Ron quoting out of context

[Doan]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>
> Ron
>

Ron:

"of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
staff is 0.57% or less."

Doan:
Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
that, Ron?

Michael:
Your too kind, Doan.

Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
his attempt.

LMAO!


ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."

Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
> Ron:
>
> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> staff is 0.57% or less."
>
> Doan:
> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> that, Ron?
>
> Michael:
> Your too kind, Doan.
>
> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> his attempt.
>
> LMAO!
>
>
> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>> less."
>
> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?

Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> staff is 0.57% or less."

How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?


As you yourself have claimed, recently enough, Doan, to take something
out of context is not relevant unless it changes the meaning without the
other part.

What did this statement of Ron's change the meaning of in the discussion?

You just can't stop lying, can you, little boy?

Or you are monumentally stupid.

Come on Doan, what was the discussion about that that piece was....R R
RR R R taken by either you or MICHAEL out of CONTEXT to claim the
meaning was changed by Ron's comment.

Go for it.

>
> Doan
>
Kane

[Doan]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> >> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >
> > Ron:
> >
> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> >
> > Doan:
> > Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> > that, Ron?
> >
> > Michael:
> > Your too kind, Doan.
> >
> > Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> > his attempt.
> >
> > LMAO!
> >
> >
> > ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> >> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> >> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> >> less."
> >
> > Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>
> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>
> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>
Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> Ron:
>>>
>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>
>>> Doan:
>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>> that, Ron?
>>>
>>> Michael:
>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>
>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>> his attempt.
>>>
>>> LMAO!
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>>>> less."
>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>>
>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>>
> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?

Unh, Doan, oh brilliant one, you have left out the context of the
original post.

Just as I pointed out.

And in the context of your claim, that there was a nitpicking by you
that he left off a sentence, guess what, Doan

RON ADMITTED TO THE ERROR ON THAT BASIS.

Then pointed out to you that YOU in fact tried to claim I was in error
and he showed you clearly that YOU WERE and a I was correct, and you
choked, rather than admit your error like a grown up, the way Ron
admitted even his small nit picking error.

Nice going Doan, you've done it again.

You shown our reading public what a low life little scumsucker you
really and how unethical and lying.

Read the thread, stupid. Read the thread.

Or did you, and picked this out from the truth...that you erred, then
you lied about it by trying to nitpick Ron's error....WHICH HE HAD
ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED.

Pretty sick, Doan. Pretty sick.

Go read the thread. I invite anyone that thinks I am incorrect in this
assessment of you to go an read it and come back here and defend you.

You weaseled, dodged, lied, misdirected, everything but a strip tease to
hid that you were lying.

And that you were stupid, except in creating diversions.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48

Then you dodged out by bringing Greg in and getting him to change the
focus away from the dishonorable behavior you exhibited by lying.

Kane




>
> Doan
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>> Ron:
>>>
>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>
>>> Doan:
>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>> that, Ron?
>>>
>>> Michael:
>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>
>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>> his attempt.
>>>
>>> LMAO!
>>>
>>>
>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>>>> less."
>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>>
>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>>
> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?

And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?

The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
would imply anyway.

That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
compliance with federal bench marks.

You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
claims, or insinuation.

Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.
>
> Doan
>
Kane

[Greegor]

> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> less."

That's an important IF!
Like Doan said it changed the statement from a conditional to an
affirmation.
Bluster and stew Kane, maybe if you rant and rave enough nobody will
notice.

[Doan]

On 20 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

> > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> > percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > less."
>
> That's an important IF!
> Like Doan said it changed the statement from a conditional to an
> affirmation.
> Bluster and stew Kane, maybe if you rant and rave enough nobody will
> notice.
>
Kane is hoping that everyone is as STUPID as he is and won't see it! ;-)

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> >>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>> Ron:
> >>>
> >>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>
> >>> Doan:
> >>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> >>> that, Ron?
> >>>
> >>> Michael:
> >>> Your too kind, Doan.
> >>>
> >>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> >>> his attempt.
> >>>
> >>> LMAO!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> >>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> >>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> >>>> less."
> >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> >> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> >> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>
> >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> >>
> > Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> > affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>
> Unh, Doan, oh brilliant one, you have left out the context of the
> original post.
>
I didn't leave out "if"!

> Just as I pointed out.
>
> And in the context of your claim, that there was a nitpicking by you
> that he left off a sentence, guess what, Doan
>
> RON ADMITTED TO THE ERROR ON THAT BASIS.
>
Where, Kane? Please post it in verbatim where Ron did that? You've just
argued that Ron did not quote out of context. Now you are saying that
Ron admitted it! You cannot have it both ways!

Doan

[Doan]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> >>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>> Ron:
> >>>
> >>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>
> >>> Doan:
> >>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> >>> that, Ron?
> >>>
> >>> Michael:
> >>> Your too kind, Doan.
> >>>
> >>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> >>> his attempt.
> >>>
> >>> LMAO!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> >>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> >>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> >>>> less."
> >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> >> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> >> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>
> >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> >>
> > Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> > affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>
> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
>
Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?

> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
> would imply anyway.
>
Where did he admitted this, Kane?

> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
> compliance with federal bench marks.
>
Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!

> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
> claims, or insinuation.
>
You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.

> Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.

Another STUPID LIE from Kane! ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
> > Doan wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doan wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> > >>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> > >>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ron
> > >>>>
> > >>> Ron:
> > >>>
> > >>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > >>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > >>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > >>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> > >>>
> > >>> Doan:
> > >>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> > >>> that, Ron?
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael:
> > >>> Your too kind, Doan.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> > >>> his attempt.
> > >>>
> > >>> LMAO!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> > >>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > >>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> > >>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > >>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > >>>> less."
> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> > >> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> > >> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > >> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > >> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > >> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> > >>
> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> > >>
> > > Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> > > affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
> >
> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
> >
> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?

That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.

"> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"

Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
falsely claiming I did.

Those two questions are as follows:

"> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
and
"> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"

Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
you going to answer?
>
> > The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
> > to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
> > would imply anyway.
> >
> Where did he admitted this, Kane?

In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
to provide the link yet again.

> > That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
> > parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
> > compliance with federal bench marks.
> >
> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!

Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
to make a claim.

You are attempting to move the goal posts.

> > You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
> > you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
> > attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
> > claims, or insinuation.
> >
> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.

No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
not intended to change meaning.

I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.

You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
record of just such contextual deceptive postings.

If Ron quoted while leaving something out, then you could claim that
since he didn't quote the entire article he was cherry picking.

That would be stupid of you to do.

Now, he left something out. It may have changed the appearance of the
article from the conditional to the affirmative, but did it change the
claims of the article to something else?

I contend it had no effect whatsoever on the overall meaning of the
article... that indeed a high percentage of states did NOT fail to meet
the federal baseline established to meet audit requirements.

If Ron's quote changed that, I'd like to see your logic in defending
your claim he did so.

>
> > Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.
>
> Another STUPID LIE from Kane! ;-)

No, Doan, you are just as deceptive and deliberately disruptive,
something you've proudly admitted to, and in fact I'm doing back to you
in turn, as any little pack of juvenile thuggish trolls. You just hang
around using the same tactics.

In other words, Doan, when you attempt your, "the Emperor Wears No
Clothes," game, you indeed are quite naked yourself.

Attempting to expose others who are lying in argument on an important
issue is a noble endeavor.

To do that by lying indicates strong they are NOT lying but that you
are.
..
> Doan

No, Doan, you are a continuously proven lying little Usenet trollish
thug. Common.

0:-]

[Doan]

On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

>
> Doan wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> > > Doan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Doan wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> > > >>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> > > >>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Ron
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> Ron:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > > >>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > > >>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > > >>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Doan:
> > > >>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> > > >>> that, Ron?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Michael:
> > > >>> Your too kind, Doan.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> > > >>> his attempt.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> LMAO!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> > > >>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > > >>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> > > >>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > > >>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > > >>>> less."
> > > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> > > >> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> > > >> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> > > >> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> > > >> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> > > >> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> > > >>
> > > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> > > >>
> > > > Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> > > > affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
> > >
> > > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
> > >
> > Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
>
> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
>
And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.

> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
>
> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
> falsely claiming I did.
>
> Those two questions are as follows:
>
> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
> and
> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
>
> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
> you going to answer?

Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.

> >
> > > The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
> > > to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
> > > would imply anyway.
> > >
> > Where did he admitted this, Kane?
>
> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
> to provide the link yet again.
>
What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!

> > > That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
> > > parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
> > > compliance with federal bench marks.
> > >
> > Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
>
> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
> to make a claim.
>
The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.

> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
>
No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)

> > > You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
> > > you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
> > > attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
> > > claims, or insinuation.
> > >
> > You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
> > out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
>
> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
> not intended to change meaning.
>
It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!

> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
>
Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!

> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
>
Baseless accusation, Kane!

> If Ron quoted while leaving something out, then you could claim that
> since he didn't quote the entire article he was cherry picking.
>
Ron left out the "if" part, changing its meaning!

> That would be stupid of you to do.
>
The STUPID LIAR here is you and I have proven so, many times!

> Now, he left something out. It may have changed the appearance of the
> article from the conditional to the affirmative, but did it change the
> claims of the article to something else?
>
It changed the meaning of the sentence!

> I contend it had no effect whatsoever on the overall meaning of the
> article... that indeed a high percentage of states did NOT fail to meet
> the federal baseline established to meet audit requirements.
>
> If Ron's quote changed that, I'd like to see your logic in defending
> your claim he did so.
>
Why are you speaking for Ron?

> >
> > > Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.
> >
> > Another STUPID LIE from Kane! ;-)
>
> No, Doan, you are just as deceptive and deliberately disruptive,
> something you've proudly admitted to, and in fact I'm doing back to you
> in turn, as any little pack of juvenile thuggish trolls. You just hang
> around using the same tactics.
>
Hihihi! More lies from you, Kane!

