Stories of Child Abuse as CPS propaganda

[Greegor]

Kane tries to say he's out to help parents against CPS,
but over and over again he has tried to vilify parents
by reposting news stories supportive of CPS.

In particular, he lobbies for money for the agencies
by posting stories about drug addicted parents and
other child abuse HORROR STORIES.

Much like in the news media, the false pretense
is that these HORROR stories are the everyday ones.
MOST of the cases CPS handles are NOT glorious
cases involving HORROR stories.
In fact, most CPS cases are boring as hell.

Is THAT why the caseworkers feel compelled to
exaggerate their glorious purpose by telling LIES?

Kane's charade of being a hero of Family Rights
is given away by his propaganda FOR CPS.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane tries to say he's out to help parents against CPS,
> but over and over again he has tried to vilify parents
> by reposting news stories supportive of CPS.

As opposed to you posting stories that vilify CPS?

> In particular, he lobbies for money for the agencies
> by posting stories about drug addicted parents and
> other child abuse HORROR STORIES.

Yep. They have been underfunded for decades. And I make it clear, as do
sources that even Doug quotes, that inadequate funding is and has been
the problem and results in POOR casework, the very thing that causes
family disruptions.

Decent caseloads would make for much more manageable cases with better
services, more time spent with the family, better plans.

> Much like in the news media, the false pretense
> is that these HORROR stories are the everyday ones.

Not with me it's not. I've posted too many times here that I consider
the great majority of parents to be good ones.

You are simply lying, as I caught you doing earlier by snipping off the
end of my sentence and proceeding as though I had something entirely
different than I actually did say.

> MOST of the cases CPS handles are NOT glorious
> cases involving HORROR stories.

That's correct. It doesn't cost less to deal with those cases, now does it?

An out and out horror story case, in fact, is very inexpensive. The
parent's in jail, the agency is ordered to provide services to the child
until a placement with relatives can be found.

Pretty damn simple really.

And often very short term indeed.

> In fact, most CPS cases are boring as hell.

Well, I suppose you could say that if starvation, rape, broken bones,
burns, and medical neglect bore you.

Most cases involve one or more of those, or the case is closed.

0:->



>
> Is THAT why the caseworkers feel compelled to
> exaggerate their glorious purpose by telling LIES?
>
> Kane's charade of being a hero of Family Rights
> is given away by his propaganda FOR CPS.
>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane tries to say he's out to help parents against CPS,
> but over and over again he has tried to vilify parents
> by reposting news stories supportive of CPS.

And you lobby here for a cut in CPS, and continually post stories of
foster parents that abuse or kill.

The difference would be then, Greg ... ?

I'm just the balance to your ranting lies.

And have you ever seen me defend a convicted foster parent?

Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?

Think carefully before you answer.

> In particular, he lobbies for money for the agencies
> by posting stories about drug addicted parents and
> other child abuse HORROR STORIES.

Yep. But those are cheap. Those are criminal cases with minimal CPS
involvement. It's the day to day ordinary beat your kid up, starve your
kid, use your kid for a sex toy, kind of cases that CPS deals with
mostly, until of course they turn it over to the police because of what
their investigation turned up.

> Much like in the news media, the false pretense
> is that these HORROR stories are the everyday ones.

You've never seen me claim or pretend that they are the same. I've made
it a point many times to clarify it is not.

> MOST of the cases CPS handles are NOT glorious
> cases involving HORROR stories.

"Glorious?" GLORIOUS?

You ****ing idiot. No CPS case is "glorious."

> In fact, most CPS cases are boring as hell.

As I mentioned that last time you offended people's sensibilities with
this abuse apologist crap, only if abuse is boring to you.

And it hasn't a thing to do with what it costs to handle CPS cases.

> Is THAT why the caseworkers feel compelled to
> exaggerate their glorious purpose by telling LIES?

