Re: Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules

[Doan]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> deliberate lies....
>
Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > not the actual rate!
>
> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> pick. I chose both, in your case.
>
Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > meaning from the original one.
>
> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
>
Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
>
> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> ass. Or a monkey.
>
Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
>
> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
>
Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
>
> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
>
> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
>
84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> indicator.
>
Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
>
So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> child abuse, hence we don't know.
>
Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> foster parents can.
>
Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> first to know.
>
> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
>
> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> when they were young.
>
> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
>
> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> considerably proportion.
>
Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
>> deliberate lies....
>>
> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> to the public again!
> [snip]
>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
>> > not the actual rate!
>>
>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
>>
> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> {snip}
>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
>> > meaning from the original one.
>>
>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
>>
> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
>
> {snip}
>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
>>
>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
>> ass. Or a monkey.
>>
> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
>
>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
>>
>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
>>
> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> STUPIDITY!!!
>
>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
>>
>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
>>
>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
>>
> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
>
> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
>
> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
>
>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
>> indicator.
>>
> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
>
>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
>>
> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
>
>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
>>
> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
>
>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
>> foster parents can.
>>
> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> Boy, you are STUPID!
>
>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
>> first to know.
>>
>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
>>
>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
>> when they were young.
>>
>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
>>
>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
>> considerably proportion.
>>
> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> Hihihi!

Let's clear the air here, first.

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:->



>
> Doan
>
>
>

[Doan]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> >> deliberate lies....
> >>
> > Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > to the public again!
> > [snip]
> >> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> >> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> >> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> >> > not the actual rate!
> >>
> >> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> >> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> >> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> >>
> > Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > {snip}
> >> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> >> > meaning from the original one.
> >>
> >> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> >>
> > Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> >
> > {snip}
> >> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> >> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> >>
> >> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> >> ass. Or a monkey.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> >
> >> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> >>
> >> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> >> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> >>
> > Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > STUPIDITY!!!
> >
> >> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> >>
> >> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> >>
> >> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> >>
> > 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> >
> > Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> >
> > Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> >
> >> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> >> indicator.
> >>
> > Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> >
> >> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> >> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> >> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> >>
> > So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> >
> >> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> >> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> >> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> >> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> >
> >> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> >> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> >> foster parents can.
> >>
> > Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > Boy, you are STUPID!
> >
> >> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> >> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> >> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> >> first to know.
> >>
> >> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> >>
> >> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> >> when they were young.
> >>
> >> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> >> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> >>
> >> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> >> considerably proportion.
> >>
> > Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > Hihihi!
>
> Let's clear the air here, first.
>
Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> by me.
>
Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart! Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!! You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Doan

> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> population has an ulcer.
>
> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> not as yet countable.
>
> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> about them.
>
> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> adult and reports it.
>
> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> popping up very late in the cycle?
>
> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> liars; Doananators.
>
> 0:->
>
>
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
> >
> >
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
>>>> deliberate lies....
>>>>
>>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
>>> to the public again!
>>> [snip]
>>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
>>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
>>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
>>>> > not the actual rate!
>>>>
>>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
>>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
>>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
>>>>
>>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
>>> {snip}
>>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
>>>> > meaning from the original one.
>>>>
>>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
>>>>
>>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
>>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
>>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
>>>>
>>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
>>>> ass. Or a monkey.
>>>>
>>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
>>>
>>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
>>>>
>>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
>>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
>>>>
>>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
>>> STUPIDITY!!!
>>>
>>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
>>>>
>>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
>>>>
>>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
>>>>
>>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
>>>
>>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
>>>
>>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
>>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
>>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
>>>
>>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
>>>> indicator.
>>>>
>>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
>>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
>>>
>>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
>>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
>>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
>>>>
>>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
>>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
>>>
>>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
>>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
>>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
>>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
>>>
>>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
>>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
>>>> foster parents can.
>>>>
>>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
>>> Boy, you are STUPID!
>>>
>>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
>>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
>>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
>>>> first to know.
>>>>
>>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
>>>>
>>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
>>>> when they were young.
>>>>
>>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
>>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
>>>>
>>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
>>>> considerably proportion.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
>>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
>>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
>>> Hihihi!
>> Let's clear the air here, first.
>>
> Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
>
>> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
>> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
>> by me.
>>
> Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

> Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> years!!!