> In other words, Doan, when you attempt your, "the Emperor Wears No
> Clothes," game, you indeed are quite naked yourself.
>
Hihihi! I've never claimed to be an Emperor, Kane. I don't even
claimed to be a "published researcher"! ;-)

> Attempting to expose others who are lying in argument on an important
> issue is a noble endeavor.
>
I EXPOSED your STUPID LIES! ;-)

> To do that by lying indicates strong they are NOT lying but that you
> are.

I have proven the LIAR is YOU, Kane!

> .
> > Doan
>
> No, Doan, you are a continuously proven lying little Usenet trollish
> thug. Common.
>
More baseless accussation, "published researcher" Kane! ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>>>>>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doan:
>>>>>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>>>>>> that, Ron?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>>>>>> his attempt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LMAO!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>>>>>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>>>>>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>>>>>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>>>>>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>>>>>>>> less."
>>>>>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>>>>>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>>>>>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
>>>>> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>>>> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
>>>>
>>> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
>> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
>> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
>> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
>>
> And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.

So which of your two proceeding questions do you wish an answer for,
your ad hom, or the question you asked Ron?

I'm under no obligation to answer questions addressed to another, nor to
address ad hom questions.

Now, are you going to answer MY questions?

>> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
>>
>> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
>> falsely claiming I did.
>>
>> Those two questions are as follows:
>>
>> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
>> and
>> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
>>
>> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
>> you going to answer?
>
> Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
> meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.

Nope. that is not an answer to my question. My question goes to if it
changed the meaning of the entire article. Did it?

Stop dodging.

>>>> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
>>>> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
>>>> would imply anyway.
>>>>
>>> Where did he admitted this, Kane?
>> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
>> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
>> to provide the link yet again.
>>
> What link, Kane?

The link to the thread YOUR pasted quote came from, Doan the duplicitous.

> Ron, can you confirm this?

That I provided a link? How quaint.

Oh, I see. A little more subtle dodging going on. Accuse me, by
inference, of not providing a link, but in fact that was not your
question at all. So clever, these monkeyboys.

> I may have missed your
> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context.

I don't believe I said that was his language.

> If so, I am truly
> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!

You won't have to based on your misquoting of me, and of course, Ron.

I did not say, as you can see in my comments above, that he used that
wording YOU are using. I said he admitted to ERROR. You re-frame it to
the "cherry picking" insinuation of "out of context."

You are thoroughly and continuously dishonest, Doan.

>>>> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
>>>> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
>>>> compliance with federal bench marks.
>>>>
>>> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
>> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
>> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
>> to make a claim.
>>
> The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.

Then you do know where the thread is. R R R R R R ...

What a sorry little liar you are.

And so easily stripped of your fakery.

Too bad, stupid.

From my post earlier in this thread, the very link to the thread you
are now questioning that I did not provide:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48
http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp

Where the first thing you'll find is Doug did not post to it at any point.


>
>> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
>>
> No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)

Nope, that's a lie proved by simply reading this and prior posts. Doug
was not posting to the thread where the posts are that you are
questioning Ron about.

Why would you bring up his name at all I wonder?

I posted mentioning the Pew report, and pointing out Doug has cited it
using the same thing to support his claims as I have to support mine,
and we even agree in some details. This one in fact, as I recall.

A survey report is not a peer reviewed research report. Nor is it
relevant to this discussion, Doan the Duplicitous.

No "scientific" evidence was cited by anyone up until you attempted to
move the goal posts by asking for peer reviewed publication. Rather a
lame attempt to move the goal posts.

Thus, Doan, you are lying what you claim I'm lying that you moved the
goal posts. Why else would you suddenly demand that we provide peer
reviewed research?

See, liar.

>>>> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
>>>> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
>>>> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
>>>> claims, or insinuation.
>>>>
>>> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
>>> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
>> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
>> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
>> not intended to change meaning.
>>
> It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!

Yep. And that is yet another reduction of context, by you. You now
confine it to just that one paragraph.

If you read the larger context around it you will see...well, other
honest people will...that Ron's comment in no way changed the meaning of
the larger context.

You keep avoiding the larger context, but I'll try again. The states
have increased the number of them to a majority that have met the
baseline requirement for reduction of abuse in foster care.

Show us how his comment changed the meaning of that one way or the other.

That was the premise put forward in the thread. And some were arguing
0:-> that this was not so...that they had not reduced sufficiently.

Was that you?

Are you unaware the thread opening post was about Australia? And the
sock poster, likely Michael himself, but we just can't tell he's so good
at concealing his ID, tried to imply about US child protection policy
and practices.

The next poster was Ron.

Then Greg attempted his usual run of propaganda and disruptive lies...
which brought me, happily, into the thread.

Which, even more happily, in a few more posts brought you into the
picture with one of your more brilliant contributions to foil Ron's
attempt to get Greg back on topic and out of the bull****.

And you, most cleverly ( R R R R RR R R R) but stupidly, managed to
confirm Ron's assessment of Greg.

"
> So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply
to his
> argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
yourself
> feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
> feel like you have come out on top.

> Ron

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)

Doan "

Which, of course we just caught YOU doing again in this thread.
Interesting, eh?

Whereupon, in a quickly following post by you, you make this claim:

"Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The
latest is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%! "

You seem very positive of this claim of mine, Doan.

Can you produce the post where I said this so we may see if, in context,
that was my meaning?

This thread under discussion at http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
Doesn't seem to have any such claim by me.

>> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
>> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
>>
> Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!

Empty pointless dodging by you. Your M.O., Doan!

You have made a claim that Ron cherry picked, Doan, to change the
meaning of something.

If you mean of the paragraph when full quoted, then show if you will
what it addressed.

I know, of course, what he was responding to, and it was not to the
entire source commentary from ACF, the government source of his quote.

It was in response to your claim above that I had said the abuse is .57%.

He pointed out that indeed, it was. As it is, according to the feds, in
that a majority of states beat that number nicely.

Now, produce your proof for the claim I said .57%.

And now I will produce what you claim Ron did not do, or if he did
you'll apologize.

Here again is what Ron said, and it's a verifiable fact of being TRUE,
the majority of states did indeed manage to attain this goal.

""of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
or less."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal "

And he replied not to substantiate this, but to show that you claim
about what I claimed was in fact false on your part.

He might be wrong, he might be right, but it was not about what you
claim it is, that he's trying to change the facts by mis, or cherry
picking quoting, Doan.

I may have mistakenly claimed that the rate of abuse by foster parents
was .57%.....or I might have said a majority of states reported a rate
of .57% or better. The problem for you is to find my statement, and to
show that whatever I said was meant to be a dishonest rendering of the
findings of the report by ACF, and I intended it to be so.

That is your claim, if you claim I'm lying.

You do understand the difference between an intentional lie and a common
mistake, right? After all you are expert in rendering the first, as you
are doing here.
>
>> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
>> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
>>
> Baseless accusation, Kane!

Nope. You are in the middle of one of them right now. Trying desperately
to make errors intentional lies, and to cover up your own intentional lies.

When you pointed out Ron's quote did not include the "if" line, and
responded, Michael jumped into the thread, apparently to prove he's an
ass...and doing it quite well:

"> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> that, Ron?

Your too kind, Doan.

Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
his attempt.

LMAO!
....
Michael©

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

You lied by inference again, Doan, by an affirmative statement (R R R RR
) that Ron was "practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT!"

I presume you mean by your exclamation point that he did so deliberately
to deceive, and make a practice of it.

Please show proof if that is what you meant. Where, and how many times,
has Ron deliberately quoted out of context to deceive?

That certainly something Ron does not do. Error, possibly, but no
deliberate "practicing," Doan. It shows conclusively that you and
Michael are, just as I have said about you, practicing thugs in these
newsgroups.

In fact, Doan, here is what I said regarding .57%:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/c7db76999c99d223?hl=en&

.....

I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
(remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
2004. That standard marker? .57%.

From my prior post:
....
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_21.htm

This one tells you that in 2004 the percentage for abuse in foster care
was 0.36percent. That's right. .36%.

The rate for the entire population.... 1.19%, Doan.

[[[ Same source, of course. The below on the general population abuse
rate. ]]]

.... The rate of victimization decreased from 13.4 per 1,000 children in
1990 to 11.9 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is an 11.2 percent
decrease.3 The highest rate of victimization occurred during 1993, when
the rate was 15.3. There has been a 51.3 percent increase in the number
of children who received an investigation from 1990 to 2004; there has
been 1.4 percent increase in the number of child victims. ... ...

No coincidence this .57% "data indicator" which was meet and improved on
figured in the first statement I posted to this thread.

All Doan has done is a Douggie. Attempt to utilizing the fact that one
does not post an encyclopedia when one wishes to comment on one portion
of it.

The oldest and sorriest debating fallacious argument of all.

"You didn't tell me EVERYTHING in your first statement, so you are
lying." The Red Herring. Avoid the debate, throw out a dead red fish for
distraction. It's playground antics from grade schoolers.

We deal with practiced and polished liars here. Their favorite is to
call us liars while carefully avoiding any debate over the actual
material under discussion. They consider themselves "clever."

You can post data and source all day long, Ron and you'll get the same
kind of bs that Michael, who thinks he can copyright a name, posted
claiming you flat out lied.

Notice he had NOTHING to support his claim but to address the perennial
resident monkeyboy screeching his usual lies and diversions.

Kane ...

Of course you will try to go back to a single paragraph to "prove" that
Ron was "practicing" out of context quotes to deceive.

Or didn't you mean to imply he was being deceptive? If not, then what
would be the significance of all your prior comments concerning this
quoted paragraph of his?

No, Ron, made no error or intent to cherry pick to deceive, and when he
did make an error, he readily admitted to it, Doan the Liar.