That depends. Show us some lies about the 'glorious' cases you seem to
think are there or not.
>
> Kane's charade of being a hero of Family Rights

I've never claimed to be a hero. If you folks keep it up I'll be pushing
that away though. You are building me up in the minds of thinking folks
pretty big now.

> is given away by his propaganda FOR CPS.

For? How is what I post for CPS? I wish they didn't exist.

If I could wipe them out and replace them with another system I would.

There isn't one.

Nor will their be.

You folks are constipated with your wild delusional projections of, "It
won't be long now."

A certain small segment of the population will continue to abuse their
children. Because of the size of our nation, that amounts to hundreds of
thousands, drearily every year, year after floggin' year.

I'd get bored with it if children weren't hurting and dying.

Let me know how you are coming on that better system.

You know the one. The one where a worker that asks a question of client
is taken out and flogged for fifteen minutes because she's "digging for
dirt."

You sad piles of crap are amusing, if you didn't viciously attack the
parents that come here for help.

0:->

[0:->]

0:-> wrote:

.................yaaaaaawwwwn.....

Boys, you are boring me. It was a bit more fun knocking three of you
around at once, but when Bobby Sock crawfished out after I asked him
for his explanation of how the 13th amendment would free up a kid in
foster care, this got too easy.

Nighty night.

0:-]

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?

Name please?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?
>
> Name please?

Kane.

I asked a question.

Have I ever seen you defend a convicted bio parent child abuser?

And I said think carefully before you ANSWER, not ask another question.

Say yes, or no. Those are the only two acceptable answer to a question
in that form.

All other responses are evasions.

Thanks.

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?

Apparently not.

[Art]

I may agree or I may not agree!


"0:->" > wrote in message
...
> Greegor wrote:
>> Kane tries to say he's out to help parents against CPS,
>> but over and over again he has tried to vilify parents
>> by reposting news stories supportive of CPS.
>
> And you lobby here for a cut in CPS, and continually post stories of
> foster parents that abuse or kill.
>
> The difference would be then, Greg ... ?
>
> I'm just the balance to your ranting lies.
>
> And have you ever seen me defend a convicted foster parent?
>
> Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?
>
> Think carefully before you answer.
>
>> In particular, he lobbies for money for the agencies
>> by posting stories about drug addicted parents and
>> other child abuse HORROR STORIES.
>
> Yep. But those are cheap. Those are criminal cases with minimal CPS
> involvement. It's the day to day ordinary beat your kid up, starve your
> kid, use your kid for a sex toy, kind of cases that CPS deals with mostly,
> until of course they turn it over to the police because of what their
> investigation turned up.
>
>> Much like in the news media, the false pretense
>> is that these HORROR stories are the everyday ones.
>
> You've never seen me claim or pretend that they are the same. I've made it
> a point many times to clarify it is not.
>
>> MOST of the cases CPS handles are NOT glorious
>> cases involving HORROR stories.
>
> "Glorious?" GLORIOUS?
>
> You ****ing idiot. No CPS case is "glorious."
>
>> In fact, most CPS cases are boring as hell.
>
> As I mentioned that last time you offended people's sensibilities with
> this abuse apologist crap, only if abuse is boring to you.
>
> And it hasn't a thing to do with what it costs to handle CPS cases.
>
>> Is THAT why the caseworkers feel compelled to
>> exaggerate their glorious purpose by telling LIES?
>
> That depends. Show us some lies about the 'glorious' cases you seem to
> think are there or not.
>>
>> Kane's charade of being a hero of Family Rights
>
> I've never claimed to be a hero. If you folks keep it up I'll be pushing
> that away though. You are building me up in the minds of thinking folks
> pretty big now.
>
>> is given away by his propaganda FOR CPS.
>
> For? How is what I post for CPS? I wish they didn't exist.
>
> If I could wipe them out and replace them with another system I would.
>
> There isn't one.
>
> Nor will their be.
>
> You folks are constipated with your wild delusional projections of, "It
> won't be long now."
>
> A certain small segment of the population will continue to abuse their
> children. Because of the size of our nation, that amounts to hundreds of
> thousands, drearily every year, year after floggin' year.
>
> I'd get bored with it if children weren't hurting and dying.
>
> Let me know how you are coming on that better system.
>
> You know the one. The one where a worker that asks a question of client is
> taken out and flogged for fifteen minutes because she's "digging for
> dirt."
>
> You sad piles of crap are amusing, if you didn't viciously attack the
> parents that come here for help.
>
> 0:->
>

