
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. True is absolute. Truth never is
so bounded or confined."

Can you guess the author?

k

0:->

November 24th 06, 08:52 PM

Michael© wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> "Michael©" > wrote in message
> .. . .
>
>>> The name is Michael, not Mikey.
>> I call them as I see them mikey, and after watching your antics here,
>> right along with your ongoing fallacious claim of copyright protections
>> for your posts, you sure do seem to be quite infantile. But hey, I'm
>> willing to entertain a differing viewpoint, assuming of course that you
>> are willing to cut all the childish antics and behave like an adult.
>>
>>> You're like a little child. You can't even understand the simplest
>>> principal of the truth being a fact.
>>>
>>> What part of 'a fact' didn't you understand?
>> (snip the inane)
>
> You snipped proof that fact is truth. Not very truthful no matter your
> perspective.
>
>>> Think, Ronaldo! How foolish you look by not understanding a simple
>>> concept such as the truth is a fact!
>> I guess that you just are not capable of comprehending the point. Let's
>> see if I can help you out in this.
>>
>> The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
>> perspective and personal belief structure.
>
> The truth is not variable. If you believe the truth to be variable, then
> there can be no truth. There is only one truth or fact for something; all
> the variables are inaccurate untruths.
>
> Someone's perspective of the truth may be different than another's, but
> the truth is unchanged and has but one perspective, fact.
>
>
>> What you may believe to be
>> the "truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact.
>> Its the reason there are two different words and two different
>> definitions. "Truth" is a product of an individuals belief structure
>> and may or may not be based on the available facts. "Truth" is a leap
>> of faith, the belief that what you hold as being the truth may or may
>> not be supported by what is.
>>
>> "Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It
>> can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still
>> remains as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is
>> what changes, not the fact itself.
>
> If you find the truth unsupportable, it is not the truth. The truth is
> fact. After all perspectives have been removed, you are left with the
> truth, the fact.
>
> Let me dumb it down for you Ronaldo Jr.
>
> Let's assume we know that your true birth name is Ron, a fact and the
> truth that has been proven.
>
> You go to a party and introduce yourself as John to everyone there. To
> them the truth is that you are John and they may even swear to it under
> oath. Their truth is based on non-fact though and is not really the
> truth, so no matter if it is different and truthful in their perspective,
> it is NOT the truth.
>
> No matter what perspective they or anyone else has, the truth and the fact
> remain solid and unchangeable; you are Ron, not John.
>
>> Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS
>> NOT. Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.
>
> When the truth changes, it wasn't the truth to begin with.
>
>> I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
>> enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept. Even if you are not
>> capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not consider it a
>> waste of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as well, and
>> they may be able to understand what you fail to. 2. You may indeed
>> have that little light bulb inside your head flash on with the
>> comprehension of a difficult concept and thereby have realized one of
>> the basic constants of the universe. 3. Even if you cannot find it in
>> yourself to expand your understanding of the universe, its been kind of
>> fun poking holes in your belief structure, even if just for a second.
>
> You attempt to belittle me and make a fool of yourself in the process!
>
> So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
> extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
> correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?

Likely to which ever one knows that "true" and "Truth" are not the same
word, not do they have precisely the same meaning.

In the 'true' we can include "fact," as a given.

In the word "Truth" we invariably are faced with the very argument that
Ron tenders.

A fact will remain a fact, "true," no matter what "Truth" someone
interprets it by.

No matter what "philosophy," is used as the paradigm to view it through.

We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.

Truth is an assessment and always will be.

Kane

PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.

You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=correspondence%2C+pragmatic%2C+coherence+or+defl ationary&btnG=Search

Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and not
attribute.

Same goes for chess.

k

>
>> Ron
>>
>
> .. . .
>
>
>

0:->

November 25th 06, 02:27 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> :
>
> ...
>
> >> So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
> >> extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
> >> correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?
> >
> > Myself?
> >
> > Deflationary. Yes, most assuredly the Deflationary.
>
> That totally explains your attitude that whatever you or your cohorts say
> is the gospel!

We not more have made such a claim, or argued in such a fashion that
you have, Michael.

And you know it.

You can lay off the bull****.

See ME putting up a ascps website and FAQ?

Get real.

You got the joke. Say "Ha ha."

> ...
>
> --
> Michael© 24 November 2006 8:02:20 PM
> Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms
> of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.
>
> Albert Einstein

0:->

November 25th 06, 02:48 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:_p6dnQFQ7rAxxvrYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
> .. . .
>
>> We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
>> our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.
>>
>> Truth is an assessment and always will be.
>
> But the truth is fact.

Nope. It is no such thing. One man's "truth" is how he sees the universe
and it's parts. Others may strongly disagree.

Finding what is "true" and a "fact" is much much harder, and the
business of science with the goal NEVER MET. Truth is not true. It is
the interpretation of what we wish would hold still and be immutable,
but never does. No atom holds still, just as no element of argument does.

> You ignored the example I gave to Ronaldo.

I did? How is it I am commenting on it?

> Was it
> to complicated for you to comprehend

I comprehend you are now being an ass, when in fact you were offered a
chance to debate.

> or did it just hurt your head to
> think?

See above.

I love this as an example that "True," and "Truth" are not the same thing.

You just told us your "Truth," but people in the real world know that
how a "true fact" is presented by another through his own filter system
may not (and usually DOE not) precisely describe the "true fact" to an
exactitude.

No, your example now in how you present shows this.

The ignoring of the similarity, but the essential difference of "true,"
"truths" is perfect.

Here is the logic to consider. Is it true that it hurts me head to
think? If not why did you ask rhetorically?

Was it a lie, or is this your "truth," according to how you see me?

You KNOW the answer. That is "truth."

What is "true" about my head and thinking about complex issues, is that
on the contrary if I have a headache a sure fire way to ignore it or
make it go away is to work on difficult mental problems.

Now that is MY truth, but it is not YOUR true. To me it is "true," and
to you, NOT "true."

Are you getting this now?

Truth is an abstraction...a construct. "True" is an immutable fact.

Name a couple of immutable facts.

Then explore them in the literature, and see who agrees and doesn't, and
you have your answer about "truth," and "true."

>> Kane
>>
>> PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
>> argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
>> pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.
>>
>> You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?
>
> More of your ignorance to the fact that others are educated far beyond
> what you ever were?

I don't believe you. Nothing in your posts have ever suggested you have
either a classical education, or are very well self educated.

> I see. You don't understand or can't comprehend something so it must not
> be true, or others couldn't possibly comprehend them because you can't.
...snip **** you Michael ... snip

If I knew your name I would not post it here regardless of who you are
what you do, or how much I disagree with you. You are a coward that
wants to excuse yourself endangering people for your being ****ed off at
me. Grow up.

You can't argue the issue.

You earned that report to the OSP and you know it.

In my position would have done exactly the same? You are exhibiting the
morals of a Greg. Shame on you. And that is the truth. 0:->

>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=correspondence%2C+pragmatic%2C+c
>> oherence+or+deflationary&btnG=Search
>>
>> Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and not
>> attribute.
>
> How does one paraphrase names of the philosophies of truth?

describe some central principle and use it for a label.

I can't believe I have to tell a highly educated man how to paraphrase.

And they were and are not listed only as proper nouns. Or did you miss
that in your google hits?

There are a number of ways to "label" them without naming them.
>
>> Same goes for chess.
>
> That game you suck at?

How do you know? You have some special psychic line to the truth, do you?

The truth 0:-> is that you never played me at chess, Michael. Frankly I
doubt you have ever played the game or if you did you gave it up.

A bit of concentration on facts, what is true, and the truth would serve
you well in your on line exchange using the tactics of chess with me.

Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

0:->

0:->

November 25th 06, 07:01 AM

Michael© wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in
> news:mZadnVMISau9MvrYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
>
> > Michael© wrote:
> >> "0:->" > wrote in
> >> news:_p6dnQFQ7rAxxvrYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:
> >>
> >> .. . .
> >>
> >>> We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
> >>> our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.
> >>>
> >>> Truth is an assessment and always will be.
> >>
> >> But the truth is fact.
> >
> > Nope. It is no such thing. One man's "truth" is how he sees the universe
> > and it's parts. Others may strongly disagree.
>
> That isn't the truth he see's before him. That is his opinion, his
> theory, but not a truth.

You continue to obfuscate the fact that "true," and "truth" are not the
same thing in all instances.

Sometimes "the truth," which is subjective, is 'fact' which is totally
objective.

A fact cannot change. The truth can.

Scientific research is a wonderful example.

Do they ever find the "truth."

> >
> > Finding what is "true" and a "fact" is much much harder, and the
> > business of science with the goal NEVER MET.
>
> It is found. Truth is fact.

Declaring it to be so isn't making it so, Michael.

Truth is that effort of ours to convince each other we have the
facts..what is true.

We call it "truth" so as to give it weight.

> > Truth is not true. It is
> > the interpretation of what we wish would hold still and be immutable,
> > but never does. No atom holds still, just as no element of argument
> > does.
>
> We do not know if atoms remain motionless at absolute zero because it is
> impossible experimentally to reach that condition yet.

Yes, I know. You are about to prove my postulate.

> You're stating that no atom holds still is not true, truthful or a fact.

Until we have the facts my "truth" about it is a good as anyones,
Michael

No atom has to this point been proven to hold still and that is the
"fact."

I look at that and postulate my truth from it. Until you or others can
provide the proof you just mentioned is being sought, I have the truth.

> >
> >> You ignored the example I gave to Ronaldo.
> >
> > I did? How is it I am commenting on it?
>
> You commented somewhere on the example of names at a party? Sorry I missed
> your comment on it.

Now I'm stumped. Must be tired. I was dragging a three hundred pound
former "institutional" barb wire topped cyclone fence gate around the
garden this morning to close the last gap in the elk and deer fence.
You'd be amazed where I picked that up, Michael.

It was a long haul.

I might remember what you are referring to with prompting though. 0:->

> >> Was it
> >> to complicated for you to comprehend
> >
> > I comprehend you are now being an ass, when in fact you were offered a
> > chance to debate.
>
> Well, since you think my given name is Asshole. . .

Given name?

Goodness, that would have been rude and even cowardly of me. I
apologize. No call for such.

Was there?

> > > or did it just hurt your head to
> >> think?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > I love this as an example that "True," and "Truth" are not the same
> > thing.
> >
> > You just told us your "Truth," but people in the real world know that
> > how a "true fact" is presented by another through his own filter system
> > may not (and usually DOE not) precisely describe the "true fact" to an
> > exactitude.
>
> If it is not exact and provable, it is not a fact nor the truth, just an
> opinion, a theory.

Then the point I made about the atom stands as the truth. Not yet
"true," but not disprove.

> The atomic weight of Helium is 4.0026.

The periodic table is not a product of nature. The name and number is a
product of man.

> That is the truth, a fact and
> true.

That we agreed to call "something" by a name and number makes it true
for the universe we live in?

What would God call it?

> If someone believes differently because of their perspective, their
> education or however, that does not make their version true, the truth or
> a fact.

They would be foolish to disagree in such a petty way to a perfectly
workable CONSTRUCT we have worked out to try and measure and
differentiate.

> >
> > No, your example now in how you present shows this.
> >
> > The ignoring of the similarity, but the essential difference of "true,"
> > "truths" is perfect.
> >
> > Here is the logic to consider. Is it true that it hurts me head to
> > think? If not why did you ask rhetorically?
>
> It was nothing but sarcasm, and you know full well.

That was not apparent to me, and I am telling you the "truth" about my
thoughts at the time.

How am I to tell when you are being sarcastic or mean it, and when did
sarcasm escape from the boundaries of defining 'truth," true," and the
"facts?"

You meant to say I couldn't think.

That you put is sarcastically makes NO difference to you meaning an
intent.

Unless of course I am wrong and that was NOT your intent.

Tell me the TRUTH, Michael.