First Ron:
">> > Not the 10,000 you claim, not even close. Don't believe me? Then
look >> > at
>> > the chart yourself and use a pencil.

Then you reply, Doan:
>> Now where did I made the claim of 10,0000?

To which I compound the error unintentionally:
> You make a claim based on 10,000 rate. That's not the rate in question.

Then Ron admits to his error:

No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not
gregg, I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing
to make the same admission? After all, we are not on different sides,
just in
disagreement in this thread.

Was my original post on this current subject out of context? Not
really. It does give Doan a chance to eat a bit of crow, and they are
usually big enough that we can share. "
>
>> If Ron quoted while leaving something out, then you could claim that
>> since he didn't quote the entire article he was cherry picking.
>>
> Ron left out the "if" part, changing its meaning!

What is "its" Doan. The paragraph or the article at his offered
source...by the LINK HE PROVIDED so anyone could fact check him?

The latter something you rarely do. Very rarely.

Did he change the meaning of the article, or of his response to your
claim I said the rate of foster abuse was .57%?

>> That would be stupid of you to do.
>>
> The STUPID LIAR here is you and I have proven so, many times!

You have on occasion brought mistakes to my attention, which I have
acknowledged and you have gone on to claim those mistakes were
lies..intent to deceive.

The one on spanking in a religious community for instance, where I went
to the trouble, when you challenge my quote of others statements about
them, to research by contacting the group representative and asking him.

I posted his reply, apologized to you and the group for posting an error.

You, of course still insist that I was lying, intentionally deceiving
originally. Is that not true, Doan?

>> Now, he left something out. It may have changed the appearance of the
>> article from the conditional to the affirmative, but did it change the
>> claims of the article to something else?
>>
> It changed the meaning of the sentence!

Why yes it did. And of what consequence is that?

It did not change the .57% rate being meet by over 80% of the states
reporting, so it has NO effect. Hence, Ron was not attempting to
deceive, and did not.

Nor was he, as you lie, "practicing" out of context quoting to cherry
pick and deceive anyone.

That's the M.O. of Doan the Duplicitous. You practice it regularly, and
are doing so now.

>> I contend it had no effect whatsoever on the overall meaning of the
>> article... that indeed a high percentage of states did NOT fail to meet
>> the federal baseline established to meet audit requirements.
>>
>> If Ron's quote changed that, I'd like to see your logic in defending
>> your claim he did so.
>>
> Why are you speaking for Ron?

Because I wish to. Is there a rule against it, or something you think is
suspicious in my doing so?

Are Ron and I, "up to something?"

Often a bystander has a more objective view of events than those
involved. This seems true in this case.

You wish to make Ron's quote a deliberate attempt to deceive, yet you
cannot show that it effected anything under discussion (your claim I
said .57% was the rate of foster abuse) or the meaning of the source
document Ron provided access to.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table3_20.htm

Hence, Doan, he didn't "practice" any deception and you are doing so.

Or you are making a very large mistake.

>>>> Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.
>>> Another STUPID LIE from Kane! ;-)
>> No, Doan, you are just as deceptive and deliberately disruptive,
>> something you've proudly admitted to, and in fact I'm doing back to you
>> in turn, as any little pack of juvenile thuggish trolls. You just hang
>> around using the same tactics.
>>
> Hihihi! More lies from you, Kane!

You have not said then that you are here to attack the proponents of and
end to spanking?

>> In other words, Doan, when you attempt your, "the Emperor Wears No
>> Clothes," game, you indeed are quite naked yourself.
>>
> Hihihi! I've never claimed to be an Emperor, Kane.

And there is a fine example of deception. Did I say you were claiming to
be an Emperor?

In fact you have claimed that the posters pose as "Emperors."

> I don't even
> claimed to be a "published researcher"! ;-)

Nor do I if you mean that I have claimed to publish research.

>> Attempting to expose others who are lying in argument on an important
>> issue is a noble endeavor.
>>
> I EXPOSED your STUPID LIES! ;-)

No, you have found a few mistakes over a long period of time, and no
attempts at all to deliberately deceive on any arguments in these
newsgroups.

Your attempt to turn errors, or non-critical statements, such as
comments that didn't include every line in a paragraph, into lies is
infamous, and notorious, for you.
>
>> To do that by lying indicates strong they are NOT lying but that you
>> are.
>
> I have proven the LIAR is YOU, Kane!

You've proven nothing but errors, many of which have been admitted to
and corrected when appropriate.

Ron did so. I have done so. And you continue to lie by saying we lied,
when it was error, and corrected at that.

That is dishonorable, Doan.
>
>> .
>>> Doan
>> No, Doan, you are a continuously proven lying little Usenet trollish
>> thug. Common.
>>
> More baseless accussation, "published researcher" Kane! ;-)

Nope. I've proven it yet again in this post.

>
> Doan
>
Doan, you are a liar. Get used to it. Apparently you are deep denial
about it even when the proof is in front of you.

Unless of course you wish to admit your claims others lied were in fact
errors, when they erred you can prove they did so deliberately to
deceive..to lie.

You've never once done so. Not about me, and not about Ron.

For instance, I'm waiting for you to prove I never mailed a copy of the
Embry study to Alina in Mexico.

How would you prove that?

Yet you called me a liar when I said I had. Your proof please?

Kane

[Doan]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> >>>>>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ron:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>>>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>>>>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>>>>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Doan:
> >>>>>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> >>>>>>> that, Ron?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Michael:
> >>>>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> >>>>>>> his attempt.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LMAO!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> >>>>>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >>>>>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> >>>>>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >>>>>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> >>>>>>>> less."
> >>>>>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> >>>>>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> >>>>>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>>>>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>>>>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>>>>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> >>>>> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
> >>>> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
> >>>>
> >>> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
> >> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
> >> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
> >> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
> >>
> > And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.
>
> So which of your two proceeding questions do you wish an answer for,
> your ad hom, or the question you asked Ron?
>
> I'm under no obligation to answer questions addressed to another, nor to
> address ad hom questions.
>
> Now, are you going to answer MY questions?
>
Already did, STUPID!

> >> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
> >>
> >> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
> >> falsely claiming I did.
> >>
> >> Those two questions are as follows:
> >>
> >> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
> >> and
> >> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
> >>
> >> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
> >> you going to answer?
> >
> > Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
> > meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.
>
> Nope. that is not an answer to my question. My question goes to if it
> changed the meaning of the entire article. Did it?
>
Yes!

> Stop dodging.
>
Stop being STUPID!

> >>>> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
> >>>> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
> >>>> would imply anyway.
> >>>>
> >>> Where did he admitted this, Kane?
> >> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
> >> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
> >> to provide the link yet again.
> >>
> > What link, Kane?
>
> The link to the thread YOUR pasted quote came from, Doan the duplicitous.
>
Where point it out to me, please!

> > Ron, can you confirm this?
>
> That I provided a link? How quaint.
>
> Oh, I see. A little more subtle dodging going on. Accuse me, by
> inference, of not providing a link, but in fact that was not your
> question at all. So clever, these monkeyboys.
>
More dodging from you, Kane!

> > I may have missed your
> > admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context.
>
> I don't believe I said that was his language.
>
Hihihi!

> > If so, I am truly
> > sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>
> You won't have to based on your misquoting of me, and of course, Ron.
>
I based it you the LIES you spewed!

> I did not say, as you can see in my comments above, that he used that
> wording YOU are using. I said he admitted to ERROR. You re-frame it to
> the "cherry picking" insinuation of "out of context."
>
So what is this "ERROR", Kane?

> You are thoroughly and continuously dishonest, Doan.
>
The proven LIAR here is YOU!

> >>>> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
> >>>> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
> >>>> compliance with federal bench marks.
> >>>>
> >>> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
> >> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
> >> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
> >> to make a claim.
> >>
> > The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.
>
> Then you do know where the thread is. R R R R R R ...
>
And so do you! So when you said no peer-reviewed studies were referenced
you are LYING! See how easy it is for me to PROVE that you are a LIAR!

> What a sorry little liar you are.
>
The proven LIAR here is YOU!

> And so easily stripped of your fakery.
>
The "fakery" here is you, as in claiming that you are a "published
researcher"! ;-)

> Too bad, stupid.
>
Too bad for you, STUPID LIAR! ;-)

> From my post earlier in this thread, the very link to the thread you
> are now questioning that I did not provide:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48
> http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
>
> Where the first thing you'll find is Doug did not post to it at any point.
>
That wasn't the post I refered to, STUPID. I refered to the exchange
between you and Doug.

>
> >
> >> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
> >>
> > No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)
>
> Nope, that's a lie proved by simply reading this and prior posts. Doug
> was not posting to the thread where the posts are that you are
> questioning Ron about.
>
> Why would you bring up his name at all I wonder?
>
Because that is where he EXPOSED your LIES!

> I posted mentioning the Pew report, and pointing out Doug has cited it
> using the same thing to support his claims as I have to support mine,
> and we even agree in some details. This one in fact, as I recall.
>
Hihihi! More LIES!

> A survey report is not a peer reviewed research report. Nor is it
> relevant to this discussion, Doan the Duplicitous.
>
So why are you trying to use it to counter the peer-reviewed studies
referenced by Doug. Are you so STUPID?

> No "scientific" evidence was cited by anyone up until you attempted to
> move the goal posts by asking for peer reviewed publication. Rather a
> lame attempt to move the goal posts.
>
No, I just love to expose you LIES! ;-)

> Thus, Doan, you are lying what you claim I'm lying that you moved the
> goal posts. Why else would you suddenly demand that we provide peer
> reviewed research?
>
I didn't demaned, Doug already provided them, STUPID!