Yep.

> You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.
>
> Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:->

>
>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
>> population has an ulcer.
>>
>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
>> not as yet countable.
>>
>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
>> about them.
>>
>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
>> adult and reports it.
>>
>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
>> popping up very late in the cycle?
>>
>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
>> liars; Doananators.
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
... his usual dodging crock of ****....

Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
point.

Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?

What's up with that, sneak?

R R R R R R R R

DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.

>
>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
>> population has an ulcer.
>>
>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
>> not as yet countable.
>>
>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
>> about them.
>>
>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
>> adult and reports it.
>>
>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
>> popping up very late in the cycle?
>>
>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
>> liars; Doananators.
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> >>>> deliberate lies....
> >>>>
> >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> >>> to the public again!
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> >>>> > not the actual rate!
> >>>>
> >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> >>> {snip}
> >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> >>>>
> >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> >>>
> >>> {snip}
> >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> >>>>
> >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> >>>
> >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> >>>>
> >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> >>>>
> >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> >>>>
> >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> >>>>
> >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> >>>
> >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> >>>
> >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> >>>
> >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> >>>> indicator.
> >>>>
> >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> >>>>
> >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> >>>
> >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> >>>> foster parents can.
> >>>>
> >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> >>>> first to know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> >>>> when they were young.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> >>>> considerably proportion.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> >>> Hihihi!
> >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> >
> >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> >> by me.
> >>
> > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > chart!
>
> Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> year for some reason.
>
> You didn't notice that?
>
Hahaha! You didn't notice these entries in the chart???

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

> > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > years!!!
>
> Yep.
>
Hahaha!

> > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
>
> Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
>
Hihihi!

> You can't read but you sure can lie.

Hahaha! The STUPID liar here is YOU!

Doan

> >
> > Doan
>
> You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
>
> I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> it a "lie."
>
> You are one sick little ****.
>
> But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
>
> 0:->
>
> >
> >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> >> population has an ulcer.
> >>
> >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> >> not as yet countable.
> >>
> >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> >> adult and reports it.
> >>
> >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> >>
> >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> >> liars; Doananators.
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
>
Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!

Doan

> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
> point.
>
> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>
> What's up with that, sneak?
>
> R R R R R R R R
>
> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
>
> >
> >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> >> population has an ulcer.
> >>
> >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> >> not as yet countable.
> >>
> >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> >> adult and reports it.
> >>
> >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> >>
> >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> >> liars; Doananators.
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
>>
> Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
>
> Doan

As I said, ad hom hopper,

"Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?

What's up with that, sneak?"

0:-]

>
>> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
>> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
>> point.
>>
>> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
>> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>>
>> What's up with that, sneak?
>>
>> R R R R R R R R
>>
>> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
>>
>>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
>>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
>>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
>>>> population has an ulcer.
>>>>
>>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
>>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
>>>> not as yet countable.
>>>>
>>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
>>>> about them.
>>>>
>>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
>>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
>>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
>>>> adult and reports it.
>>>>
>>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
>>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
>>>>
>>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
>>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
>>>> liars; Doananators.
>>>>
>>>> 0:->
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
> >>
> > Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> >
> > Doan
>
> As I said, ad hom hopper,
>
Hypocrite! ;-)

> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>
> What's up with that, sneak?"
>
Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
You said there are none, did you not?