Did you intend your sarcasm to mean that I am less capable of thinking
than you?

> > Was it a lie, or is this your "truth," according to how you see me?
>
> It was sarcasm.

I didn't miss that.

Sarcasm usually doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is pointedly used to make
a point. To make a claim.

Did you or did you not with to convey that I am diminished in my
thinking capacity?

What is the truth of your meaning and intent?

> > You KNOW the answer. That is "truth."
> >
> > What is "true" about my head and thinking about complex issues, is that
> > on the contrary if I have a headache a sure fire way to ignore it or
> > make it go away is to work on difficult mental problems.
> >
> > Now that is MY truth, but it is not YOUR true. To me it is "true," and
> > to you, NOT "true."
>
> By the very nature of it not working for me as it does for you, shows that
> it is not fact. It just may work for you but, your headache is not
> something tangible. That is philosophical.

I have two gold caps. You have none (metaphorically speaking). Does
your not having them make mine no longer true, truth, a fact?

And no, my headache is perfectly tangible. It can be measured. I can
give it a number...0:-> and in time get others to accept that I measure
headache in this way. My periodic headache table has about three kinds
of headaches. I call one SUPERDUPER 007, another I call, DAMNED
ANNOYING DISTRACTION AND WHY DON'T I JUST GET A GOOD ONE AND TAKE A
DAMNED PILL AND MAKE IT GO AWAY number DOG.

Yes, that's a number as far as I'm concerned. I just have to get others
to agree to a number being a measure for my periodic table.

> Your age for example, is (x) years. That is a fact. It can result in a
> different number depending on what means you use to measure (variable and
> perspective), but you have seen (x) numbers of sunrises (cycles that are
> fixed as a fact).

Yes, x years. Wrong. I've lived underground for a time, and many times
lived where the sun did not rise for up to six weeks.

Sorry. That's MY truth.

Did it shorten or lengthen my life?

> >
> > Are you getting this now?
>
> What I think I'm getting from you and Ron is a more simplistic version of
> thought on this matter.

I will discuss this little bit of arrogance and hubris in a mo,
Michael. And with it a little lesson.

> You need to go deeper. You spent so many years
> with children that you attempt to function on their level when dealing
> with difficult matters.

Not so. I wish there had been more time with them to learn better how
to think more clearly than adults normally do. They are uncluttered.
Direct. Plain and clean.

Actually I spent far more hours with adults. Children have only so much
attention they should be giving adults, and they need learning time on
their own, with only the required level of safe supervision.

Otherwise they can be stunted or sidetracked into weird thinking and
behavior.

On average, any give day I would spend about 10 hours in sleep and my
personal toilet. shower, dressing etc.

I'd do about 3 hours commuting, and at least three hours in writing for
publication.

Then at most three hours with children.

The rest would be taken up in professional assessment of observations,
review of mental health records and updating them from the latest
interactions with the children.

A great many adult activities there, Michael.

Now as to your attempt to make Ron and myself out as simple.

Time and again I learned this lesson the hard way.

One's value, capacity to produce, ability to discover important things
in life are not confined to the "educated." Not even those that test
high on designed tests.

No, I've had some wonderfully embarrassing moments when I discovered
someone that was quieter than I, less educated had deeper insights into
something I thought I knew well.

If anyone is shallow and simple minded here, Michael you are for trying
the ploy with Ron or I.
> >
> > Truth is an abstraction...a construct. "True" is an immutable fact.
>
> Truth can have many faces, but only one factual one. When that one is
> found, the others become opinions.

Your second phrase is incongruent to the first one. Fact is not Truth.

And it cannot be because what you know to be fact today, can be found
to have been mistaken tomorrow and that happens all to frequently to
those with too much assurance they have the fact, in an immutable
sense.
> >
> > Name a couple of immutable facts.
>
> I. See the above for the atomic weight of Helium.

Those are agreed upon.
>
> II. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is pi.

Pi is a name for something. What is pi, but a number.

Do numbers exist in nature, or did we dream them up as a tool to
measure by agreement?

> III. The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

What's a meter?

The speed of light is also 23 clomensiases.

We just have to agree on that, and use other numbers to provide
fractions to work with to make it a perfectly fine fact we can use in
the study and application of physics.

You mistake the truth for true.

The best we can do with your example is to hope we are right that light
travels at all.

That's a construct of OUR nervous system, not a universal truth.

It could be that "light" holds still, and everything else moves in
relation to it.

> >
> > Then explore them in the literature, and see who agrees and doesn't, and
> > you have your answer about "truth," and "true."
>
> The above truths, facts and truisms I made are agreed to by everyone.

Thank you for proof that "truth" is agreed upon. Now what is a fact?

What is 'true?"

They only become truth WHEN WE AGREE. What if we don't.

Your truth would have a bushman and his family rolling on the ground
with laughter. They know damn well the only really true thing is that
when jackals call a certain way it will rain within the next 24 hours,
and they are more often right than WE are.

> Now care to show me how that which you requested is different by a
> perspective?

See all the above.

Truth is an agreed upon concept as is what is "true."

If your argument is that it's true when WE agree, then what does that
suggest to you, if we don't?

> >>> Kane
> >>>
> >>> PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
> >>> argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
> >>> pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.
> >>>
> >>> You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?
> >>
> >> More of your ignorance to the fact that others are educated far beyond
> >> what you ever were?
> >
> > I don't believe you. Nothing in your posts have ever suggested you have
> > either a classical education, or are very well self educated.
>
> Are you using the psychic hotline now?

I said IN your posts. That's all I can go on.

> >
> >> I see. You don't understand or can't comprehend something so it must
> >> not be true, or others couldn't possibly comprehend them because you
> >> can't.
> > ...snip **** you Michael ... snip
>
> LMAO, no thanks.

Sorry I meant **** yourself and I mean that most kindly and sincerely.

> >
> > If I knew your name I would not post it here regardless of who you are
> > what you do, or how much I disagree with you. You are a coward that
> > wants to excuse yourself endangering people for your being ****ed off at
> > me. Grow up.
>
> My name is Michael.

That's not your full name.

And when you use a nym and attempt to out others that do what does that
say about you?

> I'm in no way endangering anyone.

We've been over that. If someone says they want to kill you, which way
do you live, and I give them your address?

> Cite facts if you wish to accuse me.

**** you, most kindly and sincerely, Michael.

> Apparently the Oregon State Police didn't see any danger from me either or
> they would have acted.

I didn't ask them to.

I asked them to look at it, it's now on record.

You try to pass yourself off as a chess player?

I asked you a question and you didn't answer. That told me you did not
understand the strategies of chess.

I asked if you knew what pawns were used for.

My post to OSP was a pawn. It clear the way is all.

And if I have calculated correctly I will never have to use the way I
cleared.

> By the way, I'm not ****ed off at you or anyone here.

Sure. Read your FAQ on the group.

Unless there is a real definition for a kook and it isn't derogatory,
and you really think that cretin, once a TRUTH, since it was medically
defined, was a kindly and loving or even neutral label you are one very
simple soul.

And no one but you is fooled by that silly claim above.

> >
> > You can't argue the issue.
>
> I'm doing very well.

Actually you are not. You can't even understand how human constructs
agreed upon don't create "facts," just agreement.

> You seem incapable of doing what you claim I'm
> doing.

Is that your "truth" Michael?

> Don't run and prove me correct, answer my question above about how
> the facts and truths and what is true can change by someone's perspective.

I'm completely at sixes and sevens, as I don's see that's what you
asked.

> >
> > You earned that report to the OSP and you know it.
> I earned a false report from posting my opinion on this group?

I didn't report your opinion. I simply posted your post. Others can
decide if it's an opinion or not. Your opion about what others would
make of it is your opinion.

> I
> certainly don't think I did.

Of course not.

> That was low even for you.

It was far less than you deserve for your comments about Don's wife,
and your callous disregard of her and of him.

You put Don Fisher's family at risk, stupid.

Kane is thoroughly hated here and you know it, and there have been
people here that threatened death, and you know that. You are trying to
link the two of us.

You want a pat on the back?

That's cowardly.

No matter how stupid and vile and how much of a jerk you have been I've
done NOTHING to put you in danger, or even hint at it.

Coward. Bringing innocent people in by NAME is **** spewing. And you
know it.

You should be ashamed. I doubt you are.

Some troll asshole came here and ran up a list of Greg's civil court
case..mostly just normal bull**** that many of us have had to deal
with.

I found that, despite my dislike of his nonsense I would NEVER do that
kind of cowardly thing.

Unless it referred directly to an argument between us that HE willingly
participated in I would have NOT business listing all his and Lisa's
legal hassles.

I told the ****ant troll off, and of course Greg comes back claim I'm
the troll. Hell, knowing his buddies it was more likely Dennis or some
other ****ant.

That was cowardly of whoever it was.

It was cowardly of YOU to name individuals here that are totally
uninvolved. I didn't put your mother's name up here, did I?

You ****ant.

> > In my position would have done exactly the same?
>
> Absolutely not. I would have said **** you and left if I couldn't handle
> the heat in the kitchen.

Bull****. You instead put Don Fisher's name up here and that of his
wife. You are a coward.
That's unacceptable here.

I have never mentioned his name or her name here. Other than to **** on
those that started that crap.

> >You are exhibiting the
> > morals of a Greg. Shame on you. And that is the truth. 0:->
> >
> >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=correspondence%2C+pragmatic%2C
> >>> +c oherence+or+deflationary&btnG=Search
> >>>
> >>> Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and
> >>> not attribute.
> >>
> >> How does one paraphrase names of the philosophies of truth?
> >
> > describe some central principle and use it for a label.
>
> I'm required to write a paragraph to ask a question? That goes against
> everything I was taught. Short and to the point.

Nope. One word can be descriptive. Do I have to teach you to
paraphrase?

Try a thesaurus for **** sakes. Somewhere along the way surely you
learned to use one.

> > I can't believe I have to tell a highly educated man how to paraphrase.
>
> I can't believe you think someone should have to paraphrase a simple,
> single question!

I don't. I am glad you didn't, because it made clear that you copped it
from a website you looked up real quicklike to lend credibility to your
bull****ting arrogances.

> >
> > And they were and are not listed only as proper nouns. Or did you miss
> > that in your google hits?
>
> I didn't use Google. Haven't I told you Google is not my friend?

Nope. And it's your best friend when you want to dissemble.

I've watched you do it, then put the phrase to a search and found the
article you copped from and put that up here for you before.

You have such a Gregorian memory.

> >
> > There are a number of ways to "label" them without naming them.
> >>
> >>> Same goes for chess.
> >>
> >> That game you suck at?
> >
> > How do you know? You have some special psychic line to the truth, do
> > you?
>
> Perhaps the same one you use for me.

I don't have one. I based what I claim on what I believe I am seeing.
Nothing more.

> I don't know for fact, I made an educated guess, an opinion based on your
> not wiling to play a round here amongst our discussions.

Totally abstruse.

> >
> > The truth 0:-> is that you never played me at chess, Michael. Frankly I
> > doubt you have ever played the game or if you did you gave it up.
>
> I have been playing for many years. I'm willing to put my money where my
> mouth is. Play me, and if you win I will never call you Don again. If I
> win you will admit I am accurate and truthful in referring to you as Don
> Fisher.

You just bought a **** you, stupid.

> >
> > A bit of concentration on facts, what is true, and the truth would serve
> > you well in your on line exchange using the tactics of chess with me.
>
> Except for the fact that, I'm not playing a game with you. I'm just
> stating my opinion on matters here, right or wrong.

No, you are not. You lie, and you put up what you won't.

You are full of ****.

> > Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
> > again, stupid.
>
> My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

It would not matter.

If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am. I can buy IP dial
up from any damn place in the country that I want.

And you can't find a Don Fisher in Hood River.
There is one in Bend, but again, he's not me, because I'm Kane.
>
> I do notice you didn't call me a liar. Thanks.