[0:->]

Art wrote:
> I may agree or I may not agree!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
>> Have I ever seen you defend a convicted child abuser?
>
> Apparently not.

That is going to depend, somewhat, on your answer to the children beaten
by church members question, Greg.

But for the memory disabled:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/2adb9b82fa26fd0b/052513bfd85bd68c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=99&hl=en#052513bfd85bd68c

In this thread above you go to considerable trouble to argue about the
prior criminal history of the couple that killed a social worker.

Defending them, Greg, against the "lies" of the police officer.

Even going so far as to claim that the prior offenses were "civil" so
they couldn't be called "criminal."

When if fact a civil violation is a crime.

You stooped to the extreme low of trying to make an LEO on this case
appear to be a liar, when he was no more than speaking in the common
vernacular of a cop.

And as it turned out HE WAS DAMED WELL charged and convicted on criminal
charges before, in criminal court.

And she of child abuse, and lost children before.

So, moving right along; tell us if you thought the Christine's were
guilty of child abuse or not, Greg.

When I asked this question of you recently you took advantage of the
fact I asked in a thread that was titled about Meth to dodge my question.

There is no rule that a new subject can't be introduced, Greg, and YOU
do that constantly yourself.

And we answer you, not play silly assed games about what thread this is
or isn't.

So now I'm asking you again about your opinion of guilt or innocence in
the Christine case. Do you defend them, or do you admit they were guilty?

Now quick, ring up Doan and see if you two can formulate yet another
dodge. Your usual are getting pretty stale.

And then we can get back to "Dan as Felonious Quoter from 'Private'
Family Rights Support Groups," and "How Greg Beats CPS by declaring he's
committed a crime during testimony in a trial."

I think I'll go put the chains on my tractor. Just mounted up the
snowblower yesterday.

Looks like we'll need it soon. Gimee a hand, will yah kid. These chains
are monsters.

0:-]

[Greegor]

Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
that was in the media.

What was interesting is that the reports of
previous convictions were questioned by me and
ridiculed by Kane and Dan.

Ironically, later media reports did not mention
exactly the same past convictions.

But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
> that was in the media.

Why must you always bury us in details, Greg?

> What was interesting is that the reports of
> previous convictions were questioned by me and
> ridiculed by Kane and Dan.

I don't believe I ridiculed anything.

I posted links to the reports of earlier criminal convictions.

Correct, Greg?

> Ironically, later media reports did not mention
> exactly the same past convictions.

Later media reports?

Citations of the earlier information???

Citations of the later information?

And what makes the difference in the reports of convictions ironical,
Greg?

> But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.

What interesting?

You have no specifics.

[Greegor]

A family RAN OFF away from a CPS investigation that went on
for weeks and had absolutely NO COURT AUTHORITY.
CPS and Juvenile court desperately wanted them back!

So reports went out about supposed criminal history.

Kane acknowledged then that the criminal convictions
were probably NOT criminal convictions.

The "voluntary basis" would support that idea as well.

But on the NEWS and APB's serious statements
about past criminal convictions were used, apparently
to enlist more citizens to help find them.

But the supposed criminal history seems to have
dissembled and changed.

Was my suspicion confirmed? Partly.
Maybe not a slam dunk, but yeah.

Do you have some OTHER explanation for why
I became suspicious of the "criminal history"?
Or the way the "official history" became fluid?

Something about the "criminal history" stunk.
Parents with a "criminal history" of child abuse
do not "voluntarily" place their kids elsewhere.
A court order would have been instant, right?