> See, liar.
>
I see YOU! ;-)

> >>>> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
> >>>> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
> >>>> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
> >>>> claims, or insinuation.
> >>>>
> >>> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
> >>> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
> >> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
> >> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
> >> not intended to change meaning.
> >>
> > It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!
>
> Yep. And that is yet another reduction of context, by you. You now
> confine it to just that one paragraph.
>
And that the one I accused Ron of, STUPID!

> If you read the larger context around it you will see...well, other
> honest people will...that Ron's comment in no way changed the meaning of
> the larger context.
>
Yes, it did, STUPID! It misleadingly gave the impression that the
abuse rate in forster care is .57% - it is NOT!

> You keep avoiding the larger context, but I'll try again. The states
> have increased the number of them to a majority that have met the
> baseline requirement for reduction of abuse in foster care.
>
You are attempting to dodge that fact Ron quoted it out of context,
changing a conditional statement into a affirmative one, Kane!

> Show us how his comment changed the meaning of that one way or the other.
>
I did, STUPID. If there is no "condition" then there is no "condition"
for the states to meet. SEE IT NOW, STUPID???

> That was the premise put forward in the thread. And some were arguing
> 0:-> that this was not so...that they had not reduced sufficiently.
>
Now you are moving the post, Kane. How STUPID of you? ;-0

> Was that you?
>
Nope, the STUPID liar is YOU!

> Are you unaware the thread opening post was about Australia? And the
> sock poster, likely Michael himself, but we just can't tell he's so good
> at concealing his ID, tried to imply about US child protection policy
> and practices.
>
Diversion alert! ;-)

> The next poster was Ron.
>
More diversion!

> Then Greg attempted his usual run of propaganda and disruptive lies...
> which brought me, happily, into the thread.
>
And even more diversion!

> Which, even more happily, in a few more posts brought you into the
> picture with one of your more brilliant contributions to foil Ron's
> attempt to get Greg back on topic and out of the bull****.
>
> And you, most cleverly ( R R R R RR R R R) but stupidly, managed to
> confirm Ron's assessment of Greg.
>
Hihihi! And my assessment of you - a STUPID LIAR!

> "
> > So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply
> to his
> > argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
> yourself
> > feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
> > feel like you have come out on top.
>
> > Ron
>
> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
>
> Doan "
>
> Which, of course we just caught YOU doing again in this thread.
> Interesting, eh?
>
> Whereupon, in a quickly following post by you, you make this claim:
>
> "Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The
> latest is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%! "
>
> You seem very positive of this claim of mine, Doan.
>
I love exposing your LIES, Kane!

> Can you produce the post where I said this so we may see if, in context,
> that was my meaning?
>
So you didn't claim that the abuse rate is .57%???

> This thread under discussion at http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
> Doesn't seem to have any such claim by me.
>
Try looking harder, Kane! ;-)

> >> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
> >> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
> >>
> > Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!
>
> Empty pointless dodging by you. Your M.O., Doan!
>
Exposing your STUPID LIEs is my M.O, Kane!

> You have made a claim that Ron cherry picked, Doan, to change the
> meaning of something.
>
Where did I claimed that Ron cherry picked, Kane?

> If you mean of the paragraph when full quoted, then show if you will
> what it addressed.
>
I did, STUPID!

> I know, of course, what he was responding to, and it was not to the
> entire source commentary from ACF, the government source of his quote.
>
> It was in response to your claim above that I had said the abuse is .57%.
>
Your LIES, you mean. ;-)

> He pointed out that indeed, it was. As it is, according to the feds, in
> that a majority of states beat that number nicely.
>
Hihihi! It's not, Kane. Alot of data are missing from that data! It's
not peer-reviewed. It's useless, Kane!

> Now, produce your proof for the claim I said .57%.
>
And if I do, will you promise to provide a PUBLIC apology and SHUT THE
**** UP? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

> And now I will produce what you claim Ron did not do, or if he did
> you'll apologize.
>
> Here again is what Ron said, and it's a verifiable fact of being TRUE,
> the majority of states did indeed manage to attain this goal.
>
> ""of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
> or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
> or less."
> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal "
>
> And he replied not to substantiate this, but to show that you claim
> about what I claimed was in fact false on your part.
>
> He might be wrong, he might be right, but it was not about what you
> claim it is, that he's trying to change the facts by mis, or cherry
> picking quoting, Doan.
>
Can you confirm this, Ron?

> I may have mistakenly claimed that the rate of abuse by foster parents
> was .57%.....or I might have said a majority of states reported a rate
> of .57% or better. The problem for you is to find my statement, and to
> show that whatever I said was meant to be a dishonest rendering of the
> findings of the report by ACF, and I intended it to be so.
>
But you just said you didn't claim that, Kane. Are you such a STUPID
LIAR?

> That is your claim, if you claim I'm lying.
>
I have proven that you were LYING, many times!

> You do understand the difference between an intentional lie and a common
> mistake, right? After all you are expert in rendering the first, as you
> are doing here.

Hahaha! So you didn't intentionally lie???
> >
> >> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
> >> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
> >>
> > Baseless accusation, Kane!
>
> Nope. You are in the middle of one of them right now. Trying desperately
> to make errors intentional lies, and to cover up your own intentional lies.
>
The proven liar is you, Kane! ;-)

> When you pointed out Ron's quote did not include the "if" line, and
> responded, Michael jumped into the thread, apparently to prove he's an
> ass...and doing it quite well:
>
Hihihi! More dodging!

> "> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> > that, Ron?
>
> Your too kind, Doan.
>
> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> his attempt.
>
> LMAO!
> ...
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !
> "
>
> You lied by inference again, Doan, by an affirmative statement (R R R RR
> ) that Ron was "practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT!"
>
I proved that he took it out of context, Kane!

> I presume you mean by your exclamation point that he did so deliberately
> to deceive, and make a practice of it.
>
> Please show proof if that is what you meant. Where, and how many times,
> has Ron deliberately quoted out of context to deceive?
>
I just did!

> That certainly something Ron does not do. Error, possibly, but no
> deliberate "practicing," Doan. It shows conclusively that you and
> Michael are, just as I have said about you, practicing thugs in these
> newsgroups.
>
> In fact, Doan, here is what I said regarding .57%:
>
So you did claim it but just above you said you didn't. You are such
a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR! ;-)

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/c7db76999c99d223?hl=en&
>
> ....
>
> I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
> stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
> (remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
> 2004. That standard marker? .57%.
>
You are exposing your STUPIDITY agian. Remember, you can't even read
a simple chart, let alone understand what the data said !
[snippin useless regurgited LIES from Kane]