I was lax.

You attempt to deceive. And you do it for nothing but your ****ant
cowardly ego...you got your ass kicked by both Dan and I and you do NOT
like that.

Do you have anyone here that classifies you by profession and wishes to
hurt you or your family?

Read Dennis' sock bull****, stupid. Then tell me that you don't mean
harm to Don Fisher.

That crap has gone on here for years.

And you take a great risk one of those assholes will act out, and YOUR
opinion will be reviewed as to content.

Other such assholes have in the past and you have that information. So
how do you justify helping those assholes with trying to link Don
Fisher to me, whether or not it's true or NOT?

****ant.

You are just as dangerous as Greg, possibly moreso.

> > 0:->

You are out of touch with reality and that's what you need to continue
to be able to push your stupid agenda. Which appears to be finding a
way to threaten others because your ego is threatened. Just my
opinion...and so's this :

Grow up.

> --
> Michael© 24 November 2006 11:32:21 PM
> Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man
> present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the
> entire population.
>
> Albert Einstein

Doug

November 25th 06, 08:49 AM

> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Hi, Ron!

Interesting concept. Nonetheless, outside of the newsgroup, in matters of
law, truth is an absolute defense to libel actions. A libel is, by legal
defination, a false statement. So, if the statement is true, regardless of
whether the truth is inflamatory or defames the subject of the statement,
the statement is not libel.

British law -- and to some degree Canadian law -- holds that a statement
that is true but damages the subject of the statement is libelous. This led
our Founding Fathers to reject the obvious danger to freedom of speech/press
in this doctrine, since, in theory, the greater the truth the greater the
damage done to the subject. In the United States of America, truth is an
absolute defense to any libel action.

As it should be.

Because of our country's tradition of freedom of speech and of the press,
libel laws even protect false statements under certain circumstances. For
instance, members of this newsgroup may be, arguably, public figures in that
they have thrust themselves into the public eye by nature of their
contributions to the forum. It's a gray area. If they were to be ruled
public figures, then a FALSE statement, would still not result in a
judgement of libel if the defendant could prove a lack of malice in making
the false statement. (In libel law, malice is defined as a statement
written "with reckless disregard for the truth.")

For libel to occur, the statement:

1) Must be false.
2) Must be done with malice (in the case of public figures, only)
3) Must be directed toward someone who is identified (an anonymous poster
would not have the recourse of libel action because they are not
identifable)
4) Must cause damage to reputation or other damages....professionals or
others who depend on their reputation would be more likely to prevail.

The requirement for a showing of malice exists partially because of the US
Supreme Court's recognition of deadline pressure experienced by newspaper
reporters. They often escape a libel judgment because their FALSE statement
was made under deadline pressure, where they claimed they did not have the
time to verify the truth. A monthly magazine, however, would not have the
same defense.

For instance, Kane's retraction in another thread in this newsgroup would
only mitigate charges of malice in a libel lawsuit. It presupposes that the
one bringing the libel lawsuit would be ruled a public figure and therefore
required to prove malice. If the trial court ruled the target of the libel
to be a private citizen, then the retraction would have no legal weight. A
retraction does not eliminate the libel, it can only be weighed when
considering malice.

There are also absolute privledges in libel statutes -- again, because of
our country's dedication to freedom of speech and of the press. For
instance, if a FALSE statement about someone is made in a courtroom that
untrue statement can be published without the subject of the false
inflamatory statement having recourse for libel.

Libel law is very complex and often changes through case by case decisions.
However, some elements remain fundamental and absolute. However. the
requirement that the statement be false -- thereby establishing truth as an
absolute defense -- remains fixed and absolute.

> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Not in libel lawsuits. The USSC chose the word "truth" in defining the
absolute defense to libel. The word, "absolute" itself, like "truth," has
specific meaning in law.

>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>
> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

No, Ron, truth is an absolute defense to libel lawsuits.

Doug

November 25th 06, 09:03 AM

> The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
> perspective and personal belief structure. What you may believe to be the
> "truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact.

Hi, Ron!

What you find to be not a fact has nothing whatsoever to do with how a judge
weighs the facts and applies the law in a libel action, which is what we
were talking about. In law, truth has a very specific meaning. And the law
says, "truth is an absolute defense to libel."

>>Its the
> reason there are two different words and two different definitions.
> "Truth" is a product of an individuals belief structure and may or may not
> be based on the available facts.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel.

"Truth" is a leap of faith, the belief that what
> you hold as being the truth may or may not be supported by what is.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel. A statement that is true is
not libel.

> "Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It
> can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still
> remains as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is
> what changes, not the fact itself.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in libel litigation, truth is an absolute
defense.

> Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS NOT.
> Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel, which is what Michael said.

> I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
> enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept.

I appreciate your time and effort explaining your simple yet complex
concept. Nonetheless, your concept simply has nothing to do with libel
litigation.

>Even if you are not capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not
>consider it a waste of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as
>well, and they may be able to understand what you fail to.

My guess is that readers understood Michael's post from the beginning --
that truth is an absolute defense to libel.

2. You may indeed have that little
> light bulb inside your head flash on with the comprehension of a difficult
> concept and thereby have realized one of the basic constants of the
> universe.

The foundational concept behind libel law is that a statement of the truth
cannot be libel.
Therefore, as Michael said, truth is an absolute defense to libel.

>3. Even if you cannot find it in yourself to expand your understanding of
>the universe, its been kind of fun poking holes in your belief structure,
>even if just for a second.

Michael was not sharing his beliefs, but the facts about libel law --
principal among them that truth is an absolute defense.

Ron

November 25th 06, 03:12 PM

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
>
> Hi, Ron!
>
> Interesting concept. Nonetheless, outside of the newsgroup, in matters of
> law, truth is an absolute defense to libel actions. A libel is, by legal
> defination, a false statement. So, if the statement is true, regardless
> of whether the truth is inflamatory or defames the subject of the
> statement, the statement is not libel.
>
> British law -- and to some degree Canadian law -- holds that a statement
> that is true but damages the subject of the statement is libelous. This
> led our Founding Fathers to reject the obvious danger to freedom of
> speech/press in this doctrine, since, in theory, the greater the truth the
> greater the damage done to the subject. In the United States of America,
> truth is an absolute defense to any libel action.

You also miss the point Doug. Truth and True are NOT the same thing. True
is a fact. Truth is a perception.

True IS an "absolute defense to libel actions." Truth may or may not be,
depending on if that persons perceptions are an accurate representation of
the facts. We both know that witness's are the weakest part of any case,
but they can also be the deciding factor.

> As it should be.
>
> Because of our country's tradition of freedom of speech and of the press,
> libel laws even protect false statements under certain circumstances. For
> instance, members of this newsgroup may be, arguably, public figures in
> that they have thrust themselves into the public eye by nature of their
> contributions to the forum. It's a gray area. If they were to be ruled
> public figures, then a FALSE statement, would still not result in a
> judgement of libel if the defendant could prove a lack of malice in making
> the false statement. (In libel law, malice is defined as a statement
> written "with reckless disregard for the truth.")
>
> For libel to occur, the statement:
>
> 1) Must be false.
> 2) Must be done with malice (in the case of public figures, only)
> 3) Must be directed toward someone who is identified (an anonymous poster
> would not have the recourse of libel action because they are not
> identifable)
> 4) Must cause damage to reputation or other damages....professionals or
> others who depend on their reputation would be more likely to prevail.
>
> The requirement for a showing of malice exists partially because of the US
> Supreme Court's recognition of deadline pressure experienced by newspaper
> reporters. They often escape a libel judgment because their FALSE
> statement was made under deadline pressure, where they claimed they did
> not have the time to verify the truth. A monthly magazine, however, would
> not have the same defense.
>
> For instance, Kane's retraction in another thread in this newsgroup would
> only mitigate charges of malice in a libel lawsuit. It presupposes that
> the one bringing the libel lawsuit would be ruled a public figure and
> therefore required to prove malice. If the trial court ruled the target
> of the libel to be a private citizen, then the retraction would have no
> legal weight. A retraction does not eliminate the libel, it can only be
> weighed when considering malice.
>
> There are also absolute privledges in libel statutes -- again, because of
> our country's dedication to freedom of speech and of the press. For
> instance, if a FALSE statement about someone is made in a courtroom that
> untrue statement can be published without the subject of the false
> inflamatory statement having recourse for libel.
>
> Libel law is very complex and often changes through case by case
> decisions. However, some elements remain fundamental and absolute.
> However. the requirement that the statement be false -- thereby
> establishing truth as an absolute defense -- remains fixed and absolute.
>
>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>
> Not in libel lawsuits. The USSC chose the word "truth" in defining the
> absolute defense to libel. The word, "absolute" itself, like "truth," has
> specific meaning in law.
>
>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>
>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>
> No, Ron, truth is an absolute defense to libel lawsuits.

I cannot agree. Fact will beat the "truth" in a court every single time,
specially if they are at odds. Truth is a perception, accurate or not.
Fact is. Therefore truth cannot be an absolute anything since it is
variable. Fact is not variable, it is an absolute.

Ron

Dan Sullivan

November 25th 06, 03:15 PM

How many times has a Judge held a "fact finding hearing" and gotten the
"facts" wrong?

It's not ZERO!!!

They'd be lucky if it was substantially less than half.

Greegor

November 27th 06, 04:59 AM

Kane wrote
> Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
> again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

> My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

....
> > If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
> > truthful and still cowardly of me.
> >
> > I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

> You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

> > Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
> > him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

But the other address is in WA.
....
> > I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.
>
> Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Greegor

November 27th 06, 06:46 AM

Michael© wrote:
> Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
> doesn't like it that others know.

I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
He's probably crapping his drawers.

His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.

I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

0:->

November 27th 06, 10:30 AM

Greegor wrote:
....'I'm desperate for friends and supporters, reeeeal desperate.'....

> Michael© wrote:

>> Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
>> doesn't like it that others know.
>
> I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
> He's probably crapping his drawers.

No, your dinner is not ready yet. 0:->

> His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
> harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

bobb, KillCPS, DestoryCPS, Michael©, Fern5827, et al, and the many many
socks that come here, such as Dennis' recent family reunion.

> Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.
>
Aren't I, using a nym, in good company?

What's "ethicality" by the way?

> I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

How would you know?

> Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
> attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Such as? Obvious how?

> His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..
>
I don't recall Don ever posting here. Except to tease me.

As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

Of course for anyone other than me, such comments don't indicate any
compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Boys you are a laugh riot. 0:->

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2BIowa+%22Don+Fisher%22+&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2BIowa+%22Donald+L.+Fisher%22&btnG=Search

Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

"Bill Smith" would have been a little too obvious, don't you think, and
Michael© is taken, don'tchakkknow -- by copyright.

Kane

0:->

November 27th 06, 10:48 AM

0:->

November 27th 06, 11:40 PM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
> > again, stupid.
>
> Whatsamatta Don?
>
> > My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?
>
> Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.
>
> ...
> > > If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
> > > truthful and still cowardly of me.
> > >
> > > I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.
>
> How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?
>
> > You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.
>
> Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
> He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
> for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
> a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
> The identical bait message and response message were posted
> in another year.
>
> His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.
>
> > > Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
> > > him and claiming I'm in Hood River.
>
> I said BEND.
>
> But the other address is in WA.
> ...
> > > I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.
> >
> > Did they get your at home computer email address?
>
> He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
> as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
> for multi-racial adoption.
>
> Did you know him when he was d'geezer?
>
> He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Interesting how many lies you can post in a single post to this ng,
Greg.

I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings. Not even the ones
you've featured in your bull**** before. YOU posted the following, with
attributions to a post by Don Fisher.

Can you explain to us where his wife's name is featured, where he sells
his services for his 'business" and where he has some fictitous couple
he is touting for?

This below is YOUR post of Jan 8, 2004 referring to a post of Fisher's
of Jan 98.