Doan

> 0:-]
>
> >
> >> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
> >> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
> >> point.
> >>
> >> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
> >> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >>
> >> What's up with that, sneak?
> >>
> >> R R R R R R R R
> >>
> >> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
> >>
> >>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> >>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> >>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> >>>> population has an ulcer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> >>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> >>>> not as yet countable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> >>>> about them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> >>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> >>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> >>>> adult and reports it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> >>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> >>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> >>>> liars; Doananators.
> >>>>
> >>>> 0:->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> > As I said, ad hom hopper,
> >
> Hypocrite! ;-)
>
> > "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> > below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >
> > What's up with that, sneak?"
> >
> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?

There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?

> You said there are none, did you not?

Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
stated it below.

You stopped reading about here then?

Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
conscience.

> Doan

Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
than before.

You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.

What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
and monkeyboy diversions.

Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. <finger shaking in your face>

0:->

> > 0:-]
> >
> > >
> > >> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
> > >> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
> > >> point.
> > >>
> > >> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
> > >> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> > >>
> > >> What's up with that, sneak?
> > >>
> > >> R R R R R R R R
> > >>
> > >> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
> > >>
> > >>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > >>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > >>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > >>>> population has an ulcer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > >>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > >>>> not as yet countable.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > >>>> about them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > >>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > >>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > >>>> adult and reports it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > >>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > >>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > >>>> liars; Doananators.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 0:->
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Doan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >
> >

[Doan]

On 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
> > > >>
> > > > Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > As I said, ad hom hopper,
> > >
> > Hypocrite! ;-)
> >
> > > "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> > > below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> > >
> > > What's up with that, sneak?"
> > >
> > Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
>
> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
>
So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID! I challenged you to come up
with some research, you came up with NONE! And you still want me to
discuss research??? HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?

Doan


> > You said there are none, did you not?
>
> Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
> stated it below.
>
> You stopped reading about here then?
>
> Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
> conscience.
>
> > Doan
>
> Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
> below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
> than before.
>
> You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
> you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
> of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.
>
> What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
> and monkeyboy diversions.
>
> Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. <finger shaking in your face>
>
> 0:->
>
> > > 0:-]
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
> > > >> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
> > > >> point.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
> > > >> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> > > >>
> > > >> What's up with that, sneak?
> > > >>
> > > >> R R R R R R R R
> > > >>
> > > >> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
> > > >>
> > > >>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > > >>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > > >>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > > >>>> population has an ulcer.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > > >>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > > >>>> not as yet countable.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > > >>>> about them.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > > >>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > > >>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > > >>>> adult and reports it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > > >>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > > >>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > > >>>> liars; Doananators.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 0:->
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Doan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > >
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
>>>>>
>>>>> Doan
>>>> As I said, ad hom hopper,
>>>>
>>> Hypocrite! ;-)
>>>
>>>> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
>>>> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>>>>
>>>> What's up with that, sneak?"
>>>>
>>> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
>> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
>>
> So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID!

Just what I posted, Doan. Clearly.

> I challenged you to come up
> with some research, you came up with NONE!

Because there is no valid research.

> And you still want me to
> discuss research???

Of course. And I made clear the question now is why there is no valid
research. Care to discuss it, or are we going to be treated to yet more
monkeyboy screeching hysterical avoidance?

> HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?

The question should be, since everyone interested can SEE who is being
stupid here, how stupid can YOU be?

Doananating in public again, I see.

The challenge for discussion was obvious, Doan: The reason why there is
no research to discuss. Can you refute my reasons as they are stated?

Is there research? Do you claim there is? Can you name it? Can you point
to it so it can be discussed fully on line? Or are you about to do
another "Embry" on us again?

Care to discuss what I claim, or are you going to continue to insult
your ancestors?

> Doan

>>> You said there are none, did you not?
>> Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
>> stated it below.
>>
>> You stopped reading about here then?
>>
>> Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
>> conscience.

Avoidance, Doan? Cowardly avoidance? Even monkeys are braver than you.

>>> Doan
>> Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
>> below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
>> than before.
>>
>> You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
>> you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
>> of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.
>>
>> What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
>> and monkeyboy diversions.

Surely you can handle a simple statement such as mine, that "there is no
valid research," right?