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>>>>>>>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>>>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>>>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doan:
>>>>>>>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>>>>>>>> that, Ron?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>>>>>>>> his attempt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LMAO!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>>>>>>>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>>>>>>>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>>>>>>>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>>>>>>>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>>>>>>>>>> less."
>>>>>>>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>>>>>>>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>>>>>>>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>>>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>>>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>>>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
>>>>>>> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>>>>>> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
>>>> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
>>>> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
>>>> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
>>>>
>>> And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.
>> So which of your two proceeding questions do you wish an answer for,
>> your ad hom, or the question you asked Ron?
>>
>> I'm under no obligation to answer questions addressed to another, nor to
>> address ad hom questions.
>>
>> Now, are you going to answer MY questions?
>>
> Already did, STUPID!
>
>>>> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
>>>>
>>>> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
>>>> falsely claiming I did.
>>>>
>>>> Those two questions are as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
>>>> and
>>>> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
>>>> you going to answer?
>>> Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
>>> meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.
>> Nope. that is not an answer to my question. My question goes to if it
>> changed the meaning of the entire article. Did it?
>>
> Yes!
>
>> Stop dodging.
>>
> Stop being STUPID!
>
>>>>>> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
>>>>>> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
>>>>>> would imply anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where did he admitted this, Kane?
>>>> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
>>>> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
>>>> to provide the link yet again.
>>>>
>>> What link, Kane?
>> The link to the thread YOUR pasted quote came from, Doan the duplicitous.
>>
> Where point it out to me, please!
>
>>> Ron, can you confirm this?
>> That I provided a link? How quaint.
>>
>> Oh, I see. A little more subtle dodging going on. Accuse me, by
>> inference, of not providing a link, but in fact that was not your
>> question at all. So clever, these monkeyboys.
>>
> More dodging from you, Kane!
>
>>> I may have missed your
>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context.
>> I don't believe I said that was his language.
>>
> Hihihi!
>
>>> If so, I am truly
>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>> You won't have to based on your misquoting of me, and of course, Ron.
>>
> I based it you the LIES you spewed!
>
>> I did not say, as you can see in my comments above, that he used that
>> wording YOU are using. I said he admitted to ERROR. You re-frame it to
>> the "cherry picking" insinuation of "out of context."
>>
> So what is this "ERROR", Kane?
>
>> You are thoroughly and continuously dishonest, Doan.
>>
> The proven LIAR here is YOU!
>
>>>>>> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
>>>>>> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
>>>>>> compliance with federal bench marks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
>>>> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
>>>> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
>>>> to make a claim.
>>>>
>>> The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.
>> Then you do know where the thread is. R R R R R R ...
>>
> And so do you! So when you said no peer-reviewed studies were referenced
> you are LYING! See how easy it is for me to PROVE that you are a LIAR!
>
>> What a sorry little liar you are.
>>
> The proven LIAR here is YOU!
>
>> And so easily stripped of your fakery.
>>
> The "fakery" here is you, as in claiming that you are a "published
> researcher"! ;-)
>
>> Too bad, stupid.
>>
> Too bad for you, STUPID LIAR! ;-)
>
>> From my post earlier in this thread, the very link to the thread you
>> are now questioning that I did not provide:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48
>> http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
>>
>> Where the first thing you'll find is Doug did not post to it at any point.
>>
> That wasn't the post I refered to, STUPID. I refered to the exchange
> between you and Doug.
>
>>>> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
>>>>
>>> No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)
>> Nope, that's a lie proved by simply reading this and prior posts. Doug
>> was not posting to the thread where the posts are that you are
>> questioning Ron about.
>>
>> Why would you bring up his name at all I wonder?
>>
> Because that is where he EXPOSED your LIES!
>
>> I posted mentioning the Pew report, and pointing out Doug has cited it
>> using the same thing to support his claims as I have to support mine,
>> and we even agree in some details. This one in fact, as I recall.
>>
> Hihihi! More LIES!
>
>> A survey report is not a peer reviewed research report. Nor is it
>> relevant to this discussion, Doan the Duplicitous.
>>
> So why are you trying to use it to counter the peer-reviewed studies
> referenced by Doug. Are you so STUPID?
>
>> No "scientific" evidence was cited by anyone up until you attempted to
>> move the goal posts by asking for peer reviewed publication. Rather a
>> lame attempt to move the goal posts.
>>
> No, I just love to expose you LIES! ;-)
>
>> Thus, Doan, you are lying what you claim I'm lying that you moved the
>> goal posts. Why else would you suddenly demand that we provide peer
>> reviewed research?
>>
> I didn't demaned, Doug already provided them, STUPID!
>
>> See, liar.
>>
> I see YOU! ;-)
>
>>>>>> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
>>>>>> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
>>>>>> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
>>>>>> claims, or insinuation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
>>>>> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
>>>> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
>>>> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
>>>> not intended to change meaning.
>>>>
>>> It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!
>> Yep. And that is yet another reduction of context, by you. You now
>> confine it to just that one paragraph.
>>
> And that the one I accused Ron of, STUPID!
>
>> If you read the larger context around it you will see...well, other
>> honest people will...that Ron's comment in no way changed the meaning of
>> the larger context.
>>
> Yes, it did, STUPID! It misleadingly gave the impression that the
> abuse rate in forster care is .57% - it is NOT!
>
>> You keep avoiding the larger context, but I'll try again. The states
>> have increased the number of them to a majority that have met the
>> baseline requirement for reduction of abuse in foster care.
>>
> You are attempting to dodge that fact Ron quoted it out of context,
> changing a conditional statement into a affirmative one, Kane!
>
>> Show us how his comment changed the meaning of that one way or the other.
>>
> I did, STUPID. If there is no "condition" then there is no "condition"
> for the states to meet. SEE IT NOW, STUPID???
>
>> That was the premise put forward in the thread. And some were arguing
>> 0:-> that this was not so...that they had not reduced sufficiently.
>>
> Now you are moving the post, Kane. How STUPID of you? ;-0
>
>> Was that you?
>>
> Nope, the STUPID liar is YOU!
>
>> Are you unaware the thread opening post was about Australia? And the
>> sock poster, likely Michael himself, but we just can't tell he's so good
>> at concealing his ID, tried to imply about US child protection policy
>> and practices.
>>
> Diversion alert! ;-)
>
>> The next poster was Ron.
>>
> More diversion!
>
>> Then Greg attempted his usual run of propaganda and disruptive lies...
>> which brought me, happily, into the thread.
>>
> And even more diversion!
>
>> Which, even more happily, in a few more posts brought you into the
>> picture with one of your more brilliant contributions to foil Ron's
>> attempt to get Greg back on topic and out of the bull****.
>>
>> And you, most cleverly ( R R R R RR R R R) but stupidly, managed to
>> confirm Ron's assessment of Greg.
>>
> Hihihi! And my assessment of you - a STUPID LIAR!
>
>> "
>> > So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply
>> to his
>> > argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
>> yourself
>> > feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
>> > feel like you have come out on top.
>>
>> > Ron
>>
>> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
>>
>> Doan "
>>
>> Which, of course we just caught YOU doing again in this thread.
>> Interesting, eh?
>>
>> Whereupon, in a quickly following post by you, you make this claim:
>>
>> "Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The
>> latest is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%! "
>>
>> You seem very positive of this claim of mine, Doan.
>>
> I love exposing your LIES, Kane!
>
>> Can you produce the post where I said this so we may see if, in context,
>> that was my meaning?
>>
> So you didn't claim that the abuse rate is .57%???
>
>> This thread under discussion at http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
>> Doesn't seem to have any such claim by me.
>>
> Try looking harder, Kane! ;-)
>
>>>> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
>>>> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
>>>>
>>> Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!
>> Empty pointless dodging by you. Your M.O., Doan!
>>
> Exposing your STUPID LIEs is my M.O, Kane!
>
>> You have made a claim that Ron cherry picked, Doan, to change the
>> meaning of something.
>>
> Where did I claimed that Ron cherry picked, Kane?
>
>> If you mean of the paragraph when full quoted, then show if you will
>> what it addressed.
>>
> I did, STUPID!
>
>> I know, of course, what he was responding to, and it was not to the
>> entire source commentary from ACF, the government source of his quote.
>>
>> It was in response to your claim above that I had said the abuse is .57%.
>>
> Your LIES, you mean. ;-)
>
>> He pointed out that indeed, it was. As it is, according to the feds, in
>> that a majority of states beat that number nicely.
>>
> Hihihi! It's not, Kane. Alot of data are missing from that data! It's
> not peer-reviewed. It's useless, Kane!
>
>> Now, produce your proof for the claim I said .57%.
>>
> And if I do, will you promise to provide a PUBLIC apology and SHUT THE
> **** UP? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)
>
>> And now I will produce what you claim Ron did not do, or if he did
>> you'll apologize.
>>
>> Here again is what Ron said, and it's a verifiable fact of being TRUE,
>> the majority of states did indeed manage to attain this goal.
>>
>> ""of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
>> or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
>> or less."
>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal "
>>
>> And he replied not to substantiate this, but to show that you claim
>> about what I claimed was in fact false on your part.
>>
>> He might be wrong, he might be right, but it was not about what you
>> claim it is, that he's trying to change the facts by mis, or cherry
>> picking quoting, Doan.
>>
> Can you confirm this, Ron?
>
>> I may have mistakenly claimed that the rate of abuse by foster parents
>> was .57%.....or I might have said a majority of states reported a rate
>> of .57% or better. The problem for you is to find my statement, and to
>> show that whatever I said was meant to be a dishonest rendering of the
>> findings of the report by ACF, and I intended it to be so.
>>
> But you just said you didn't claim that, Kane. Are you such a STUPID
> LIAR?
>
>> That is your claim, if you claim I'm lying.
>>
> I have proven that you were LYING, many times!
>
>> You do understand the difference between an intentional lie and a common
>> mistake, right? After all you are expert in rendering the first, as you
>> are doing here.
>
> Hahaha! So you didn't intentionally lie???
>>>> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
>>>> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
>>>>
>>> Baseless accusation, Kane!
>> Nope. You are in the middle of one of them right now. Trying desperately
>> to make errors intentional lies, and to cover up your own intentional lies.
>>
> The proven liar is you, Kane! ;-)
>
>> When you pointed out Ron's quote did not include the "if" line, and
>> responded, Michael jumped into the thread, apparently to prove he's an
>> ass...and doing it quite well:
>>
> Hihihi! More dodging!
>
>> "> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>> > that, Ron?
>>
>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>
>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>> his attempt.
>>
>> LMAO!
>> ...
>> Michael?
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland ?ber alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit f?r Deutschland !
>> "
>>
>> You lied by inference again, Doan, by an affirmative statement (R R R RR
>> ) that Ron was "practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT!"
>>
> I proved that he took it out of context, Kane!
>
>> I presume you mean by your exclamation point that he did so deliberately
>> to deceive, and make a practice of it.
>>
>> Please show proof if that is what you meant. Where, and how many times,
>> has Ron deliberately quoted out of context to deceive?
>>
> I just did!
>
>> That certainly something Ron does not do. Error, possibly, but no
>> deliberate "practicing," Doan. It shows conclusively that you and
>> Michael are, just as I have said about you, practicing thugs in these
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> In fact, Doan, here is what I said regarding .57%:
>>
> So you did claim it but just above you said you didn't. You are such
> a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR! ;-)
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/c7db76999c99d223?hl=en&
>>
>> ....
>>
>> I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
>> stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
>> (remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
>> 2004. That standard marker? .57%.
>>
> You are exposing your STUPIDITY agian. Remember, you can't even read
> a simple chart, let alone understand what the data said !
> [snippin useless regurgited LIES from Kane]

Stomping your foot like a child, Doan, when you are a grown man (you
are, aren't you?) is very unseemly, and doesn't prove your claims.
>
> Doan
>
Go to your room. No supper for you, young man.