I felt the "criminal child abuse history" was
a fiction, to play the media and get lots more
people reporting them.


Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
> > that was in the media.
>
> Why must you always bury us in details, Greg?
>
> > What was interesting is that the reports of
> > previous convictions were questioned by me and
> > ridiculed by Kane and Dan.
>
> I don't believe I ridiculed anything.
>
> I posted links to the reports of earlier criminal convictions.
>
> Correct, Greg?
>
> > Ironically, later media reports did not mention
> > exactly the same past convictions.
>
> Later media reports?
>
> Citations of the earlier information???
>
> Citations of the later information?
>
> And what makes the difference in the reports of convictions ironical,
> Greg?
>
> > But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.
>
> What interesting?
>
> You have no specifics.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> A family RAN OFF away from a CPS investigation that went on
> for weeks and had absolutely NO COURT AUTHORITY.
> CPS and Juvenile court desperately wanted them back!

Are you talking about the couple that confessed to killing the social
worker?

>
> So reports went out about supposed criminal history.

Yes,

>
> Kane acknowledged then that the criminal convictions
> were probably NOT criminal convictions.

No.

> The "voluntary basis" would support that idea as well.

What ARE you talking about?

She was convicted of child abuse or neglect.
>
> But on the NEWS and APB's serious statements
> about past criminal convictions were used, apparently
> to enlist more citizens to help find them.

No. They were the truth. It was posted here.

> But the supposed criminal history seems to have
> dissembled and changed.

Bull. The man was a convicted burgler and being sought for a parole
violation at the tiem fo the killing.

> Was my suspicion confirmed? Partly.

That you are Oliver Sutton partly sane?

> Maybe not a slam dunk, but yeah.

I agree.

>
> Do you have some OTHER explanation for why
> I became suspicious of the "criminal history"?

That you are a nutcase?

> Or the way the "official history" became fluid?

New information tends to do that.

Notice we know have changed our minds about Neanderthal Man?

Were the previous scientists trying to dupe us?

> Something about the "criminal history" stunk.

Yeah, it was very serious indeedy, and they did in fact confess to
killing, so I have a real strong hunch these folks were not much for
law abiding behavior.

It's quite rare someone just suddenly become a homicidal maniac, Greg.
They tend to slide to that depth.

I worry about you boy.

> Parents with a "criminal history" of child abuse
> do not "voluntarily" place their kids elsewhere.

Sure they do. They request it and the court reviews it and assigns CPS
to do a homestudy and then oversee the placement.

How long have you been in these newsgroup, feeb?

> A court order would have been instant, right?

Depends on what you meant by instant.

If a child is turned over to CPS or taken by CPS on an abuse beef, they
are first placed, in most places, in a "shelter home." To but it
straight to you, while they tend to be bright and cherry places with
lot of toys, and pretty pictures, and children's happy music, they are
also where the child get's deloused, sometimes deGenitalCrabbed.

They get their first tooth brush and lesson on how to use it. Sometimes
the first bath they've had for months.

Then they, after 48 to 72 hours (varies state to state place to place)
they are placed in the evaluated home that the parent wanted the child
to go to. A homestudy has been done during the same period the child is
in shelter care.

> I felt the "criminal child abuse history" was
> a fiction,

Because you are ignorant.

> to play the media and get lots more
> people reporting them.

Hmm....we should send them that idea.

Any idea how close, possibly, that child came to being hurt or injured?


Those were people that would KILL for their own reasons.

Or so they confessed.

Did the mother actually think?

Did she think she could kill and keep her baby?

Yeah, that's a mother with good judgement, sure.

All this information about convictions was made available here.

It must be terribly drafty in that head of yours.

Are you trying to incite us to insult you?

I know you buy into my inciting someone to kill me.