Do you think there is? Where? Can we read it on line?

What does it prove?

How does it account for the very different characteristics of the two
demographics under discussion?

Any little thing you'd like to talk about instead of biting on your
tail, monkeyboy?

You are quite a spectacle what with your cowardly handling of this
issue, Doan...but then that's nothing new for you. You have been
practicing how to look good while running for your life for years now,
coward.

0:->

>>
>> Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. <finger shaking in your face>
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>>>> 0:-]
>>>>
>>>>>> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
>>>>>> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
>>>>>> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's up with that, sneak?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R R R R R R R R
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
>>>>>>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
>>>>>>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
>>>>>>>> population has an ulcer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
>>>>>>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
>>>>>>>> not as yet countable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
>>>>>>>> about them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
>>>>>>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
>>>>>>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
>>>>>>>> adult and reports it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
>>>>>>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
>>>>>>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
>>>>>>>> liars; Doananators.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0:->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>> .. his usual dodging crock of ****....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Doan
> >>>> As I said, ad hom hopper,
> >>>>
> >>> Hypocrite! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth
> >>>> below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >>>>
> >>>> What's up with that, sneak?"
> >>>>
> >>> Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research?
> >> There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before?
> >>
> > So what is there for me to discuss, STUPID!
>
> Just what I posted, Doan. Clearly.
>
You posted your STUPIDITY, clearly! ;-)

> > I challenged you to come up
> > with some research, you came up with NONE!
>
> Because there is no valid research.
>
So there is nothing for me to discuss.

> > And you still want me to
> > discuss research???
>
> Of course. And I made clear the question now is why there is no valid
> research. Care to discuss it, or are we going to be treated to yet more
> monkeyboy screeching hysterical avoidance?
>
But you just said there are no research, STUPID!

> > HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
>
> The question should be, since everyone interested can SEE who is being
> stupid here, how stupid can YOU be?
>
I can read a simple chart, YOU CAN'T! ;-)

> Doananating in public again, I see.
>
Hihihi! The only STUPID LIAR here is YOU!

Doan

> The challenge for discussion was obvious, Doan: The reason why there is
> no research to discuss. Can you refute my reasons as they are stated?
>
> Is there research? Do you claim there is? Can you name it? Can you point
> to it so it can be discussed fully on line? Or are you about to do
> another "Embry" on us again?
>
> Care to discuss what I claim, or are you going to continue to insult
> your ancestors?
>
> > Doan
>
> >>> You said there are none, did you not?
> >> Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I
> >> stated it below.
> >>
> >> You stopped reading about here then?
> >>
> >> Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your
> >> conscience.
>
> Avoidance, Doan? Cowardly avoidance? Even monkeys are braver than you.
>
> >>> Doan
> >> Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present
> >> below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more
> >> than before.
> >>
> >> You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown
> >> you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse
> >> of your intelligence that they gave you by birth.
> >>
> >> What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists,
> >> and monkeyboy diversions.
>
> Surely you can handle a simple statement such as mine, that "there is no
> valid research," right?
>
> Do you think there is? Where? Can we read it on line?
>
> What does it prove?
>
> How does it account for the very different characteristics of the two
> demographics under discussion?
>
> Any little thing you'd like to talk about instead of biting on your
> tail, monkeyboy?
>
> You are quite a spectacle what with your cowardly handling of this
> issue, Doan...but then that's nothing new for you. You have been
> practicing how to look good while running for your life for years now,
> coward.
>
> 0:->
>
> >>
> >> Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. <finger shaking in your face>
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> >>>> 0:-]
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and
> >>>>>> what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this
> >>>>>> point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below,
> >>>>>> though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's up with that, sneak?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> R R R R R R R R
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> >>>>>>>> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> >>>>>>>> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> >>>>>>>> population has an ulcer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> >>>>>>>> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> >>>>>>>> not as yet countable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> >>>>>>>> about them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> >>>>>>>> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> >>>>>>>> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> >>>>>>>> adult and reports it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> >>>>>>>> popping up very late in the cycle?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> >>>>>>>> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> >>>>>>>> liars; Doananators.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 0:->
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Doan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
....."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...