0:-]


>

[Doan]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
> >>>>>>>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ron
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>>>>>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>>>>>>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>>>>>>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Doan:
> >>>>>>>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> >>>>>>>>> that, Ron?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Michael:
> >>>>>>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> >>>>>>>>> his attempt.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> LMAO!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
> >>>>>>>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> >>>>>>>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> >>>>>>>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> >>>>>>>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> >>>>>>>>>> less."
> >>>>>>>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
> >>>>>>>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
> >>>>>>>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >>>>>>>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
> >>>>>>>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
> >>>>>>>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
> >>>>>>> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
> >>>>>> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
> >>>> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
> >>>> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
> >>>> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
> >>>>
> >>> And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.
> >> So which of your two proceeding questions do you wish an answer for,
> >> your ad hom, or the question you asked Ron?
> >>
> >> I'm under no obligation to answer questions addressed to another, nor to
> >> address ad hom questions.
> >>
> >> Now, are you going to answer MY questions?
> >>
> > Already did, STUPID!
> >
> >>>> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
> >>>> falsely claiming I did.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those two questions are as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
> >>>> and
> >>>> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
> >>>> you going to answer?
> >>> Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
> >>> meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.
> >> Nope. that is not an answer to my question. My question goes to if it
> >> changed the meaning of the entire article. Did it?
> >>
> > Yes!
> >
> >> Stop dodging.
> >>
> > Stop being STUPID!
> >
> >>>>>> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
> >>>>>> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
> >>>>>> would imply anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Where did he admitted this, Kane?
> >>>> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
> >>>> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
> >>>> to provide the link yet again.
> >>>>
> >>> What link, Kane?
> >> The link to the thread YOUR pasted quote came from, Doan the duplicitous.
> >>
> > Where point it out to me, please!
> >
> >>> Ron, can you confirm this?
> >> That I provided a link? How quaint.
> >>
> >> Oh, I see. A little more subtle dodging going on. Accuse me, by
> >> inference, of not providing a link, but in fact that was not your
> >> question at all. So clever, these monkeyboys.
> >>
> > More dodging from you, Kane!
> >
> >>> I may have missed your
> >>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context.
> >> I don't believe I said that was his language.
> >>
> > Hihihi!
> >
> >>> If so, I am truly
> >>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
> >> You won't have to based on your misquoting of me, and of course, Ron.
> >>
> > I based it you the LIES you spewed!
> >
> >> I did not say, as you can see in my comments above, that he used that
> >> wording YOU are using. I said he admitted to ERROR. You re-frame it to
> >> the "cherry picking" insinuation of "out of context."
> >>
> > So what is this "ERROR", Kane?
> >
> >> You are thoroughly and continuously dishonest, Doan.
> >>
> > The proven LIAR here is YOU!
> >
> >>>>>> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
> >>>>>> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
> >>>>>> compliance with federal bench marks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
> >>>> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
> >>>> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
> >>>> to make a claim.
> >>>>
> >>> The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.
> >> Then you do know where the thread is. R R R R R R ...
> >>
> > And so do you! So when you said no peer-reviewed studies were referenced
> > you are LYING! See how easy it is for me to PROVE that you are a LIAR!
> >
> >> What a sorry little liar you are.
> >>
> > The proven LIAR here is YOU!
> >
> >> And so easily stripped of your fakery.
> >>
> > The "fakery" here is you, as in claiming that you are a "published
> > researcher"! ;-)
> >
> >> Too bad, stupid.
> >>
> > Too bad for you, STUPID LIAR! ;-)
> >
> >> From my post earlier in this thread, the very link to the thread you
> >> are now questioning that I did not provide:
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48
> >> http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
> >>
> >> Where the first thing you'll find is Doug did not post to it at any point.
> >>
> > That wasn't the post I refered to, STUPID. I refered to the exchange
> > between you and Doug.
> >
> >>>> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
> >>>>
> >>> No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)
> >> Nope, that's a lie proved by simply reading this and prior posts. Doug
> >> was not posting to the thread where the posts are that you are
> >> questioning Ron about.
> >>
> >> Why would you bring up his name at all I wonder?
> >>
> > Because that is where he EXPOSED your LIES!
> >
> >> I posted mentioning the Pew report, and pointing out Doug has cited it
> >> using the same thing to support his claims as I have to support mine,
> >> and we even agree in some details. This one in fact, as I recall.
> >>
> > Hihihi! More LIES!
> >
> >> A survey report is not a peer reviewed research report. Nor is it
> >> relevant to this discussion, Doan the Duplicitous.
> >>
> > So why are you trying to use it to counter the peer-reviewed studies
> > referenced by Doug. Are you so STUPID?
> >
> >> No "scientific" evidence was cited by anyone up until you attempted to
> >> move the goal posts by asking for peer reviewed publication. Rather a
> >> lame attempt to move the goal posts.
> >>
> > No, I just love to expose you LIES! ;-)
> >
> >> Thus, Doan, you are lying what you claim I'm lying that you moved the
> >> goal posts. Why else would you suddenly demand that we provide peer
> >> reviewed research?
> >>
> > I didn't demaned, Doug already provided them, STUPID!
> >
> >> See, liar.
> >>
> > I see YOU! ;-)
> >
> >>>>>> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
> >>>>>> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
> >>>>>> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
> >>>>>> claims, or insinuation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
> >>>>> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
> >>>> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
> >>>> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
> >>>> not intended to change meaning.
> >>>>
> >>> It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!
> >> Yep. And that is yet another reduction of context, by you. You now
> >> confine it to just that one paragraph.
> >>
> > And that the one I accused Ron of, STUPID!
> >
> >> If you read the larger context around it you will see...well, other
> >> honest people will...that Ron's comment in no way changed the meaning of
> >> the larger context.
> >>
> > Yes, it did, STUPID! It misleadingly gave the impression that the
> > abuse rate in forster care is .57% - it is NOT!
> >
> >> You keep avoiding the larger context, but I'll try again. The states
> >> have increased the number of them to a majority that have met the
> >> baseline requirement for reduction of abuse in foster care.
> >>
> > You are attempting to dodge that fact Ron quoted it out of context,
> > changing a conditional statement into a affirmative one, Kane!
> >
> >> Show us how his comment changed the meaning of that one way or the other.
> >>
> > I did, STUPID. If there is no "condition" then there is no "condition"
> > for the states to meet. SEE IT NOW, STUPID???
> >
> >> That was the premise put forward in the thread. And some were arguing
> >> 0:-> that this was not so...that they had not reduced sufficiently.
> >>
> > Now you are moving the post, Kane. How STUPID of you? ;-0
> >
> >> Was that you?
> >>
> > Nope, the STUPID liar is YOU!
> >
> >> Are you unaware the thread opening post was about Australia? And the
> >> sock poster, likely Michael himself, but we just can't tell he's so good
> >> at concealing his ID, tried to imply about US child protection policy
> >> and practices.
> >>
> > Diversion alert! ;-)
> >
> >> The next poster was Ron.
> >>
> > More diversion!
> >
> >> Then Greg attempted his usual run of propaganda and disruptive lies...
> >> which brought me, happily, into the thread.
> >>
> > And even more diversion!
> >
> >> Which, even more happily, in a few more posts brought you into the
> >> picture with one of your more brilliant contributions to foil Ron's
> >> attempt to get Greg back on topic and out of the bull****.
> >>
> >> And you, most cleverly ( R R R R RR R R R) but stupidly, managed to
> >> confirm Ron's assessment of Greg.
> >>
> > Hihihi! And my assessment of you - a STUPID LIAR!
> >
> >> "
> >> > So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply
> >> to his
> >> > argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
> >> yourself
> >> > feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
> >> > feel like you have come out on top.
> >>
> >> > Ron
> >>
> >> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
> >>
> >> Doan "
> >>
> >> Which, of course we just caught YOU doing again in this thread.
> >> Interesting, eh?
> >>
> >> Whereupon, in a quickly following post by you, you make this claim:
> >>
> >> "Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The
> >> latest is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%! "
> >>
> >> You seem very positive of this claim of mine, Doan.
> >>
> > I love exposing your LIES, Kane!
> >
> >> Can you produce the post where I said this so we may see if, in context,
> >> that was my meaning?
> >>
> > So you didn't claim that the abuse rate is .57%???
> >
> >> This thread under discussion at http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
> >> Doesn't seem to have any such claim by me.
> >>
> > Try looking harder, Kane! ;-)
> >
> >>>> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
> >>>> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
> >>>>
> >>> Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!
> >> Empty pointless dodging by you. Your M.O., Doan!
> >>
> > Exposing your STUPID LIEs is my M.O, Kane!
> >
> >> You have made a claim that Ron cherry picked, Doan, to change the
> >> meaning of something.
> >>
> > Where did I claimed that Ron cherry picked, Kane?
> >
> >> If you mean of the paragraph when full quoted, then show if you will
> >> what it addressed.
> >>
> > I did, STUPID!
> >
> >> I know, of course, what he was responding to, and it was not to the
> >> entire source commentary from ACF, the government source of his quote.
> >>
> >> It was in response to your claim above that I had said the abuse is .57%.
> >>
> > Your LIES, you mean. ;-)
> >
> >> He pointed out that indeed, it was. As it is, according to the feds, in
> >> that a majority of states beat that number nicely.
> >>
> > Hihihi! It's not, Kane. Alot of data are missing from that data! It's
> > not peer-reviewed. It's useless, Kane!
> >
> >> Now, produce your proof for the claim I said .57%.
> >>
> > And if I do, will you promise to provide a PUBLIC apology and SHUT THE
> > **** UP? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)
> >
> >> And now I will produce what you claim Ron did not do, or if he did
> >> you'll apologize.
> >>
> >> Here again is what Ron said, and it's a verifiable fact of being TRUE,
> >> the majority of states did indeed manage to attain this goal.
> >>
> >> ""of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
> >> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
> >> or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
> >> or less."
> >> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal "
> >>
> >> And he replied not to substantiate this, but to show that you claim
> >> about what I claimed was in fact false on your part.
> >>
> >> He might be wrong, he might be right, but it was not about what you
> >> claim it is, that he's trying to change the facts by mis, or cherry
> >> picking quoting, Doan.
> >>
> > Can you confirm this, Ron?
> >
> >> I may have mistakenly claimed that the rate of abuse by foster parents
> >> was .57%.....or I might have said a majority of states reported a rate
> >> of .57% or better. The problem for you is to find my statement, and to
> >> show that whatever I said was meant to be a dishonest rendering of the
> >> findings of the report by ACF, and I intended it to be so.
> >>
> > But you just said you didn't claim that, Kane. Are you such a STUPID
> > LIAR?
> >
> >> That is your claim, if you claim I'm lying.
> >>
> > I have proven that you were LYING, many times!
> >
> >> You do understand the difference between an intentional lie and a common
> >> mistake, right? After all you are expert in rendering the first, as you
> >> are doing here.
> >
> > Hahaha! So you didn't intentionally lie???
> >>>> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
> >>>> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
> >>>>
> >>> Baseless accusation, Kane!
> >> Nope. You are in the middle of one of them right now. Trying desperately
> >> to make errors intentional lies, and to cover up your own intentional lies.
> >>
> > The proven liar is you, Kane! ;-)
> >
> >> When you pointed out Ron's quote did not include the "if" line, and
> >> responded, Michael jumped into the thread, apparently to prove he's an
> >> ass...and doing it quite well:
> >>
> > Hihihi! More dodging!
> >
> >> "> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
> >> > that, Ron?
> >>
> >> Your too kind, Doan.
> >>
> >> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
> >> his attempt.
> >>
> >> LMAO!
> >> ...
> >> Michael?
> >>
> >> Deutsches Vaterland ?ber alles in der Welt
> >> Freiheit f?r Deutschland !
> >> "
> >>
> >> You lied by inference again, Doan, by an affirmative statement (R R R RR
> >> ) that Ron was "practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT!"
> >>
> > I proved that he took it out of context, Kane!
> >
> >> I presume you mean by your exclamation point that he did so deliberately
> >> to deceive, and make a practice of it.
> >>
> >> Please show proof if that is what you meant. Where, and how many times,
> >> has Ron deliberately quoted out of context to deceive?
> >>
> > I just did!
> >
> >> That certainly something Ron does not do. Error, possibly, but no
> >> deliberate "practicing," Doan. It shows conclusively that you and
> >> Michael are, just as I have said about you, practicing thugs in these
> >> newsgroups.
> >>
> >> In fact, Doan, here is what I said regarding .57%:
> >>
> > So you did claim it but just above you said you didn't. You are such
> > a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR! ;-)
> >
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/c7db76999c99d223?hl=en&
> >>
> >> ....
> >>
> >> I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
> >> stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
> >> (remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
> >> 2004. That standard marker? .57%.
> >>
> > You are exposing your STUPIDITY agian. Remember, you can't even read
> > a simple chart, let alone understand what the data said !
> > [snippin useless regurgited LIES from Kane]
>
> Stomping your foot like a child, Doan, when you are a grown man (you
> are, aren't you?) is very unseemly, and doesn't prove your claims.