0:->


>
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
> > > that was in the media.
> >
> > Why must you always bury us in details, Greg?
> >
> > > What was interesting is that the reports of
> > > previous convictions were questioned by me and
> > > ridiculed by Kane and Dan.
> >
> > I don't believe I ridiculed anything.
> >
> > I posted links to the reports of earlier criminal convictions.
> >
> > Correct, Greg?
> >
> > > Ironically, later media reports did not mention
> > > exactly the same past convictions.
> >
> > Later media reports?
> >
> > Citations of the earlier information???
> >
> > Citations of the later information?
> >
> > And what makes the difference in the reports of convictions ironical,
> > Greg?
> >
> > > But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.
> >
> > What interesting?
> >
> > You have no specifics.

[Greegor]

I was talking about the one where they
voluntarily placed their daughter and
CPS dragged along for a month with NO COURT ORDER.

A whole month later they lined up a sex abuse exam.

Parents took kid and left.

APB claimed past convictions, but the
type of past convictions changed from one report
to the next, remember than Dan posted
a Police information officer dodging the
details of the past convictions?
They even said they didn't think she was in danger.

That's what I remember, off the top of my head.

Test the accuracy of my memory.


0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > A family RAN OFF away from a CPS investigation that went on
> > for weeks and had absolutely NO COURT AUTHORITY.
> > CPS and Juvenile court desperately wanted them back!
>
> Are you talking about the couple that confessed to killing the social
> worker?
>
> >
> > So reports went out about supposed criminal history.
>
> Yes,
>
> >
> > Kane acknowledged then that the criminal convictions
> > were probably NOT criminal convictions.
>
> No.
>
> > The "voluntary basis" would support that idea as well.
>
> What ARE you talking about?
>
> She was convicted of child abuse or neglect.
> >
> > But on the NEWS and APB's serious statements
> > about past criminal convictions were used, apparently
> > to enlist more citizens to help find them.
>
> No. They were the truth. It was posted here.
>
> > But the supposed criminal history seems to have
> > dissembled and changed.
>
> Bull. The man was a convicted burgler and being sought for a parole
> violation at the tiem fo the killing.
>
> > Was my suspicion confirmed? Partly.
>
> That you are Oliver Sutton partly sane?
>
> > Maybe not a slam dunk, but yeah.
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> > Do you have some OTHER explanation for why
> > I became suspicious of the "criminal history"?
>
> That you are a nutcase?
>
> > Or the way the "official history" became fluid?
>
> New information tends to do that.
>
> Notice we know have changed our minds about Neanderthal Man?
>
> Were the previous scientists trying to dupe us?
>
> > Something about the "criminal history" stunk.
>
> Yeah, it was very serious indeedy, and they did in fact confess to
> killing, so I have a real strong hunch these folks were not much for
> law abiding behavior.
>
> It's quite rare someone just suddenly become a homicidal maniac, Greg.
> They tend to slide to that depth.
>
> I worry about you boy.
>