You offer only lies, dodging, and bad ethics, and worse morals.

You are not only a coward, you are a dangerous coward because you are
unaware of your low character.

Enjoy yourself.

You ran again.

Kane

[Doan]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
>
That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!

Doan

> You offer only lies, dodging, and bad ethics, and worse morals.
>
> You are not only a coward, you are a dangerous coward because you are
> unaware of your low character.
>
> Enjoy yourself.
>
> You ran again.
>
> Kane
>

[Greegor]

Kane wrote and falsely attributed to Doan:
> ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...

Doan wrote
> That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!

Doan:
I posted a comical hate letter (to me) from Hitler.
It was a joke about Kane's frequent expressions of hatred.

Kane took the idea and started these lame fake
letters from real live active participants.

Apparently he must have decided that his cause was
so moral and ethical that even telling lies was justified.

The ends he imagines justify any means apparently.

Kane wouldn't have given up on having a reputation for honesty.
He must have FOUND OUT that he no longer has one to protect.

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
> >
> That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!

Oh blow it out your monkeyboy ass stupid. Everyone here recognizes the
newsgroup posting device of expressing what one believes the other
expresses.

What a stupid hack you are.
>
> Doan

You got caught dodging the challenge, again, and all you can do is
nitpit and run.

COWARD.

Get Greg's nose out of your ass, it makes his posts sound funny.

0:->



>
> > You offer only lies, dodging, and bad ethics, and worse morals.
> >
> > You are not only a coward, you are a dangerous coward because you are
> > unaware of your low character.
> >
> > Enjoy yourself.
> >
> > You ran again.
> >
> > Kane
> >

[Doan]

On 15 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > ...."I am a coward that will not debate the truth"...
> > >
> > That is not what I wrote! That is what you wrote!
> > I only exposed your STUPIDITY so that everyone can see it!
>
> Oh blow it out your monkeyboy ass stupid. Everyone here recognizes the
> newsgroup posting device of expressing what one believes the other
> expresses.
>
> What a stupid hack you are.

Hahaha! At least, I know how to read a simple chart and you don't!

Doan

> >
> > Doan
>
> You got caught dodging the challenge, again, and all you can do is
> nitpit and run.
>
> COWARD.
>
> Get Greg's nose out of your ass, it makes his posts sound funny.
>
> 0:->
>
>
>
> >
> > > You offer only lies, dodging, and bad ethics, and worse morals.
> > >
> > > You are not only a coward, you are a dangerous coward because you are
> > > unaware of your low character.
> > >
> > > Enjoy yourself.
> > >
> > > You ran again.
> > >
> > > Kane
> > >
>
>

[0:->]

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> >>>> deliberate lies....
> >>>>
> >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> >>> to the public again!
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> >>>> > not the actual rate!
> >>>>
> >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> >>> {snip}
> >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> >>>>
> >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> >>>
> >>> {snip}
> >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> >>>>
> >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> >>>>
> >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> >>>
> >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> >>>>
> >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> >>>>
> >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> >>>>
> >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> >>>>
> >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> >>>
> >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> >>>
> >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> >>>
> >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> >>>> indicator.
> >>>>
> >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> >>>>
> >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> >>>
> >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> >>>
> >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> >>>> foster parents can.
> >>>>
> >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> >>>
> >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> >>>> first to know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> >>>> when they were young.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> >>>>
> >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> >>>> considerably proportion.
> >>>>
> >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> >>> Hihihi!
> >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> >>
> > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> >
> >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> >> by me.
> >>
> > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > chart!
>
> Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> year for some reason.
>
> You didn't notice that?
>
> > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > years!!!
>
> Yep.
>
> > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
>
> Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
>
> You can't read but you sure can lie.
> >
> > Doan
>
> You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
>
> I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> it a "lie."
>
> You are one sick little ****.
>
> But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
>
> 0:->
>
> >
> >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> >> population has an ulcer.
> >>
> >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> >> not as yet countable.
> >>
> >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> >> about them.
> >>
> >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> >> adult and reports it.
> >>
> >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> >>
> >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> >> liars; Doananators.
> >>
> >> 0:->
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Doan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >

[Doan]

Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???