What do you make of it, lie wise? On your part?

Donald L Fisher
Greegor 31 December 2004 05:19:47
On January 8 1998,
in a thread called
Oregon waiting children announcement,
in a newsgroup called alt.adoption,

Don Fisher wrote:

Quotation:
> There is a new web page just up for the state
> of Oregon ACT program.
> This is a new adoptive familiy recruiting
> effort for waiting, free for adoption minority
> children in the state of Oregon. They place
> more and more of their waiting children out
> of state. New practices of child welfare is
> bringing about placement of younger children
> than previously.
> The state has over 500 waiting children at any time.
> > The ACT website has photos with narratives
> and online inquiry forms.
> take a look. df
> > http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
> > df - World Wide Web Site Development
> http://www.teleport*.com/~dlfisher
> http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
> http://www.teleport*.com/~fpa
> http://www.outofthe*boxpublishing.com/
> > fn: Don Fisher
> n: Fisher;Don
> org: DTI
> email;internet: *om

Any thoughts, Greg?

As for "BEND" I suggest you write the gentleman there named Donald L.
Fisher and see if he is or was an Oregon CPS worker, Greg. And the one
in Washington too.

You and your crew are confused. You have, for instance, no such person
in Hood River but it's claimed I post out there..my IP traces to there.
This become curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?

I doubt anyone as far away as Bend is from Hood River would bother to
have a service provider in Hood River. And the same goes for the Fisher
in Washington.

HR wouldn't even be in the dialing code for either location. All trans
river calls, for instance, are Long Distance across the Columbia River
to my knowledge. A different phone company serves each side.

I had that problem when I did business in Portland. As soon as I
crossed the river, LD. Of course with cell service now I can call from
anywhere in the US with my service.

Did it ever occur to you that I might use this same service from just
about anywhere?

Neither you nor your dummy knows who I am, pal.

I'm not Don Fisher. But I do like the name.

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

0:->

Greegor

November 28th 06, 12:10 AM

Kane wrote
> What's "ethicality" by the way?

<Chuckle> Isn't in your dictionary is it?

Greg wrote
> I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Kane wrote > How would you know?

See below!

Greg wrote
> Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
> attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Kane wrote > Such as? Obvious how?

See below!

Greg wrote > His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Kane wrote
> As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
> sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
> "trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
> carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Can we compare what I actually said to your characterization of it?

Kane wrote
> Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
> various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
> macho exclamation though?

That you would think so is ...interesting.

Kane wrote
> Of course for anyone other than me, such comments
> don't indicate any compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Has Michael posted profuse and gratuitous profanity for over a year?
Has Michael called a grandma a [c-word] over and over?
Has Michael insulted families in a weakened/vulnerable state?
Has Michael bragged on himself at great length?
Has he ever earned the nickname "McBrag" for that?

Kane wrote
> Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

So you're not Don, just some other person who deliberately
left a false trail to an innocent Don?

That sure was a nice thing for you to do! (sic)

I don't buy it, Don, you weasel.

Greegor

November 28th 06, 02:26 AM

> I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.

The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
Isn't advertising wonderful?

> Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
Your McBragging about running a business also.

Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
Homeschooling, you talked that up...

0:->

November 28th 06, 02:32 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > What's "ethicality" by the way?
>
> <Chuckle> Isn't in your dictionary is it?

Can you give me the reference to yours with that entry. I'm curious
what it means.

Or are you just going all Dennis on us now?

> Greg wrote
> > I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.
>
> Kane wrote > How would you know?
>
> See below!
>
> Greg wrote
> > Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
> > attempts to compensate for real weakness.
>
> Kane wrote > Such as? Obvious how?
>
> See below!
>
> Greg wrote > His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..
>
> Kane wrote
> > As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
> > sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
> > "trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
> > carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?
>
> Can we compare what I actually said to your characterization of it?

Feel free.

But so far I've made no "characterization" of anything, and certainly
not "it."

> Kane wrote
> > Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
> > various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
> > macho exclamation though?
>
> That you would think so is ...interesting.

Yes, you do have a severe case of Dennisitis. How sad.

> Kane wrote
> > Of course for anyone other than me, such comments
> > don't indicate any compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R
>
> Has Michael posted profuse and gratuitous profanity for over a year?

Oh, he's managed a bit. Do you rate someone's rationality and honest by
the volume?

> Has Michael called a grandma a [c-word] over and over?

I never did that. I address a plant who was unable to establish gender,
and continuously attacked others and defended parents and others
convicted of beating children.

> Has Michael insulted families in a weakened/vulnerable state?

Oh my, you have to ASK?

> Has Michael bragged on himself at great length?

What has the "length" got to do with it.

> Has he ever earned the nickname "McBrag" for that?

Nope. So what?

He's certainly been called on his bull**** and that's what's got him so
hot.

Do you recall his wishes for me, or was it Don Fisher...you know, cut
off our head and **** down our neck wishes, and strangle us with the
guts of a fellow 'case worker?'

Guess you missed those.

Ever heard me use such graphic violent language?

I have a couple of times toward foster or adoptive parents that killed
their children, remember?

But never to a fellow poster, no matter what lying thugs they were.
I've never "wished" them dead, murdered. Or did you miss that and do
you hope Michaels remarks have passed into google purgatory?

Most newsreaders archive those. Mine does.

> Kane wrote
> > Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?
>
> So you're not Don, just some other person who deliberately
> left a false trail to an innocent Don?

Since there easily a thousand or so Donald L. Fishers if you hunt long
enough, no, I was not deliberately leading to the Donald L. Fisher that
works for CPS and posted about the website he maintained many years ago
for CPS to recruit families for children of color.

How DO you get so confused, Greg?

>
> That sure was a nice thing for you to do! (sic)
>

No, actually because of the coincidences involved I felt it one of my
most clumsy of mistakes, to be frank with you.

Don, the one you want me to be, takes it with considerable humor and
has even posted here to taunt me.

I understand he is pretty handy with anonymous posting software, but
then he did run a website. Shouldn't surprize me he's knowledgeable.

> I don't buy it, Don, you weasel.

Sorry, you spelled Doug wrong.

And I'm not here to sell you a thing, Greg.

So save your money.

I'll post to you on this subject, soon, like probably right after this
post. Watch for it.

The thread is:
"Re: Greg, it's a 'must read.' Re: Gloating or Ill Wishes vs Threats of
violence"

Enjoy, 5 watts.

0:->

0:->

November 28th 06, 02:34 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
> > again, stupid.

The Oregon adoption website you posted Don's notice about was taken
down long ago. The children are now referred to a Pacific Northwest
....five states as I recall...service that lists them. Some are the kin
of people I help, and thus I know about it in considerable detail.

And I've been successful in getting those children removed from that
list, back when Fisher was the web manager for that site. And I got
those children back to their extended family members.

But, ....

Let us now visit the Don Fishers of the world, in fact the Donald L.
Fishers and see if I am any of them.

http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/Dr-Don-Fisher-MD-88DFBEAE.cfm
Well, interestingly I look like this guy, or he like me.

I wonder?

Then there's Donald L Fisher (541) 383-3559 2520 NW Foley Ct,Bend, OR
97701
Who has no IP as far as I can tell. Whose going to call him, Greg, you?
Go ahead, with your wonderful bedside manner, but be sure you dial from
a phone with caller ID screened.

http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/hpl_personnel.htm has a department head,
Donald L. Fisher

Then there is: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/faculty2003.pdf

V. FACULTY AFFILIATES
Donald L. Fisher. Professor, Director of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Program, Director
of the Human Performance Laboratory, Area Coordinator for Industrial
Engineering and
Operations Research, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering. Ph.D., 1982,
University of Michigan; Ed.M., Harvard University. Interests:
quantitative and computer models
of human performance, visual search, visualization, transportation
ergonomics, human-computer
interaction, learning and training, cumulative trauma disorders of the
upper extremities.
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/faculty/fisher.html

The one in Washinton is the one you twitterers listed here, and I'm not
going to endanger him by one again posting his vitals.

As I suspect he may be the Don Fisher that works for Oregon CPS. But if
he does he sure has a secret job of some kind.

He's not me. None of these are me.

Despite your wishes to the contrary.

If you have an email addy for him write him and ask.

There is a dentist in Olympia WA named Donald L. Fisher. Or was. Saw
his sign on a trip there some time back, and it made me chuckle. I hope
none of your buddies thinks he, or any other Don Fisher is Kane, who
you hate for a good reason...because Kane exposes you.

There's others all over the country. Are they in danger? Darned if I
know, but I such a concerted effort to link me to one of them.

http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=4071
Now there's a handsome lad. Looks like me in the 70's, beard and all. I
was a bit stouter though.

Do you know the founder and likely still the principle share holder and
the chair of his organization, The Gap, clothiers etc.

It's Donald L. Fisher

There's a published Donald L. Fisher or two..also. 0:->

http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/brock-university.jsp?l=B&p=8

Rather a lot of published works in fact.

Hester, Amy E., Donald L. Fisher, and John Collura. "Drivers Parking
Decisions:
Advanced Parking Management Systems." Journal of Transportation
Engineering 128, no. 1 (2002): 49-57.

I suspect it's the guy from http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=4071

Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?

Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
relations stuff.

And like me, he's published.

Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.

Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?

0:->

0:->

November 28th 06, 02:56 AM

Greegor wrote:
> > I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.
>
> The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
> Isn't advertising wonderful?

My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?

> > Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.
>
> That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
> Your McBragging about running a business also.

No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.
>
> Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
> Homeschooling, you talked that up...

Yes, Don and I have that in common, as we have with many other people
in this nation.

What you have to hope for now is that nothing ever happens to Don or
his wife, that might bring attention shining it's little revealing
light on all those that tried to out him here, and succeeded in posting
his particulars and his connections to CPS.

The gate was opened. The gate cannot be closed. Remember that in the
future. And, just in case, start working on your many excuses for
being a thug, Greg.

Do you agree with Michael's wishes for "someone" to kill Don?

Would that extend to his wife as well?

0:->

Greegor

November 28th 06, 03:10 AM

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > > I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.
> >
> > The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
> > Isn't advertising wonderful?
>
> My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?
>
> > > Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.
> >
> > That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
> > Your McBragging about running a business also.
>
> No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
> A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.

I think you're talking about a different sort of crock.

Greegor

November 28th 06, 03:22 AM

Posting all of the Don Fishers to confuse things?

They're gonna love you just like all of your neighbors
in your high security neighborhood are going to like
all of the attention you bring to them!

You made more claims that you USED Don
as a duck blind? If you weren't him that would
be really nasty of you to use him that way.

You're desperate to convince everybody you're not him.
And YET, you whined about somebody showing up
in YOUR neighborhood to be photographed!

Kane wrote
> Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?
>
> Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
> yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
> relations stuff.
>
> And like me, he's published.
>
> Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.
>
> Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?

0:->

November 28th 06, 03:29 AM

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.
>>> The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
>>> Isn't advertising wonderful?
>> My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?
>>
>>>> Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.
>>> That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
>>> Your McBragging about running a business also.
>> No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
>> A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.
>
> I think you're talking about a different sort of crock.

Given your seeming incapacity to respond to the replies I made, yes, I
must have been, though I didn't know it.

And it's yours.

You going to show me my old posts with advertising for Don Fisher someday?

So two people happen to run a business? Wow, now that is compromising.

And I do have a website, but you don't know where it is or what it is.

I'll give you a tiny hint. It's about a subset of the population, with
nothing to do with our discussions here, and I make a pot of money from it.

So Greg, why did you hide that you aborted this and failed to attribute it:

> Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
> Homeschooling, you talked that up...

Your very own words, Greg. And I answered.

The dishonesty I see you in you folks is so petty, so arrogantly self
serving. Imagine, arguments and personal character so weak, so
compromised that you have to stoop to snipping out bits and pieces of
what confounds your bs.

Shame, I tells yah, a damn shame.