> > Parents with a "criminal history" of child abuse
> > do not "voluntarily" place their kids elsewhere.
>
> Sure they do. They request it and the court reviews it and assigns CPS
> to do a homestudy and then oversee the placement.
>
> How long have you been in these newsgroup, feeb?
>
> > A court order would have been instant, right?
>
> Depends on what you meant by instant.
>
> If a child is turned over to CPS or taken by CPS on an abuse beef, they
> are first placed, in most places, in a "shelter home." To but it
> straight to you, while they tend to be bright and cherry places with
> lot of toys, and pretty pictures, and children's happy music, they are
> also where the child get's deloused, sometimes deGenitalCrabbed.
>
> They get their first tooth brush and lesson on how to use it. Sometimes
> the first bath they've had for months.
>
> Then they, after 48 to 72 hours (varies state to state place to place)
> they are placed in the evaluated home that the parent wanted the child
> to go to. A homestudy has been done during the same period the child is
> in shelter care.
>
> > I felt the "criminal child abuse history" was
> > a fiction,
>
> Because you are ignorant.
>
> > to play the media and get lots more
> > people reporting them.
>
> Hmm....we should send them that idea.
>
> Any idea how close, possibly, that child came to being hurt or injured?
>
>
> Those were people that would KILL for their own reasons.
>
> Or so they confessed.
>
> Did the mother actually think?
>
> Did she think she could kill and keep her baby?
>
> Yeah, that's a mother with good judgement, sure.
>
> All this information about convictions was made available here.
>
> It must be terribly drafty in that head of yours.
>
> Are you trying to incite us to insult you?
>
> I know you buy into my inciting someone to kill me.
>
> 0:->
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
> > > > that was in the media.
> > >
> > > Why must you always bury us in details, Greg?
> > >
> > > > What was interesting is that the reports of
> > > > previous convictions were questioned by me and
> > > > ridiculed by Kane and Dan.
> > >
> > > I don't believe I ridiculed anything.
> > >
> > > I posted links to the reports of earlier criminal convictions.
> > >
> > > Correct, Greg?
> > >
> > > > Ironically, later media reports did not mention
> > > > exactly the same past convictions.
> > >
> > > Later media reports?
> > >
> > > Citations of the earlier information???
> > >
> > > Citations of the later information?
> > >
> > > And what makes the difference in the reports of convictions ironical,
> > > Greg?
> > >
> > > > But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.
> > >
> > > What interesting?
> > >
> > > You have no specifics.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> I was talking about the one where they
> voluntarily placed their daughter and
> CPS dragged along for a month with NO COURT ORDER.
>
> A whole month later they lined up a sex abuse exam.
>
> Parents took kid and left.
>
> APB claimed past convictions, but the
> type of past convictions changed from one report
> to the next, remember than Dan posted
> a Police information officer dodging the
> details of the past convictions?
> They even said they didn't think she was in danger.
>
> That's what I remember, off the top of my head.
>
> Test the accuracy of my memory.