Doan


On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

> Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?
>
> Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
>
> You are dishonorable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> > >>>> deliberate lies....
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > >>> to the public again!
> > >>> [snip]
> > >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > >>>> > not the actual rate!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> > >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> > >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > >>> {snip}
> > >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> > >>>
> > >>> {snip}
> > >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> > >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> > >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> > >>>
> > >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> > >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> > >>>
> > >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> > >>>>
> > >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> > >>>
> > >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> > >>>
> > >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > >>>
> > >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> > >>>> indicator.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> > >>>
> > >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> > >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> > >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> > >>>>
> > >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> > >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> > >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> > >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> > >>>
> > >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> > >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> > >>>> foster parents can.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> > >>>
> > >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> > >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> > >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> > >>>> first to know.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> > >>>> when they were young.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> > >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> > >>>> considerably proportion.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > >>> Hihihi!
> > >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> > >>
> > > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> > >
> > >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> > >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> > >> by me.
> > >>
> > > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > > chart!
> >
> > Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> > entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> > year for some reason.
> >
> > You didn't notice that?
> >
> > > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > > years!!!
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
> >
> > Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
> >
> > You can't read but you sure can lie.
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> > You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> > monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
> >
> > I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> > it a "lie."
> >
> > You are one sick little ****.
> >
> > But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> > >
> > >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > >> population has an ulcer.
> > >>
> > >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > >> not as yet countable.
> > >>
> > >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > >> about them.
> > >>
> > >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > >> adult and reports it.
> > >>
> > >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > >>
> > >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > >> liars; Doananators.
> > >>
> > >> 0:->
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Doan
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> the years???

Yes, I recall that.

One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.

Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.

0:->

>
> Doan

Kane

>
>
> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?
> >
> > Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
> >
> > You are dishonorable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 0:-> wrote:
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > > >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> > > >>>> deliberate lies....
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > > >>> to the public again!
> > > >>> [snip]
> > > >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > > >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > > >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > > >>>> > not the actual rate!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> > > >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> > > >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > > >>> {snip}
> > > >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > > >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > > >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> {snip}
> > > >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> > > >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> > > >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> > > >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > > >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > > >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > > >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> > > >>>> indicator.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > > >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> > > >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> > > >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > > >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> > > >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> > > >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> > > >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> > > >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> > > >>>> foster parents can.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > > >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> > > >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> > > >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> > > >>>> first to know.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> > > >>>> when they were young.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> > > >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> > > >>>> considerably proportion.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > > >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > > >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > > >>> Hihihi!
> > > >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> > > >>
> > > > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> > > >
> > > >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> > > >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> > > >> by me.
> > > >>
> > > > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > > > chart!
> > >
> > > Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> > > entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> > > year for some reason.
> > >
> > > You didn't notice that?
> > >
> > > > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > > > years!!!
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > > > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
> > >
> > > Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
> > >
> > > You can't read but you sure can lie.
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> > > monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
> > >
> > > I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> > > it a "lie."
> > >
> > > You are one sick little ****.
> > >
> > > But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
> > >
> > > 0:->
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > > >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > > >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > > >> population has an ulcer.
> > > >>
> > > >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > > >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > > >> not as yet countable.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > > >> about them.
> > > >>
> > > >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > > >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > > >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > > >> adult and reports it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > > >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > > >>
> > > >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > > >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > > >> liars; Doananators.
> > > >>
> > > >> 0:->
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Doan
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> >
> >

[Doan]

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> > shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> > the years???
>
> Yes, I recall that.
>
> One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
>
The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?

> Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
> issues.
>
Hihihi! So what did you published?

Doan

> 0:->
>
> >
> > Doan
>
> Kane
>
> >
> >
> > On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?
> > >
> > > Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
> > >
> > > You are dishonorable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > > > >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> > > > >>>> deliberate lies....
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > > > >>> to the public again!
> > > > >>> [snip]
> > > > >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > > > >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > > > >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > > > >>>> > not the actual rate!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> > > > >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> > > > >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > > > >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > > > >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> > > > >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> > > > >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> > > > >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > > > >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> > > > >>>> indicator.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > > > >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> > > > >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> > > > >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > > > >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> > > > >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> > > > >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> > > > >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> > > > >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> > > > >>>> foster parents can.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > > > >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> > > > >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> > > > >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> > > > >>>> first to know.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> > > > >>>> when they were young.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> > > > >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> > > > >>>> considerably proportion.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > > > >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > > > >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > > > >>> Hihihi!
> > > > >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> > > > >
> > > > >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> > > > >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> > > > >> by me.
> > > > >>
> > > > > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > > > > chart!
> > > >
> > > > Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> > > > entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> > > > year for some reason.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't notice that?
> > > >
> > > > > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > > > > years!!!
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > > > > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
> > > >
> > > > Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
> > > >
> > > > You can't read but you sure can lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doan
> > > >
> > > > You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> > > > monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
> > > >
> > > > I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> > > > it a "lie."
> > > >
> > > > You are one sick little ****.
> > > >
> > > > But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
> > > >
> > > > 0:->
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > > > >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > > > >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > > > >> population has an ulcer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > > > >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > > > >> not as yet countable.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > > > >> about them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > > > >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > > > >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > > > >> adult and reports it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > > > >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > > > >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > > > >> liars; Doananators.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 0:->
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Doan
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
>
> >
> > Doan wrote:
> > > Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> > > shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> > > the years???
> >
> > Yes, I recall that.
> >
> > One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
> >
> The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
> Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?

Nope. You showed that what I said was true. That at the time I got the
study from him, and I have told you this many times and you lyingly
ignore it, that IS what Dennis Embry told ME.

Or are you contended we both lied?

> > Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
> > issues.
> >
> Hihihi! So what did you published?

Words.

And you?

In these newsgroups, lies, right Doan?

R R R R R

>
> Doan
>
> > 0:->
> >
> > >
> > > Doan
> >
> > Kane
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?
> > > >
> > > > Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
> > > >
> > > > You are dishonorable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> > > > > >>>> deliberate lies....
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > > > > >>> to the public again!
> > > > > >>> [snip]
> > > > > >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > > > > >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > > > > >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > > > > >>>> > not the actual rate!
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> > > > > >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> > > > > >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > > >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > > > > >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > > > > >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > > >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> > > > > >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> > > > > >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> > > > > >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > > > > >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> > > > > >>>> indicator.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > > > > >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> > > > > >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> > > > > >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > > > > >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> > > > > >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> > > > > >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> > > > > >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> > > > > >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> > > > > >>>> foster parents can.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > > > > >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> > > > > >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> > > > > >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> > > > > >>>> first to know.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> > > > > >>>> when they were young.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> > > > > >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> > > > > >>>> considerably proportion.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > > > > >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > > > > >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > > > > >>> Hihihi!
> > > > > >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> > > > > >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> > > > > >> by me.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > > > > > chart!
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> > > > > entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> > > > > year for some reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't notice that?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > > > > > years!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > > > > > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't read but you sure can lie.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doan
> > > > >
> > > > > You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> > > > > monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> > > > > it a "lie."
> > > > >
> > > > > You are one sick little ****.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
> > > > >
> > > > > 0:->
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > > > > >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > > > > >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > > > > >> population has an ulcer.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > > > > >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > > > > >> not as yet countable.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > > > > >> about them.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > > > > >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > > > > >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > > > > >> adult and reports it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > > > > >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > > > > >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > > > > >> liars; Doananators.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 0:->
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Doan
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