If you'll note, I've never discussed any special interest in the
adoption of children of color, but I have in Kinship adoptions.

And Don's website, and the post your pasted? NO mention of kinship
adoption or foster, Greg.

Why is that?

As for homeschooling, there is an estimated 2 million homeschool
families at present...and who knows how many whose children are grown
and no longer homeschool. There are a great many of us, and besides,
this was no sudden revelation on your part.

Not only have I discussed homeschooling here, but argued about it as a
child protection agency issue and mentioned that I know Don and his wife
from my homeschooling interest and advocacy.

I know about 500 or so homeschool families, past and present...likely
more really...but that does not make me one of those, now does it?

Remember in the discussion of meth I mentioned that I know the number
two man in the substance abuse agency at the state level in some state?
I know him because he's a homeschooler. A rather spectacular one, as his
idea of homeschooling included taking his children on an Indian
sub-continent trek, and working building villages there.

A poet, author, musician, singer, actor, and a top administrator in his
state in the field of substance abuse. He's the one that told me that
abuse of prescription drugs are even bigger than all other substance
abuse including meth.

That doesn't make me him, now does it?

You take coincidence and try to build it into something when there isn't
enough of it to carry your water for you.

People have businesses, mine is not publishing, but I have written.
Others handled the publishing for me. 2 million or more people have a
strong interest in homeschooling. Many people have an interest in
adoption and all it's variations...such as foreign adoption, adoption of
special needs children, and adoption by relatives.

While I am interested in and care about the others, my interest has
always been relative, kinship, adoption. To the point I've lobbied and
actively supported kin to adopt and foster.

I can't see where Don indicate any interest in that beyond what he might
as a CPS employee.

Mine was an intense and singular interest.

Keep trying.

0:->

0:->

November 28th 06, 03:34 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Posting all of the Don Fishers to confuse things?

Nope, just to show how hapless you are. I had hoped it would reduce
confusion, but there you go, 5 watter.

> They're gonna love you just like all of your neighbors
> in your high security neighborhood are going to like
> all of the attention you bring to them!

They are all publicly posted, are they not? Else I could not list them
and link to them.

> You made more claims that you USED Don
> as a duck blind? If you weren't him that would
> be really nasty of you to use him that way.

No, it wouldn't be. Not if THE Don Fisher knew and thought it funny.

> You're desperate to convince everybody you're not him.
> And YET, you whined about somebody showing up
> in YOUR neighborhood to be photographed!

I'm not desperate. You seem to be though.

Yep. Someone knows my real name and location, Greg. And they need to
think about how they got that information. 0:->

You want to blame me if he or his are in any way endangered, actively.

Sorry, won't fly. I did not try to "expose" a state worker, child.

I just had to try and pick up the pieces here of it being done by other
fools, with your help.

I don't think you can handle 5 watts, Greg. You are too stupid to spit.

0:->

>
> Kane wrote
>> Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?
>>
>> Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
>> yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
>> relations stuff.
>>
>> And like me, he's published.
>>
>> Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.
>>
>> Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?
>

Greegor

November 28th 06, 03:52 AM

If you're not Don, why did you set him up to
catch feedback from your harassment of people?
Mighty nice of you!

Doan

December 4th 06, 05:58 PM

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Michael©" > wrote in message
> . 97.140...
> > "Ron" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> >>>> > complainant.
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Kane,
> >>>
> >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> >>> Absolute defense.
> >>
> >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> >>
> >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> >>
> >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> >>>>> defamation
> >>>>> (libel and slander).
> >>>
> >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> >>>
> >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
> >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> >>
> >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> >
> > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> >
> > LMAO
> >
> > =====================================
> > truth
> >
> > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
> > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> >
> > ORIGIN Old English.
> >
> > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > =====================================
> >
> > The truth is a fact.
> >
> > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
>
> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
> is accepted as true."
>
> Ron

Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.

Doan

0:->

December 4th 06, 06:12 PM

Doan wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > . 97.140...
> > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > >>>> > complainant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > >>>
> > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> > >>> Absolute defense.
> > >>
> > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> > >>
> > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > >>
> > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > >>>>> defamation
> > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > >>>
> > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
> > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > >>
> > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > >
> > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > truth
> > >
> > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
> > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > >
> > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > >
> > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > =====================================
> > >
> > > The truth is a fact.
> > >
> > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> >
> > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
> > is accepted as true."
> >
> > Ron
>
> Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.

Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.

Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
rules, not gods.

> Doan

So, proof please.

Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.

For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
below:

fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€“noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
given by the witness are highly questionable.

But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
from your claim in fact.

truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
â€“noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
â€”Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

See numbers 8 and 9 above?

And number 6?

While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
obviously do not agree with you.

Enjoy.

Doan

December 4th 06, 08:49 PM

On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > . 97.140...
> > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > >>
> > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > > >>>>> defamation
> > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
> > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > >>
> > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > >
> > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO
> > > >
> > > > =====================================
> > > > truth
> > > >
> > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
> > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > >
> > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > >
> > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > =====================================
> > > >
> > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Ron
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
> > > is accepted as true."
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>
> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
>
> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> rules, not gods.
>
And the courts are ruled by human, not god!

> > Doan
>
> So, proof please.
>
> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
>
Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.

Doan

>
> For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> below:
>
> fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> â€“noun
> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> basis in fact.
> 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> fact.
> 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> given by the witness are highly questionable.
>
> But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
> from your claim in fact.
>
> truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> â€“noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> Pronunciation.
> 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> truth.
> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> like: mathematical truths.
> 4. the state or character of being true.
> 5. actuality or actual existence.
> 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> â€”Idiom
> 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
>
> See numbers 8 and 9 above?
>
> And number 6?
>
> While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> obviously do not agree with you.
>
> Enjoy.
>
>

0:->

December 4th 06, 11:50 PM

Doan wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Michael©" > wrote in message
>>>> . 97.140...
>>>>> "Ron" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
>>>>>>>>> because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
>>>>>>>>> complainant.
>>>>>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
>>>>>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
>>>>>>> Absolute defense.
>>>>>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
>>>>>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
>>>>>>>>> defamation
>>>>>>>>> (libel and slander).
>>>>>>>> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
>>>>>>>> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
>>>>>>>> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>>>>>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
>>>>>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
>>>>>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>>>>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>>>>> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> LMAO
>>>>>
>>>>> =====================================
>>>>> truth
>>>>>
>>>>> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
>>>>> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
>>>>> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
>>>>>
>>>>> ORIGIN Old English.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oxford University Press, 2006
>>>>> =====================================
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
>>>> is accepted as true."
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>> Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
>>
>> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
>> rules, not gods.
>>
> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
>
>>> Doan
>> So, proof please.
>>
>> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
>>
> Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.

You are avoiding my question.

Answer mine, and not only will I show you, I point to my post where I
already showed it.

(The key is context, or as the law puts it, connotation).

Now, unless you wish to be ignored some more, Doan, answer to what I
actually asked. YOU are asking what has already been answered.

"So, proof please.

Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind."

What's wrong, Doan, going to dodge and run again as you did with the
question about The Line?

0:->

>
> Doan
>
>> For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
>> below:
>>
>> fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> –noun
>> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
>> basis in fact.
>> 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
>> fact.
>> 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
>> to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
>> 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
>> given by the witness are highly questionable.
>>
>> But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
>> from your claim in fact.
>>
>> truth /tru?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
>> –noun, plural truths /truðz, tru?s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
>> Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
>> Pronunciation.
>> 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
>> truth.
>> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
>> 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
>> like: mathematical truths.
>> 4. the state or character of being true.
>> 5. actuality or actual existence.
>> 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
>> 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
>> 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
>> from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
>> 9. agreement with a standard or original.
>> 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
>> 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
>> —Idiom
>> 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
>> hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
>>
>> See numbers 8 and 9 above?
>>
>> And number 6?
>>
>> While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
>> with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
>> obviously do not agree with you.
>>
>> Enjoy.
>>
>>
>

Ron

December 5th 06, 12:38 AM

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Michael©" > wrote in message
> . 97.140...
> > "Ron" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> >>>> > complainant.
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Kane,
> >>>
> >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> >>> Absolute defense.
> >>
> >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> >>
> >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> >>
> >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> >>>>> defamation
> >>>>> (libel and slander).
> >>>
> >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> >>>>you'll
> >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> >>>
> >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> >>> That
> >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> >>
> >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> >
> > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> >
> > LMAO
> >
> > =====================================
> > truth
> >
> > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false.
> > 3
> > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> >
> > ORIGIN Old English.
> >
> > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > =====================================
> >
> > The truth is a fact.
> >
> > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
>
> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> that
> is accepted as true."
>
> Ron

>Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.

>Doan

No Doan, they aren't. Fact is immutable, truth is perception.

Why are so many people have problems with this, its really a pretty simple
concept. Facts do not change. Truth does. Therefore Truth is perception.

Ron

Ron

December 5th 06, 12:40 AM

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > . 97.140...
> > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > >>> defendant
> > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > >>> Period.
> > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > >>
> > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this
> > > >> news
> > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > >> perspective.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > > >>>>> defamation
> > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > > >>>>you'll
> > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually
> > > >>>>say,
> > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> > > >>> That
> > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in
> > > >>> any
> > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > >>
> > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > >
> > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO
> > > >
> > > > =====================================
> > > > truth
> > > >
> > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state
> > > > of
> > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > false. 3
> > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > >
> > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > >
> > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > =====================================
> > > >
> > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Ron
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> > > that
> > > is accepted as true."
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>
> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
>
> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> rules, not gods.
>
And the courts are ruled by human, not god!

> > Doan
>
> So, proof please.
>
> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
>
>Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.

>Doan

Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always the
truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.

Ron

>
> For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> below:
>
> fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> â?"noun
> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> basis in fact.
> 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> fact.
> 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> given by the witness are highly questionable.
>
> But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
> from your claim in fact.
>
> truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> Pronunciation.
> 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> truth.
> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> like: mathematical truths.
> 4. the state or character of being true.
> 5. actuality or actual existence.
> 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> â?"Idiom
> 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
>
> See numbers 8 and 9 above?
>
> And number 6?
>
> While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> obviously do not agree with you.
>
> Enjoy.
>
>

Doan

December 5th 06, 12:49 AM

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > > . 97.140...
> > > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > > >>> defendant
> > > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > > >>> Period.
> > > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this
> > > > >> news
> > > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > > >> perspective.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > > > >>>>> defamation
> > > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > > > >>>>you'll
> > > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually
> > > > >>>>say,
> > > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> > > > >>> That
> > > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in
> > > > >>> any
> > > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > > >
> > > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO
> > > > >
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > > truth
> > > > >
> > > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state
> > > > > of
> > > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > > false. 3
> > > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > > >
> > > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > >
> > > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ron
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> > > > that
> > > > is accepted as true."
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > >
> > > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> >
> > Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> >
> > Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > rules, not gods.
> >
> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
>
> > > Doan
> >
> > So, proof please.
> >
> > Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> >
> >Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
>
> >Doan
>
> Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
> believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always the
> truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
>
> Ron
>
If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!

Doan

>
> >
> > For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> > below:
> >
> > fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > â?"noun
> > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> > basis in fact.
> > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> > fact.
> > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> > 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > given by the witness are highly questionable.
> >
> > But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
> > from your claim in fact.
> >
> > truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> > â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> > Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > Pronunciation.
> > 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> > truth.
> > 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> > 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> > like: mathematical truths.
> > 4. the state or character of being true.
> > 5. actuality or actual existence.
> > 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> > 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> > 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> > from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> > 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> > 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> > 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> > â?"Idiom
> > 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> > hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
> >
> > See numbers 8 and 9 above?
> >
> > And number 6?
> >
> > While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> > with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> > obviously do not agree with you.
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Greegor

December 5th 06, 01:34 AM

Doan:
All of this philosophical bickering about the meaning of truth
really shows just how insane these system sucks are.