Go ahead, test it.

I'm not your errand boy.

0:->


>
>
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > A family RAN OFF away from a CPS investigation that went on
> > > for weeks and had absolutely NO COURT AUTHORITY.
> > > CPS and Juvenile court desperately wanted them back!
> >
> > Are you talking about the couple that confessed to killing the social
> > worker?
> >
> > >
> > > So reports went out about supposed criminal history.
> >
> > Yes,
> >
> > >
> > > Kane acknowledged then that the criminal convictions
> > > were probably NOT criminal convictions.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > The "voluntary basis" would support that idea as well.
> >
> > What ARE you talking about?
> >
> > She was convicted of child abuse or neglect.
> > >
> > > But on the NEWS and APB's serious statements
> > > about past criminal convictions were used, apparently
> > > to enlist more citizens to help find them.
> >
> > No. They were the truth. It was posted here.
> >
> > > But the supposed criminal history seems to have
> > > dissembled and changed.
> >
> > Bull. The man was a convicted burgler and being sought for a parole
> > violation at the tiem fo the killing.
> >
> > > Was my suspicion confirmed? Partly.
> >
> > That you are Oliver Sutton partly sane?
> >
> > > Maybe not a slam dunk, but yeah.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > >
> > > Do you have some OTHER explanation for why
> > > I became suspicious of the "criminal history"?
> >
> > That you are a nutcase?
> >
> > > Or the way the "official history" became fluid?
> >
> > New information tends to do that.
> >
> > Notice we know have changed our minds about Neanderthal Man?
> >
> > Were the previous scientists trying to dupe us?
> >
> > > Something about the "criminal history" stunk.
> >
> > Yeah, it was very serious indeedy, and they did in fact confess to
> > killing, so I have a real strong hunch these folks were not much for
> > law abiding behavior.
> >
> > It's quite rare someone just suddenly become a homicidal maniac, Greg.
> > They tend to slide to that depth.
> >
> > I worry about you boy.
> >
> > > Parents with a "criminal history" of child abuse
> > > do not "voluntarily" place their kids elsewhere.
> >
> > Sure they do. They request it and the court reviews it and assigns CPS
> > to do a homestudy and then oversee the placement.
> >
> > How long have you been in these newsgroup, feeb?
> >
> > > A court order would have been instant, right?
> >
> > Depends on what you meant by instant.
> >
> > If a child is turned over to CPS or taken by CPS on an abuse beef, they
> > are first placed, in most places, in a "shelter home." To but it
> > straight to you, while they tend to be bright and cherry places with
> > lot of toys, and pretty pictures, and children's happy music, they are
> > also where the child get's deloused, sometimes deGenitalCrabbed.
> >
> > They get their first tooth brush and lesson on how to use it. Sometimes
> > the first bath they've had for months.
> >
> > Then they, after 48 to 72 hours (varies state to state place to place)
> > they are placed in the evaluated home that the parent wanted the child
> > to go to. A homestudy has been done during the same period the child is
> > in shelter care.
> >
> > > I felt the "criminal child abuse history" was
> > > a fiction,
> >
> > Because you are ignorant.
> >
> > > to play the media and get lots more
> > > people reporting them.
> >
> > Hmm....we should send them that idea.
> >
> > Any idea how close, possibly, that child came to being hurt or injured?
> >
> >
> > Those were people that would KILL for their own reasons.
> >
> > Or so they confessed.
> >
> > Did the mother actually think?
> >
> > Did she think she could kill and keep her baby?
> >
> > Yeah, that's a mother with good judgement, sure.
> >
> > All this information about convictions was made available here.
> >
> > It must be terribly drafty in that head of yours.
> >
> > Are you trying to incite us to insult you?
> >
> > I know you buy into my inciting someone to kill me.
> >
> > 0:->
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > Kane linked to a newsgroup discussion of a case
> > > > > that was in the media.
> > > >
> > > > Why must you always bury us in details, Greg?
> > > >
> > > > > What was interesting is that the reports of
> > > > > previous convictions were questioned by me and
> > > > > ridiculed by Kane and Dan.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe I ridiculed anything.
> > > >
> > > > I posted links to the reports of earlier criminal convictions.
> > > >
> > > > Correct, Greg?
> > > >
> > > > > Ironically, later media reports did not mention
> > > > > exactly the same past convictions.
> > > >
> > > > Later media reports?
> > > >
> > > > Citations of the earlier information???
> > > >
> > > > Citations of the later information?
> > > >
> > > > And what makes the difference in the reports of convictions ironical,
> > > > Greg?
> > > >
> > > > > But Kane and Dan never found that interesting.
> > > >
> > > > What interesting?
> > > >
> > > > You have no specifics.

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> I'm not your errand boy.

ROFL!

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Kane wrote
> > I'm not your errand boy.
>
> ROFL!

In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
the support for your claim.

Yes, we know Greg.

[Greegor]

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kane wrote
> > > I'm not your errand boy.
> >
> > ROFL!
>
> In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> the support for your claim.
>
> Yes, we know Greg.

Using the royal "we" again Kane?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > I'm not your errand boy.
> > >
> > > ROFL!
> >
> > In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> > the support for your claim.
> >
> > Yes, we know Greg.
>
> Using the royal "we" again Kane?

It would be true if I were the only poster other than you to this
thread. I believe there are two more, making three of us, "we" in
total.

Do you think they don't see that you are weaseling?

One of the others, at least, has posted his opinion and pointed out you
need to do your own work.

So no, it's not the "royal we" nor do I tend to use we in that fashion.
I KNOW other people read these posts. Some have expressed their opinion
already in the thread, and it's clear they already KNOW that you a
lying little putz.

Hence, I say "we."

0:-]

[Greegor]

So it's not in the Royal sense, you just speak for others..