[Greegor]

My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag




0:-> wrote:
> Doan wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
> > > > shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
> > > > the years???
> > >
> > > Yes, I recall that.
> > >
> > > One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.
> > >
> > The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
> > Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?
>
> Nope. You showed that what I said was true. That at the time I got the
> study from him, and I have told you this many times and you lyingly
> ignore it, that IS what Dennis Embry told ME.
>
> Or are you contended we both lied?
>
> > > Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
> > > issues.
> > >
> > Hihihi! So what did you published?
>
> Words.
>
> And you?
>
> In these newsgroups, lies, right Doan?
>
> R R R R R
>
> >
> > Doan
> >
> > > 0:->
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doan
> > >
> > > Kane
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9 Dec 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are dishonorable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > > Doan wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Doan wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
> > > > > > >>>> deliberate lies....
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
> > > > > > >>> to the public again!
> > > > > > >>> [snip]
> > > > > > >>>> > That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
> > > > > > >>>> > took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
> > > > > > >>>> > the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
> > > > > > >>>> > not the actual rate!
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
> > > > > > >>>> or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
> > > > > > >>>> pick. I chose both, in your case.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
> > > > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > > > >>>> > I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
> > > > > > >>>> > meaning from the original one.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
> > > > > > >>> OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> {snip}
> > > > > > >>>> There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
> > > > > > >>>> chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
> > > > > > >>>> ass. Or a monkey.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
> > > > > > >>>> of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
> > > > > > >>> STUPIDITY!!!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 39 then reported, according to this chart.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> 84.2% of 38 is 31.996!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
> > > > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
> > > > > > >>> Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
> > > > > > >>>> indicator.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
> > > > > > >>> 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
> > > > > > >>>> believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
> > > > > > >>>> abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
> > > > > > >>> Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
> > > > > > >>>> reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
> > > > > > >>>> country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
> > > > > > >>>> child abuse, hence we don't know.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
> > > > > > >>>> caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
> > > > > > >>>> foster parents can.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
> > > > > > >>> Boy, you are STUPID!
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
> > > > > > >>>> was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
> > > > > > >>>> to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
> > > > > > >>>> first to know.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Other cases come up mostly by police reports.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
> > > > > > >>>> when they were young.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
> > > > > > >>>> abuse rate of bios that are caught.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
> > > > > > >>>> considerably proportion.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
> > > > > > >>> Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
> > > > > > >>> they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
> > > > > > >>> Hihihi!
> > > > > > >> Let's clear the air here, first.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
> > > > > > >> it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
> > > > > > >> by me.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
> > > > > > > chart!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
> > > > > > entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
> > > > > > year for some reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't notice that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
> > > > > > > years!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
> > > > > > > researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can't read but you sure can lie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
> > > > > > monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
> > > > > > it a "lie."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are one sick little ****.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0:->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
> > > > > > >> researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
> > > > > > >> about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
> > > > > > >> population has an ulcer.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
> > > > > > >> exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
> > > > > > >> not as yet countable.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
> > > > > > >> about them.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
> > > > > > >> children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
> > > > > > >> even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
> > > > > > >> adult and reports it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
> > > > > > >> popping up very late in the cycle?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
> > > > > > >> that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
> > > > > > >> liars; Doananators.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 0:->
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Doan
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag

My Wet Dreams In The Bathroom With A Naked Seven Year Old Girl by Greg
Hanson

My Feelings Of Superiority By Forcing A Little Girl To Take Cold
Showers by Greg Hanson

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag

Wrong war.

I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.

0 : - ]

[Greegor]

Donald L. Fisher AKA Kane wrote
> I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.

Weren't you in on the PA or TX fiascos where the caseworkers
went into a public school and had the girls line up for gyno exams
right in the school for sexual abuse?

How did Geoffrey Rantz miss those ?