It's SOPHISTRY.

It becomes truly dangerous when it comes to the
giant FRAUD that Juvenile Courts are.
They allow attitudes, opinion, lies, gossip and innuendo into court.

Administrative Law Juvenile Court processes decide
on major Constitutionally protected LIBERTY INTERESTS
and yet they do not follow legal standards intended to
protect those sacred LIBERTY INTERESTS.

In fact the LIBERTY INTERESTS at stake in Juvenile Court
have been compared to those involved in a MURDER TRIAL,
and so the standards and process should be closer to those.

The legal standard used is "preponderance" which means that if
more than half of the stuff CPS brings into court is negative, the
judge decides they own the family in question.
Caseworkers of course simply provide one-sided information.

This is considered a breach of due process
clause because it totally subverts the court.

In US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1987 law suits against the
agencies it is called a violation of the 6th amendment of the
US Constitution, "an abuse of the preponderance standard".

Even when Juvenile Court Judges see blatant evidence that
caseworkers in fact committed PERJURY, they do not
feel compelled to initiate investigation or prosecution.

Prosecutors don't want to prosecute their allies,
the caseworkers, and they have "descretion".

Clearly the "flexible truth" has infected even courts.

Ron wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "Michael©" > wrote in message
> > . 97.140...
> > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > >>>> > complainant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > >>>
> > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> > >>> Absolute defense.
> > >>
> > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> > >>
> > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > >>
> > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > >>>>> defamation
> > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > >>>
> > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > >>>>you'll
> > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> > >>> That
> > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > >>
> > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > >
> > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > truth
> > >
> > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false.
> > > 3
> > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > >
> > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > >
> > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > =====================================
> > >
> > > The truth is a fact.
> > >
> > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> >
> > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> > that
> > is accepted as true."
> >
> > Ron
>
> >Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>
> >Doan
>
> No Doan, they aren't. Fact is immutable, truth is perception.
>
> Why are so many people have problems with this, its really a pretty simple
> concept. Facts do not change. Truth does. Therefore Truth is perception.
>
> Ron

Ron

December 5th 06, 01:54 AM

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > > . 97.140...
> > > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> > > > >>>> > suit
> > > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > > >>> defendant
> > > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > > >>> Period.
> > > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this
> > > > >> news
> > > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > > >> perspective.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>> defamation
> > > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > > > >>>>you'll
> > > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually
> > > > >>>>say,
> > > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> > > > >>> suits.
> > > > >>> That
> > > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> > > > >>> in
> > > > >>> any
> > > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > > >
> > > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > LMAO
> > > > >
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > > truth
> > > > >
> > > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state
> > > > > of
> > > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > > false. 3
> > > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > > >
> > > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > >
> > > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ron
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> > > > belief
> > > > that
> > > > is accepted as true."
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > >
> > > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> >
> > Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> >
> > Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > rules, not gods.
> >
> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
>
> > > Doan
> >
> > So, proof please.
> >
> > Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> >
> >Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
>
> >Doan
>
> Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
> believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always
> the
> truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
>
> Ron
>
>If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!

>Doan

As I have been saying, Truth is perception. Truth can be based on faith,
fact cannot. Therefore truth is not always factual and can change depending
on the individuals perspective. Fact is immutable, it cannot be changed.

Ron

>
> >
> > For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> > below:
> >
> > fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > â?"noun
> > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> > basis in fact.
> > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> > fact.
> > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> > 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > given by the witness are highly questionable.
> >
> > But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
> > from your claim in fact.
> >
> > truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> > â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> > Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > Pronunciation.
> > 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> > truth.
> > 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> > 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> > like: mathematical truths.
> > 4. the state or character of being true.
> > 5. actuality or actual existence.
> > 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> > 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> > 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> > from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> > 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> > 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> > 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> > â?"Idiom
> > 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> > hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
> >
> > See numbers 8 and 9 above?
> >
> > And number 6?
> >
> > While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> > with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> > obviously do not agree with you.
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Ron

December 5th 06, 02:21 AM

"Greegor" > wrote in message
ups.com...

[[gregg wrote]]
Doan:
All of this philosophical bickering about the meaning of truth
really shows just how insane these system sucks are.

It's SOPHISTRY.

It becomes truly dangerous when it comes to the
giant FRAUD that Juvenile Courts are.
They allow attitudes, opinion, lies, gossip and innuendo into court.

[[Ron wrote]

Once again my attributing is not working. No idea why. But hey, on with
the discussion.

All courts allow attitudes, opinion, lies, gossip and innuendo gregg.
Anytime people, humans, are involved. Its inevitable gregg, unavoidable.
The judges know this, as do the prosecutors and defense attorneys. Thats
why court cases are so complicated. Someone must sort through it all to get
to the facts, and usually its either a judge or a jury.

[[gregg wrote]]
Administrative Law Juvenile Court processes decide
on major Constitutionally protected LIBERTY INTERESTS
and yet they do not follow legal standards intended to
protect those sacred LIBERTY INTERESTS.

[[Ron wrote]]

You continue to write the term "liberty interests", but fail to define it.
Just which "liberty interests" are you talking about and just how are they
"Constitutionally protected"? All to often you and others claim
"Constitutional protections" that do not exist. So, just tell us which ones
you are claiming now.

[[gregg wrote]]
In fact the LIBERTY INTERESTS at stake in Juvenile Court
have been compared to those involved in a MURDER TRIAL,
and so the standards and process should be closer to those.

[[Ron wrote]]

Compared by whom?

[[gregg wrote]]
The legal standard used is "preponderance" which means that if
more than half of the stuff CPS brings into court is negative, the
judge decides they own the family in question.
Caseworkers of course simply provide one-sided information.

[[Ron wrote]]

Well gregg, its not a criminal proceeding. What do you expect? Its a civil
case dude, try and envision the difference.

[[gregg wrote]]
This is considered a breach of due process
clause because it totally subverts the court.

[[Ron wrote]]

Considered by whom?

[[gregg wrote]]
In US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1987 law suits against the
agencies it is called a violation of the 6th amendment of the
US Constitution, "an abuse of the preponderance standard".

[[Ron wrote]]

Law Suits are not laws gregg. They are complaints. Anyone can claim
whatever they choose in a Law Suit, its up to the courts to decide if the
claims are valid. Kindly cite a completed case where this has happened.

[[gregg wrote]]
Even when Juvenile Court Judges see blatant evidence that
caseworkers in fact committed PERJURY, they do not
feel compelled to initiate investigation or prosecution.

[[Ron wrote]]

Evidence is not proof gregg. It is what supports a belief or statement.
Also, perjury is an "intentional" act of untruthfulness. Errors do not rise
to the level of perjury. Belief is just that, belief. Supported or
unsupported by facts or evidence, belief never rises to the level of
perjury.

[[gregg wrote]]
Prosecutors don't want to prosecute their allies,
the caseworkers, and they have "descretion".

Clearly the "flexible truth" has infected even courts.

[[Ron wrote]]

Prosecutors dont prosecute lots of crimes gregg because of "descretion"
[sic]. Sorry, thats just how the legal system works. Why spend the money
or time prosecuting crimes when they are doomed to failure? Just what
percentage of your paycheck are you willing to donate to the government so
that 100% of all crimes are prosecuted? HINT: 100% of your check will not
be enough.

Dam, that was cumbersome. I gotta figure out what is happening with my mail
reader soon. Thanks for reading!

Ron

Ron wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "Michael©" > wrote in message
> > . 97.140...
> > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > >>>> > complainant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > >>>
> > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > >>> Period.
> > >>> Absolute defense.
> > >>
> > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > >> perspective.
> > >>
> > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > >>
> > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > >>>>> defamation
> > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > >>>
> > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > >>>>you'll
> > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> > >>> That
> > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in
> > >>> any
> > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > >>
> > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > >
> > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > >
> > > LMAO
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > truth
> > >
> > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > false.
> > > 3
> > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > >
> > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > >
> > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > =====================================
> > >
> > > The truth is a fact.
> > >
> > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> >
> > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> > that
> > is accepted as true."
> >
> > Ron
>
> >Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>
> >Doan
>
> No Doan, they aren't. Fact is immutable, truth is perception.
>
> Why are so many people have problems with this, its really a pretty simple
> concept. Facts do not change. Truth does. Therefore Truth is
> perception.
>
> Ron

0:->

December 5th 06, 02:32 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Doan:
> All of this philosophical bickering about the meaning of truth
> really shows just how insane these system sucks are.
>
> It's SOPHISTRY.

Interesting that you would find Ron's and my argument sophistry but
accept Doan's without question.

> It becomes truly dangerous when it comes to the
> giant FRAUD that Juvenile Courts are.
> They allow attitudes, opinion, lies, gossip and innuendo into court.

No court can stop such from being expressed Greg. What they do with it
is another matter.

In fact, my bet is that should you ever see the inside of a courtroom
in the case you discuss here, you will be carrying your attitude,
opinino, lies, gossip, and innuendo into court.

Just as you do here.

> Administrative Law Juvenile Court processes decide
> on major Constitutionally protected LIBERTY INTERESTS

You have failed in the past, when challenged on this "Constitutionally
protected LIBERTY INTERESTS" to produce a single item from the
Constitution that in fact backs your claim.

You run from argument on it.

> and yet they do not follow legal standards intended to
> protect those sacred LIBERTY INTERESTS.

Nonsense, Greg.

> In fact the LIBERTY INTERESTS at stake in Juvenile Court
> have been compared to those involved in a MURDER TRIAL,
> and so the standards and process should be closer to those.

The comparison is fatuous and the most obvious sophistry, Greg.

> The legal standard used is "preponderance" which means that if
> more than half of the stuff CPS brings into court is negative, the
> judge decides they own the family in question.

Then ask for a jury trial.

Or are you discussing informational hearings rather than prosecution?

> Caseworkers of course simply provide one-sided information.

Well, since their job is to intervene in child abuse cases, and in most
instances that is what they find, I'd say their information is going to
appear very one sided to the perp.

Wouldn't you?

> This is considered a breach of due process
> clause because it totally subverts the court.

Wrong.

Try that in criminal trial on the prosecutor, Greg.

> In US Chapter 42 Section 1983 and 1987 law suits against the
> agencies it is called a violation of the 6th amendment of the
> US Constitution, "an abuse of the preponderance standard".

Please provide a more usable citation, Greg.

And what was the nature of the cases? Was the standard court proceedure
challenged, or in fact were their individuals that did in fact violate
the "preponderance standard?"

> Even when Juvenile Court Judges see blatant evidence that
> caseworkers in fact committed PERJURY, they do not
> feel compelled to initiate investigation or prosecution.

Are you aware, unless you correct your testimony to the HW&MC that you
could be charged for perjury?

Or is it okay when you misinform but not okay for others to?

> Prosecutors don't want to prosecute their allies,
> the caseworkers, and they have "descretion".

Sure they do, if a charge is brought. Have you brought any?

> Clearly the "flexible truth" has infected even courts.

The "truth" has been 'flexible' from the beginning of time, Greg.

Facts, on the other hadn are not.

Now what YOU need to do is provide some facts.

Did what you offer to the HW&MC hearing constitute facts and the truth,
Greg?

I found your "facts" to be in error, and posted the correct information
for you.

As far as I can find your testimoney sits on the record, the
Congressional Record, as being not the 'truth.'

Do you have a different standard for you than others, and since fact is
immutable, how is it you presented your facts, and they do not conform
to the actual facts I provided you?

You prove, Greg, there is no 'sophistry' in the argument Ron or myself
offered. For YOUR 'truth' was not based on fact.

Do you still hold that your "facts" were true concerning the use of
Federal monies to establish...or failing to establish the correct
number and distribution of Iowa CRBs?