0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > 0:-> wrote:
> > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > I'm not your errand boy.
> > > >
> > > > ROFL!
> > >
> > > In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> > > the support for your claim.
> > >
> > > Yes, we know Greg.
> >
> > Using the royal "we" again Kane?
>
> It would be true if I were the only poster other than you to this
> thread. I believe there are two more, making three of us, "we" in
> total.
>
> Do you think they don't see that you are weaseling?
>
> One of the others, at least, has posted his opinion and pointed out you
> need to do your own work.
>
> So no, it's not the "royal we" nor do I tend to use we in that fashion.
> I KNOW other people read these posts. Some have expressed their opinion
> already in the thread, and it's clear they already KNOW that you a
> lying little putz.
>
> Hence, I say "we."
>
> 0:-]

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> So it's not in the Royal sense, you just speak for others..

In a public forum where they can read it and correct me if I'm wrong?

Sure, Gagg.

Tell us you've never used "we," in the same sense. Go ahead.

0 - ]


>
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > > I'm not your errand boy.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROFL!
> > > >
> > > > In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> > > > the support for your claim.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we know Greg.
> > >
> > > Using the royal "we" again Kane?
> >
> > It would be true if I were the only poster other than you to this
> > thread. I believe there are two more, making three of us, "we" in
> > total.
> >
> > Do you think they don't see that you are weaseling?
> >
> > One of the others, at least, has posted his opinion and pointed out you
> > need to do your own work.
> >
> > So no, it's not the "royal we" nor do I tend to use we in that fashion.
> > I KNOW other people read these posts. Some have expressed their opinion
> > already in the thread, and it's clear they already KNOW that you a
> > lying little putz.
> >
> > Hence, I say "we."
> >
> > 0:-]

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> So it's not in the Royal sense, you just speak for others..

Kane wrote
> In a public forum where they can read it and correct me if I'm wrong?
> Sure, Gagg.
> Tell us you've never used "we," in the same sense. Go ahead.

I tend to not travel in packs.



>
> 0 - ]
>
>
> >
> > 0:-> wrote:
> > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > > > I'm not your errand boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ROFL!
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> > > > > the support for your claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, we know Greg.
> > > >
> > > > Using the royal "we" again Kane?
> > >
> > > It would be true if I were the only poster other than you to this
> > > thread. I believe there are two more, making three of us, "we" in
> > > total.
> > >
> > > Do you think they don't see that you are weaseling?
> > >
> > > One of the others, at least, has posted his opinion and pointed out you
> > > need to do your own work.
> > >
> > > So no, it's not the "royal we" nor do I tend to use we in that fashion.
> > > I KNOW other people read these posts. Some have expressed their opinion
> > > already in the thread, and it's clear they already KNOW that you a
> > > lying little putz.
> > >
> > > Hence, I say "we."
> > >
> > > 0:-]

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > So it's not in the Royal sense, you just speak for others..
>
> Kane wrote
> > In a public forum where they can read it and correct me if I'm wrong?
> > Sure, Gagg.
> > Tell us you've never used "we," in the same sense. Go ahead.
>
> I tend to not travel in packs.

Sure you do.

And you do it in your mind where inappropriate as well...as in "my
family" and "our family."





>
>
>
> >
> > 0 - ]
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > 0:-> wrote:
> > > > > > Greegor wrote:
> > > > > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > > > > I'm not your errand boy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ROFL!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words you can't prove your 'memory' is correct by providing
> > > > > > the support for your claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we know Greg.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using the royal "we" again Kane?
> > > >
> > > > It would be true if I were the only poster other than you to this
> > > > thread. I believe there are two more, making three of us, "we" in
> > > > total.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think they don't see that you are weaseling?
> > > >
> > > > One of the others, at least, has posted his opinion and pointed out you
> > > > need to do your own work.
> > > >
> > > > So no, it's not the "royal we" nor do I tend to use we in that fashion.
> > > > I KNOW other people read these posts. Some have expressed their opinion
> > > > already in the thread, and it's clear they already KNOW that you a
> > > > lying little putz.
> > > >
> > > > Hence, I say "we."
> > > >
> > > > 0:-]