Exposing your LIES is my hobby, Kane!

> >
> > Doan
> >
> Go to your room. No supper for you, young man.
>
Make me, old man.

> 0:-]
>
>
> >
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context. But of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>>>>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>>>>>>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>>>>>>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doan:
>>>>>>>>>>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>>>>>>>>>> that, Ron?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>>>>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>>>>>>>>>> his attempt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LMAO!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
>>>>>>>>>>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
>>>>>>>>>>>> less."
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>>>>>>>>>> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>>>>>>>>>> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>>>>>>>> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>>>>>>>>>> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility
>>>>>>>>>> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from conditional to
>>>>>>>>> affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>>>>>>>> And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
>>>>>> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
>>>>>> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
>>>>>> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.
>>>> So which of your two proceeding questions do you wish an answer for,
>>>> your ad hom, or the question you asked Ron?
>>>>
>>>> I'm under no obligation to answer questions addressed to another, nor to
>>>> address ad hom questions.
>>>>
>>>> Now, are you going to answer MY questions?
>>>>
>>> Already did, STUPID!
>>>
>>>>>> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
>>>>>> falsely claiming I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those two questions are as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
>>>>>> you going to answer?
>>>>> Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
>>>>> meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.
>>>> Nope. that is not an answer to my question. My question goes to if it
>>>> changed the meaning of the entire article. Did it?
>>>>
>>> Yes!
>>>
>>>> Stop dodging.
>>>>
>>> Stop being STUPID!
>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he admitted
>>>>>>>> to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you post,
>>>>>>>> would imply anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did he admitted this, Kane?
>>>>>> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
>>>>>> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
>>>>>> to provide the link yet again.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What link, Kane?
>>>> The link to the thread YOUR pasted quote came from, Doan the duplicitous.
>>>>
>>> Where point it out to me, please!
>>>
>>>>> Ron, can you confirm this?
>>>> That I provided a link? How quaint.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I see. A little more subtle dodging going on. Accuse me, by
>>>> inference, of not providing a link, but in fact that was not your
>>>> question at all. So clever, these monkeyboys.
>>>>
>>> More dodging from you, Kane!
>>>
>>>>> I may have missed your
>>>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context.
>>>> I don't believe I said that was his language.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi!
>>>
>>>>> If so, I am truly
>>>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>>>> You won't have to based on your misquoting of me, and of course, Ron.
>>>>
>>> I based it you the LIES you spewed!
>>>
>>>> I did not say, as you can see in my comments above, that he used that
>>>> wording YOU are using. I said he admitted to ERROR. You re-frame it to
>>>> the "cherry picking" insinuation of "out of context."
>>>>
>>> So what is this "ERROR", Kane?
>>>
>>>> You are thoroughly and continuously dishonest, Doan.
>>>>
>>> The proven LIAR here is YOU!
>>>
>>>>>>>> That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
>>>>>>>> parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
>>>>>>>> compliance with federal bench marks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
>>>>>> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
>>>>>> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
>>>>>> to make a claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.
>>>> Then you do know where the thread is. R R R R R R ...
>>>>
>>> And so do you! So when you said no peer-reviewed studies were referenced
>>> you are LYING! See how easy it is for me to PROVE that you are a LIAR!
>>>
>>>> What a sorry little liar you are.
>>>>
>>> The proven LIAR here is YOU!
>>>
>>>> And so easily stripped of your fakery.
>>>>
>>> The "fakery" here is you, as in claiming that you are a "published
>>> researcher"! ;-)
>>>
>>>> Too bad, stupid.
>>>>
>>> Too bad for you, STUPID LIAR! ;-)
>>>
>>>> From my post earlier in this thread, the very link to the thread you
>>>> are now questioning that I did not provide:
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/31c17c07ab7e1266/cdd1f1c150fb5a48?lnk=st&q=Ron+%22if%2C+of+all%22&rnum=1&hl=en#cdd1f1c150fb5a48
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
>>>>
>>>> Where the first thing you'll find is Doug did not post to it at any point.
>>>>
>>> That wasn't the post I refered to, STUPID. I refered to the exchange
>>> between you and Doug.
>>>
>>>>>> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)
>>>> Nope, that's a lie proved by simply reading this and prior posts. Doug
>>>> was not posting to the thread where the posts are that you are
>>>> questioning Ron about.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you bring up his name at all I wonder?
>>>>
>>> Because that is where he EXPOSED your LIES!
>>>
>>>> I posted mentioning the Pew report, and pointing out Doug has cited it
>>>> using the same thing to support his claims as I have to support mine,
>>>> and we even agree in some details. This one in fact, as I recall.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! More LIES!
>>>
>>>> A survey report is not a peer reviewed research report. Nor is it
>>>> relevant to this discussion, Doan the Duplicitous.
>>>>
>>> So why are you trying to use it to counter the peer-reviewed studies
>>> referenced by Doug. Are you so STUPID?
>>>
>>>> No "scientific" evidence was cited by anyone up until you attempted to
>>>> move the goal posts by asking for peer reviewed publication. Rather a
>>>> lame attempt to move the goal posts.
>>>>
>>> No, I just love to expose you LIES! ;-)
>>>
>>>> Thus, Doan, you are lying what you claim I'm lying that you moved the
>>>> goal posts. Why else would you suddenly demand that we provide peer
>>>> reviewed research?
>>>>
>>> I didn't demaned, Doug already provided them, STUPID!
>>>
>>>> See, liar.
>>>>
>>> I see YOU! ;-)
>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
>>>>>>>> you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can draw
>>>>>>>> attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
>>>>>>>> claims, or insinuation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
>>>>>>> out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative one.
>>>>>> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
>>>>>> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
>>>>>> not intended to change meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!
>>>> Yep. And that is yet another reduction of context, by you. You now
>>>> confine it to just that one paragraph.
>>>>
>>> And that the one I accused Ron of, STUPID!
>>>
>>>> If you read the larger context around it you will see...well, other
>>>> honest people will...that Ron's comment in no way changed the meaning of
>>>> the larger context.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it did, STUPID! It misleadingly gave the impression that the
>>> abuse rate in forster care is .57% - it is NOT!
>>>
>>>> You keep avoiding the larger context, but I'll try again. The states
>>>> have increased the number of them to a majority that have met the
>>>> baseline requirement for reduction of abuse in foster care.
>>>>
>>> You are attempting to dodge that fact Ron quoted it out of context,
>>> changing a conditional statement into a affirmative one, Kane!
>>>
>>>> Show us how his comment changed the meaning of that one way or the other.
>>>>
>>> I did, STUPID. If there is no "condition" then there is no "condition"
>>> for the states to meet. SEE IT NOW, STUPID???
>>>
>>>> That was the premise put forward in the thread. And some were arguing
>>>> 0:-> that this was not so...that they had not reduced sufficiently.
>>>>
>>> Now you are moving the post, Kane. How STUPID of you? ;-0
>>>
>>>> Was that you?
>>>>
>>> Nope, the STUPID liar is YOU!
>>>
>>>> Are you unaware the thread opening post was about Australia? And the
>>>> sock poster, likely Michael himself, but we just can't tell he's so good
>>>> at concealing his ID, tried to imply about US child protection policy
>>>> and practices.
>>>>
>>> Diversion alert! ;-)
>>>
>>>> The next poster was Ron.
>>>>
>>> More diversion!
>>>
>>>> Then Greg attempted his usual run of propaganda and disruptive lies...
>>>> which brought me, happily, into the thread.
>>>>
>>> And even more diversion!
>>>
>>>> Which, even more happily, in a few more posts brought you into the
>>>> picture with one of your more brilliant contributions to foil Ron's
>>>> attempt to get Greg back on topic and out of the bull****.
>>>>
>>>> And you, most cleverly ( R R R R RR R R R) but stupidly, managed to
>>>> confirm Ron's assessment of Greg.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! And my assessment of you - a STUPID LIAR!
>>>
>>>> "
>>>> > So, what your saying is that you don't really have a reasonable reply
>>>> to his
>>>> > argument and therefore must resort to childish name calling to make
>>>> yourself
>>>> > feel better. Well...... I guess that's one way to finally make yourself
>>>> > feel like you have come out on top.
>>>>
>>>> > Ron
>>>>
>>>> For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Kane. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Doan "
>>>>
>>>> Which, of course we just caught YOU doing again in this thread.
>>>> Interesting, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Whereupon, in a quickly following post by you, you make this claim:
>>>>
>>>> "Then you must have missed all the LIES that Kane had spewed. The
>>>> latest is the claim that the abuse rate in foster care is .57%! "
>>>>
>>>> You seem very positive of this claim of mine, Doan.
>>>>
>>> I love exposing your LIES, Kane!
>>>
>>>> Can you produce the post where I said this so we may see if, in context,
>>>> that was my meaning?
>>>>
>>> So you didn't claim that the abuse rate is .57%???
>>>
>>>> This thread under discussion at http://tinyurl.com/3aznyp
>>>> Doesn't seem to have any such claim by me.
>>>>
>>> Try looking harder, Kane! ;-)
>>>
>>>>>> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
>>>>>> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!
>>>> Empty pointless dodging by you. Your M.O., Doan!
>>>>
>>> Exposing your STUPID LIEs is my M.O, Kane!
>>>
>>>> You have made a claim that Ron cherry picked, Doan, to change the
>>>> meaning of something.
>>>>
>>> Where did I claimed that Ron cherry picked, Kane?
>>>
>>>> If you mean of the paragraph when full quoted, then show if you will
>>>> what it addressed.
>>>>
>>> I did, STUPID!
>>>
>>>> I know, of course, what he was responding to, and it was not to the
>>>> entire source commentary from ACF, the government source of his quote.
>>>>
>>>> It was in response to your claim above that I had said the abuse is .57%.
>>>>
>>> Your LIES, you mean. ;-)
>>>
>>>> He pointed out that indeed, it was. As it is, according to the feds, in
>>>> that a majority of states beat that number nicely.
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! It's not, Kane. Alot of data are missing from that data! It's
>>> not peer-reviewed. It's useless, Kane!
>>>
>>>> Now, produce your proof for the claim I said .57%.
>>>>
>>> And if I do, will you promise to provide a PUBLIC apology and SHUT THE
>>> **** UP? I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)
>>>
>>>> And now I will produce what you claim Ron did not do, or if he did
>>>> you'll apologize.
>>>>
>>>> Here again is what Ron said, and it's a verifiable fact of being TRUE,
>>>> the majority of states did indeed manage to attain this goal.
>>>>
>>>> ""of all children in foster care in the State during the period under
>>>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated
>>>> or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57%
>>>> or less."
>>>> http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/chapterthree.htm#mal "
>>>>
>>>> And he replied not to substantiate this, but to show that you claim
>>>> about what I claimed was in fact false on your part.
>>>>
>>>> He might be wrong, he might be right, but it was not about what you
>>>> claim it is, that he's trying to change the facts by mis, or cherry
>>>> picking quoting, Doan.
>>>>
>>> Can you confirm this, Ron?
>>>
>>>> I may have mistakenly claimed that the rate of abuse by foster parents
>>>> was .57%.....or I might have said a majority of states reported a rate
>>>> of .57% or better. The problem for you is to find my statement, and to
>>>> show that whatever I said was meant to be a dishonest rendering of the
>>>> findings of the report by ACF, and I intended it to be so.
>>>>
>>> But you just said you didn't claim that, Kane. Are you such a STUPID
>>> LIAR?
>>>
>>>> That is your claim, if you claim I'm lying.
>>>>
>>> I have proven that you were LYING, many times!
>>>
>>>> You do understand the difference between an intentional lie and a common
>>>> mistake, right? After all you are expert in rendering the first, as you
>>>> are doing here.
>>> Hahaha! So you didn't intentionally lie???
>>>>>> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
>>>>>> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Baseless accusation, Kane!
>>>> Nope. You are in the middle of one of them right now. Trying desperately
>>>> to make errors intentional lies, and to cover up your own intentional lies.
>>>>
>>> The proven liar is you, Kane! ;-)
>>>
>>>> When you pointed out Ron's quote did not include the "if" line, and
>>>> responded, Michael jumped into the thread, apparently to prove he's an
>>>> ass...and doing it quite well:
>>>>
>>> Hihihi! More dodging!
>>>
>>>> "> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did you do
>>>> > that, Ron?
>>>>
>>>> Your too kind, Doan.
>>>>
>>>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just exposed
>>>> his attempt.
>>>>
>>>> LMAO!
>>>> ...
>>>> Michael?
>>>>
>>>> Deutsches Vaterland ?ber alles in der Welt
>>>> Freiheit f?r Deutschland !
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> You lied by inference again, Doan, by an affirmative statement (R R R RR
>>>> ) that Ron was "practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT!"
>>>>
>>> I proved that he took it out of context, Kane!
>>>
>>>> I presume you mean by your exclamation point that he did so deliberately
>>>> to deceive, and make a practice of it.
>>>>
>>>> Please show proof if that is what you meant. Where, and how many times,
>>>> has Ron deliberately quoted out of context to deceive?
>>>>
>>> I just did!
>>>
>>>> That certainly something Ron does not do. Error, possibly, but no
>>>> deliberate "practicing," Doan. It shows conclusively that you and
>>>> Michael are, just as I have said about you, practicing thugs in these
>>>> newsgroups.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, Doan, here is what I said regarding .57%:
>>>>
>>> So you did claim it but just above you said you didn't. You are such
>>> a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR! ;-)
>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/c7db76999c99d223?hl=en&
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>> I also provided the information, cited, from federal sources, DHHS, that
>>>> stated that 84% of the states meet or exceeded the required standards
>>>> (remember the "audit" that our friends here continually used to lie?) by
>>>> 2004. That standard marker? .57%.
>>>>
>>> You are exposing your STUPIDITY agian. Remember, you can't even read
>>> a simple chart, let alone understand what the data said !
>>> [snippin useless regurgited LIES from Kane]
>> Stomping your foot like a child, Doan, when you are a grown man (you
>> are, aren't you?) is very unseemly, and doesn't prove your claims.
>
> Exposing your LIES is my hobby, Kane!
>
>>> Doan
>>>
>> Go to your room. No supper for you, young man.
>>
> Make me, old man.