0:->
>
>
> Ron wrote:
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Michael©" > wrote in message
> > > . 97.140...
> > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
> > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
> > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
> > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > >>
> > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
> > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.
> > > >>
> > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
> > > >>>>> defamation
> > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > > >>>>you'll
> > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
> > > >>> That
> > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
> > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > >>
> > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > >
> > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO
> > > >
> > > > =====================================
> > > > truth
> > > >
> > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
> > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false.
> > > > 3
> > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > >
> > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > >
> > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > =====================================
> > > >
> > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Ron
> > > >>
> > >
> > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
> > > that
> > > is accepted as true."
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > >Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> >
> > >Doan
> >
> > No Doan, they aren't. Fact is immutable, truth is perception.
> >
> > Why are so many people have problems with this, its really a pretty simple
> > concept. Facts do not change. Truth does. Therefore Truth is perception.
> >
> > Ron

0:->

December 5th 06, 02:39 AM

Greegor wrote:

....snip....other material already responded to......

> Even when Juvenile Court Judges see blatant evidence that
> caseworkers in fact committed PERJURY, they do not
> feel compelled to initiate investigation or prosecution.

You seem both unable to cite specifics in this and other legal matters,
Greg.

So I'll start with more education for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Perjury
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a
material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any
of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the
witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the
court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury
is considered a very serious crime as it could be used to usurp the
power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the
United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal
law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at
18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Did you swear or affirm, Greg, to the testimony you gave to the HW&MC?

I hope note.

Now, have you seen someone from CPS make verifiably false statements on
a material matter under oath in a court of law?

If so, why have you not provided the verifiable evidence and had them
charged with perjury?

Waiting for the court to do it?

0:->

0:->

December 5th 06, 02:44 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

....Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people
often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately.
Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or
their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the
common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the
intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually
committed the act (the actus reus)....

I'm very proud to have found some information that might well get you
off the hook with your testimony to the U.S.Congress, Greg.

And should you find yourself in any problem, feel free to refer to me
as to your frequent habit of making innacurate statement...though I'm
not sure I could testify they are 'unwittingly.'

You do seem to have a great many mistaken beliefs, but again, I'm not
sure they are honest mistakes.

.....hmmmm....maybe you best not call on me for help, unless your life
is in danger.

0:->

Greegor

December 5th 06, 02:58 AM

Kane wrote
> Now, have you seen someone from CPS make
> verifiably false statements on
> a material matter under oath in a court of law?

Yes, several times.

> If so, why have you not provided the verifiable evidence and had them
> charged with perjury?

When a public defender sees such blatant proof of this
and offers no help, is that a failure to provide a vigorous defense?

When a GAL sees this but sweeps it under the rug, is
that a failure to represent?

When a Judge sees this and does nothing, isn't that malfeasance?

> Waiting for the court to do it?

Is any court in the land allowed to ignore such
blatant violations of people's rights?

Isn't that sort of thing the FIRST DUTY
of any court in this land?

0:->

December 5th 06, 03:54 AM

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > Now, have you seen someone from CPS make
> > verifiably false statements on
> > a material matter under oath in a court of law?
>
> Yes, several times.

Does it meet the definition I provided?

> > If so, why have you not provided the verifiable evidence and had them
> > charged with perjury?
>
> When a public defender sees such blatant proof of this
> and offers no help, is that a failure to provide a vigorous defense?

In other words, you didn't prefer a charge of perjury. Do you expect
others to do your "trial" "vicariously" for you?

> When a GAL sees this but sweeps it under the rug, is
> that a failure to represent?

I don't know. Depends on if the GAL is conversant with the law and
knows it's not going to meet the requirement and definition to bring
charges.

> When a Judge sees this and does nothing, isn't that malfeasance?

Nope.

> > Waiting for the court to do it?
>
> Is any court in the land allowed to ignore such
> blatant violations of people's rights?

No. Now please state the rights that are being violated.

> Isn't that sort of thing the FIRST DUTY
> of any court in this land?

No.

You have a deep fundamental ignorance of the law, and laws, Greg.

If you see a crime being committed and YOU wish to have that crime
stopped then YOU have to either bring charges yourself, or bring it
specifically to the attention of the authorties.

They may or may not act on your alert. A great deal depends, as Ron
pointed out to you, on whether or not the prosecutor thinks this is a
'crime' worth spending time on.

So in the end, only YOU can have someone charged and must follow
through yourself.

You know, for someone with such a profound distrust of authority you
have a very high expectation of authority to act in your behalf.

Why is that I wonder.

Now please, try answering some of the question put to you, like the one
about show what rights of the parent's are being violated routinely in
CPS cases that go to court.

Or are you planning to never answer a question that you know you have
not facts for, but still continue to harp on the same claims you've
never supported?

0:->

Doan

December 5th 06, 03:58 AM

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > > > . 97.140...
> > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > > > >> ...
> > > > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> > > > > >>>> > suit
> > > > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
> > > > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > > > >>> defendant
> > > > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > > > >>> Period.
> > > > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this
> > > > > >> news
> > > > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > > > >> perspective.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>> defamation
> > > > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
> > > > > >>>>you'll
> > > > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually
> > > > > >>>>say,
> > > > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> > > > > >>> suits.
> > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>> any
> > > > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LMAO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > > truth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > > > false. 3
> > > > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ron
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> > > > > belief
> > > > > that
> > > > > is accepted as true."
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> > >
> > > Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> > >
> > > Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > > rules, not gods.
> > >
> > And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
> >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > So, proof please.
> > >
> > > Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> > >
> > >Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
> >
> > >Doan
> >
> > Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
> > believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always
> > the
> > truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!
>
> >Doan
>
> As I have been saying, Truth is perception. Truth can be based on faith,
> fact cannot. Therefore truth is not always factual and can change depending
> on the individuals perspective. Fact is immutable, it cannot be changed.
>
> Ron
>
Do yourself a favor and look it up in a dictionary, Ron. Fact and truth
are synonymous!

Doan

>
> >
> > >
> > > For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> > > below:
> > >
> > > fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> > > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > > â?"noun
> > > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> > > basis in fact.
> > > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> > > fact.
> > > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> > > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> > > 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > > given by the witness are highly questionable.
> > >
> > > But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
> > > from your claim in fact.
> > >
> > > truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> > > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> > > â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> > > Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > > Pronunciation.
> > > 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> > > truth.
> > > 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> > > 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> > > like: mathematical truths.
> > > 4. the state or character of being true.
> > > 5. actuality or actual existence.
> > > 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> > > 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> > > 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> > > from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> > > 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> > > 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> > > 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> > > â?"Idiom
> > > 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> > > hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
> > >
> > > See numbers 8 and 9 above?
> > >
> > > And number 6?
> > >
> > > While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> > > with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> > > obviously do not agree with you.
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Ron

December 5th 06, 12:51 PM

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > > > . 97.140...
> > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > > > >> ...
> > > > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> > > > > >>>> > suit
> > > > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of
> > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > > > >>> defendant
> > > > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > > > >>> Period.
> > > > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> news
> > > > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > > > >> perspective.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>> defamation
> > > > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring
> > > > > >>>>qualifiers
> > > > > >>>>you'll
> > > > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
> > > > > >>>>actually
> > > > > >>>>say,
> > > > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> > > > > >>> suits.
> > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> > > > > >>> in
> > > > > >>> any
> > > > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LMAO
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > > truth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > > > false. 3
> > > > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ron
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> > > > > belief
> > > > > that
> > > > > is accepted as true."
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> > >
> > > Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> > >
> > > Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > > rules, not gods.
> > >
> > And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
> >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > So, proof please.
> > >
> > > Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> > >
> > >Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
> >
> > >Doan
> >
> > Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
> > believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always
> > the
> > truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!
>
> >Doan
>
> As I have been saying, Truth is perception. Truth can be based on faith,
> fact cannot. Therefore truth is not always factual and can change
> depending
> on the individuals perspective. Fact is immutable, it cannot be changed.
>
> Ron
>
>Do yourself a favor and look it up in a dictionary, Ron. Fact and truth
>are synonymous!

>Doan

The dictionary has nothing to do with it doan. This is a philosophical
discussion, and dictionaries don't do philosophy.

Ron

>
> >
> > >
> > > For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> > > below:
> > >
> > > fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> > > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > > â?"noun
> > > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> > > basis in fact.
> > > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> > > fact.
> > > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> > > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> > > 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > > given by the witness are highly questionable.
> > >
> > > But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds
> > > departures
> > > from your claim in fact.
> > >
> > > truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> > > Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> > > â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> > > Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > > Pronunciation.
> > > 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> > > truth.
> > > 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
> > > 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
> > > like: mathematical truths.
> > > 4. the state or character of being true.
> > > 5. actuality or actual existence.
> > > 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
> > > 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
> > > 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
> > > from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
> > > 9. agreement with a standard or original.
> > > 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
> > > 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
> > > â?"Idiom
> > > 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> > > hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
> > >
> > > See numbers 8 and 9 above?
> > >
> > > And number 6?
> > >
> > > While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
> > > with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
> > > obviously do not agree with you.
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

0:->

December 5th 06, 01:08 PM

Ron wrote:
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
>
>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
>>
>>> "Doan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . 97.140...
>>>>>>> "Ron" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
>>>>>>>>>>> suit
>>>>>>>>>>> because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> complainant.
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Kane,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
>>>>>>>>> defendant
>>>>>>>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
>>>>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>>>>> Absolute defense.
>>>>>>>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> news
>>>>>>>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
>>>>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> defamation
>>>>>>>>>>> (libel and slander).
>>>>>>>>>> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring
>>>>>>>>>> qualifiers
>>>>>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>>>>>> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>> say,
>>>>>>>>>> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>>>>>>>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
>>>>>>>>> suits.
>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
>>>>>>>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
>>>>>>> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LMAO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =====================================
>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
>>>>>>> false. 3
>>>>>>> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ORIGIN Old English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oxford University Press, 2006
>>>>>>> =====================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth is a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
>>>>>> belief
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is accepted as true."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>>> Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
>>>> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
>>>>
>>>> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
>>>> rules, not gods.
>>>>
>>> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>> So, proof please.
>>>>
>>>> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
>>>>
>>>> Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
>>>> Doan
>>> Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
>>> believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always
>>> the
>>> truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!
>>> Doan
>> As I have been saying, Truth is perception. Truth can be based on faith,
>> fact cannot. Therefore truth is not always factual and can change
>> depending
>> on the individuals perspective. Fact is immutable, it cannot be changed.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and look it up in a dictionary, Ron. Fact and truth
>> are synonymous!
>
>> Doan
>
> The dictionary has nothing to do with it doan. This is a philosophical
> discussion, and dictionaries don't do philosophy.

Even the dictionaries make plain that the question of "truth" and "fact"
in the law is open to interpretation there.

Otherwise we wouldn't need judges and juries.

Just pop the case "facts" and the "truth" into a logical program for
analysis and comparison with known facts and truth and out would come
the finding.

" 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
given by the witness are highly questionable."

Yet they call them "facts."

For instance, the truth of this statement, an example from below is in
dispute. Rome experienced many setbacks in it's colonies...stretched far
too thinly. There is some evidence showing that lead was a popular
cooking and eating utensil manufacturing metal.

So this "truth" is highly questionable:

"12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
hastened the decline of the Roman Empire."

It's an opinion. A philosophical question, when using the word "moral"
to define a 'truth.'

It is not factual.

So not synonymous as claimed.

Your point about dictionaries and philosophy is well taken, even if
dictionaries do include philosophical considerations.

We are left with this question, from the subject field, Gloating or Ill
Wishes vs Threats of Violence.

The argument of those that oppose me on this are based on the situation
now...and I have made it clear I am discussing outcomes. That is, should
violence be visited on me or mine, or Donald Fisher and his, then the
sentiments being expressed about "CPS Caseworkers" of which I am accused
of being, will take on an entirely new light.

I posted a quote, with link, that made plain "connotation" was arguable
as a libel or slander charge definition...even if true in fact.

Fundamental mindsets have a difficult time wrapping themselves,
apparently, around time and circumstances having an effect on charges
and claims.

I find this amusing.

Doan will continue to split hairs, rather than deal with the real issue.

Expressing desires for others injury or death mean nothing. Until of
course there is an injury or death.

That is the only reason I keep track of the babbling of I'll wishes and
"gloating" over killings of caseworkers.

Since I'm accuse of being one, though I am not, nor have I ever been,
being labeled as such, then reading from the same people gloating over
the deaths of caseworkers, and clearly expressed desire for me
personally to be killed I think I'm perfectly logical in my actions.

Would you ignore such statements and not consider them threats?

If I said that I hate, despise, and wished to see killed all electronic
information systems administrators and ID Doan as one, should he not
take notice and keep track of my statements just in case?

Would it be logical for him to assume I meant him no harm?

The logic of these children is precious.

Kane

> Ron
>
>>>> For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
>>>> below:
>>>>
>>>> fact /fÃ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>>> â?"noun
>>>> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
>>>> basis in fact.
>>>> 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
>>>> fact.
>>>> 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
>>>> to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
>>>> 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
>>>> given by the witness are highly questionable.
>>>>
>>>> But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds
>>>> departures
>>>> from your claim in fact.
>>>>
>>>> truth /truÎ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
>>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
>>>> â?"noun, plural truths /truÃ°z, truÎ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
>>>> Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
>>>> Pronunciation.
>>>> 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
>>>> truth.
>>>> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
>>>> 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
>>>> like: mathematical truths.
>>>> 4. the state or character of being true.
>>>> 5. actuality or actual existence.
>>>> 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
>>>> 7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
>>>> 8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
>>>> from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
>>>> 9. agreement with a standard or original.
>>>> 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
>>>> 11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
>>>> â?"Idiom
>>>> 12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
>>>> hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
>>>>
>>>> See numbers 8 and 9 above?
>>>>
>>>> And number 6?
>>>>
>>>> While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
>>>> with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
>>>> obviously do not agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Doan

December 5th 06, 05:51 PM

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:

>
> "Doan" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
>
> >
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . 97.140...
> > > > > > > "Ron" > wrote in
> > > > > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > >>>> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> > > > > > >>>> > suit
> > > > > > >>>> > because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of
> > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > >>>> > complainant.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hi, Kane,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > > > > > >>> defendant
> > > > > > >>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > > > > > >>> Period.
> > > > > > >>> Absolute defense.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> news
> > > > > > >> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > > > > > >> perspective.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>> defamation
> > > > > > >>>>> (libel and slander).
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring
> > > > > > >>>>qualifiers
> > > > > > >>>>you'll
> > > > > > >>>>nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
> > > > > > >>>>actually
> > > > > > >>>>say,
> > > > > > >>>>"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> > > > > > >>> suits.
> > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > >>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> > > > > > >>> in
> > > > > > >>> any
> > > > > > >>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LMAO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > > > truth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > > > > > > false. 3
> > > > > > > a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ORIGIN Old English.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oxford University Press, 2006
> > > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The truth is a fact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Ron
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> > > > > > belief
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > is accepted as true."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> > > >
> > > > Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> > > >
> > > > Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > > > rules, not gods.
> > > >
> > > And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
> > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > > So, proof please.
> > > >
> > > > Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> > > >
> > > >Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.

Doan

December 5th 06, 05:53 PM

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
> >
> >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "MichaelÂ©" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> . 97.140...
> >>>>>>> "Ron" > wrote in
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> >>>>>>>>>>> suit
> >>>>>>>>>>> because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> complainant.
> >>>>>>>>> Hi, Kane,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> >>>>>>>>> defendant
> >>>>>>>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> >>>>>>>>> Period.
> >>>>>>>>> Absolute defense.
> >>>>>>>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> news
> >>>>>>>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> >>>>>>>> perspective.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> defamation
> >>>>>>>>>>> (libel and slander).
> >>>>>>>>>> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring
> >>>>>>>>>> qualifiers
> >>>>>>>>>> you'll
> >>>>>>>>>> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
> >>>>>>>>>> actually
> >>>>>>>>>> say,
> >>>>>>>>>> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> >>>>>>>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> >>>>>>>>> suits.
> >>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> >>>>>>>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> >>>>>>> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LMAO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =====================================
> >>>>>>> truth
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or
> >>>>>>> state
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> >>>>>>> false. 3
> >>>>>>> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ORIGIN Old English.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oxford University Press, 2006
> >>>>>>> =====================================
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The truth is a fact.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> >>>>>> belief
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> is accepted as true."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ron
> >>>>> Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> >>>> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> >>>>
> >>>> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> >>>> rules, not gods.
> >>>>
> >>> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
> >>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> So, proof please.
> >>>>
> >>>> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.

0:->

December 5th 06, 06:25 PM

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > "Doan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Ron wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "Doan" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>> On 4 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> "MichaelÃ‚Â©" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>> . 97.140...
> > >>>>>>> "Ron" > wrote in
> > >>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> suit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> complainant.
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi, Kane,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the
> > >>>>>>>>> defendant
> > >>>>>>>>> proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
> > >>>>>>>>> Period.
> > >>>>>>>>> Absolute defense.
> > >>>>>>>> If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to
> > >>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> news
> > >>>>>>>> group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
> > >>>>>>>> perspective.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> defamation
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (libel and slander).
> > >>>>>>>>>> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring
> > >>>>>>>>>> qualifiers
> > >>>>>>>>>> you'll
> > >>>>>>>>>> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
> > >>>>>>>>>> actually
> > >>>>>>>>>> say,
> > >>>>>>>>>> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
> > >>>>>>>>> Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel
> > >>>>>>>>> suits.
> > >>>>>>>>> That
> > >>>>>>>>> the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
> > >>>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>> manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.
> > >>>>>>>> No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.
> > >>>>>>> If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> LMAO
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> =====================================
> > >>>>>>> truth
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> + noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or
> > >>>>>>> state
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>> being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to
> > >>>>>>> false. 3
> > >>>>>>> a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ORIGIN Old English.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Oxford University Press, 2006
> > >>>>>>> =====================================
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The truth is a fact.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Ron
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or
> > >>>>>> belief
> > >>>>>> that
> > >>>>>> is accepted as true."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ron
> > >>>>> Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.
> > >>>> Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
> > >>>> rules, not gods.
> > >>>>
> > >>> And the courts are ruled by human, not god!
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Doan
> > >>>> So, proof please.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Show me a case where the truth is a not defense for libel, if you can.
> > >>>> Doan
> > >>> Anytime truth is not factual it is not a defense of any kind. What you
> > >>> believe to be truth may indeed not be based on facts. Facts are always
> > >>> the
> > >>> truth, but sometimes the truth is not factual.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ron
> > >>>
> > >>> If the truth is not factual then, by definition, it is not the truth!
> > >>> Doan
> > >> As I have been saying, Truth is perception. Truth can be based on faith,
> > >> fact cannot. Therefore truth is not always factual and can change
> > >> depending
> > >> on the individuals perspective. Fact is immutable, it cannot be changed.
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> > >> Do yourself a favor and look it up in a dictionary, Ron. Fact and truth
> > >> are synonymous!
> > >
> > >> Doan
> > >
> > > The dictionary has nothing to do with it doan. This is a philosophical
> > > discussion, and dictionaries don't do philosophy.
> >
> > Even the dictionaries make plain that the question of "truth" and "fact"
> > in the law is open to interpretation there.
> >
> > Otherwise we wouldn't need judges and juries.
> >
> > Just pop the case "facts" and the "truth" into a logical program for
> > analysis and comparison with known facts and truth and out would come
> > the finding.
> >
> > " 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > given by the witness are highly questionable."
> >
> > Yet they call them "facts."
> >
> > For instance, the truth of this statement, an example from below is in
> > dispute. Rome experienced many setbacks in it's colonies...stretched far
> > too thinly. There is some evidence showing that lead was a popular
> > cooking and eating utensil manufacturing metal.
> >
> > So this "truth" is highly questionable:
> >
> > "12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
> > hastened the decline of the Roman Empire."
> >
> > It's an opinion. A philosophical question, when using the word "moral"
> > to define a 'truth.'
> >
> > It is not factual.
> >
> > So not synonymous as claimed.
> >
>
> Synonyms 1. fact. 2. veracity. 7. sincerity, candor, frankness. 10.
> precision, exactness.
> Antonyms 1. falsehood. 2, 4, 7. falsity.
> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
> Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006.
>
> Q.E.D!
>
> Doan

It doesn't apply in this case, Doan.

Your choice of "synonymous" as a comparison bettween truth and fact
fails to account for the meaning of that word.

Are you presuming that "synonymous" means precisely the same?

>From you own source:

synÂ·oÂ·nym /ËˆsÉªnÉ™nÉªm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[sin-uh-nim] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

â€“noun
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the
language, as joyful, elated, glad.
2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as
Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.
3. Biology. one of two or more scientific names applied to a single
taxon.
[Origin: 1400â€“50; < L synÅ?nymum < Gk synnymon, n. use of neut. of
synnymos /ËŒsÉªnÉ™ËˆnÉªmÉªti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[sin-uh-nim-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Â© Random House, Inc.
2006.

It is not exact...as in, from the above:

1.a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the
language, as joyful, elated, glad.

Notice the 'nearly?'

That would be both Ron's point, and mine, I believe.

Truth and fact are not always the "same" even if they are 'synonymous.'
'Nearly' says your argument won't cut it.

Q.E.D.

0:-]

>
>
> > Your point about dictionaries and philosophy is well taken, even if
> > dictionaries do include philosophical considerations.
> >
> > We are left with this question, from the subject field, Gloating or Ill
> > Wishes vs Threats of Violence.
> >
> > The argument of those that oppose me on this are based on the situation
> > now...and I have made it clear I am discussing outcomes. That is, should
> > violence be visited on me or mine, or Donald Fisher and his, then the
> > sentiments being expressed about "CPS Caseworkers" of which I am accused
> > of being, will take on an entirely new light.
> >
> > I posted a quote, with link, that made plain "connotation" was arguable
> > as a libel or slander charge definition...even if true in fact.
> >
> > Fundamental mindsets have a difficult time wrapping themselves,
> > apparently, around time and circumstances having an effect on charges
> > and claims.
> >
> > I find this amusing.
> >
> > Doan will continue to split hairs, rather than deal with the real issue.
> >
> > Expressing desires for others injury or death mean nothing. Until of
> > course there is an injury or death.
> >
> > That is the only reason I keep track of the babbling of I'll wishes and
> > "gloating" over killings of caseworkers.
> >
> > Since I'm accuse of being one, though I am not, nor have I ever been,
> > being labeled as such, then reading from the same people gloating over
> > the deaths of caseworkers, and clearly expressed desire for me
> > personally to be killed I think I'm perfectly logical in my actions.
> >
> > Would you ignore such statements and not consider them threats?
> >
> > If I said that I hate, despise, and wished to see killed all electronic
> > information systems administrators and ID Doan as one, should he not
> > take notice and keep track of my statements just in case?
> >
> > Would it be logical for him to assume I meant him no harm?
> >
> > The logic of these children is precious.
> >
> > Kane
> >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >>>> For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
> > >>>> below:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> fact /fÃƒÂ¦kt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
> > >>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> > >>>> Ã¢?"noun
> > >>>> 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
> > >>>> basis in fact.
> > >>>> 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
> > >>>> fact.
> > >>>> 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
> > >>>> to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
> > >>>> 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
> > >>>> given by the witness are highly questionable.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds
> > >>>> departures
> > >>>> from your claim in fact.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> truth /truÃŽÂ¸/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
> > >>>> Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
> > >>>> Ã¢?"noun, plural truths /truÃƒÂ°z, truÃŽÂ¸s/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> > >>>> Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
> > >>>> Pronunciation.
> > >>>> 1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
> > >>>> truth.
> > >>>> 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.