And put down that gameboy.

>
>> 0:-]
>>
>>
>

[Ron]

"Doan" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>>
>> Doan wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Doan wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Doan wrote:
>> > > >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>> > > >>>> It looks to me doan that you do little but quote out of context.
>> > > >>>> But of
>> > > >>>> course you will never admit to doing that, so.....
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Ron
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>> Ron:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> "of all children in foster care in the State during the period
>> > > >>> under
>> > > >>> review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>> > > >>> substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or
>> > > >>> facility
>> > > >>> staff is 0.57% or less."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Doan:
>> > > >>> Now you are practicing taking things OUT OF CONTEXT! Why did
>> > > >>> you do
>> > > >>> that, Ron?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Michael:
>> > > >>> Your too kind, Doan.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Ron didn't take it out of context; he flat out lied and you just
>> > > >>> exposed
>> > > >>> his attempt.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> LMAO!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ACTUAL CONTEXT:
>> > > >>>> "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of
>> > > >>>> all
>> > > >>>> children in foster care in the State during the period under
>> > > >>>> review, the
>> > > >>>> percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
>> > > >>>> indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is
>> > > >>>> 0.57% or
>> > > >>>> less."
>> > > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?
>> > > >> Well, here's what Ron said, again:
>> > > >> > "of all children in foster care in the State during the period
>> > > >> under
>> > > >> > review, the percentage of children who were the subject of
>> > > >> > substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or
>> > > >> facility
>> > > >> > staff is 0.57% or less."
>> > > >>
>> > > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?
>> > > >>
>> > > > Leaving out "if" changed the meaning of the sentence from
>> > > > conditional to
>> > > > affirmative! Are you this STUPID, Kane?
>> > >
>> > > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?
>> > >
>> > Another dodge. Answer my question, Kane?
>>
>> That's a mistake, Doan, or a deliberate evasive lie. The last question
>> attributed to you above, other than ad hom, which of course I'm not
>> obliged to answer, is to RON, not myself.
>>
> And asking you, Kane! You can either choose to answer it or dodge.
>
>> "> > >>> Did you admit that you quoted this out of context, Ron?"
>>
>> Then, Doan, I asked YOU questions. Two of them, which you the dodged by
>> falsely claiming I did.
>>
>> Those two questions are as follows:
>>
>> "> > >> How does that one missing phrase change the context, Doan?"
>> and
>> "> > And what deception did he do this leaving out for, Doan?"
>>
>> Are you going to dodge yet again with an ad hom phony question, or are
>> you going to answer?
>
> Already did, Kane! One more time, leaving out the "if" part changed the
> meaning of the statement from a conditional one to something else.
>
>> >
>> > > The fact is the report turns out to be what his error, that he
>> > > admitted
>> > > to by the way, and you won't showing your dishonor every day you
>> > > post,
>> > > would imply anyway.
>> > >
>> > Where did he admitted this, Kane?
>>
>> In the thread. Go read it. I provided a link to it. You obviously have
>> read it, know how to get there, and can see for yourself. I'm not going
>> to provide the link yet again.
>>
> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3

Post number 4

Ron


>> > > That the rate of abuse by parents is far and away in excess of foster
>> > > parents, and the data shows the states are in the great majority in
>> > > compliance with federal bench marks.
>> > >
>> > Not in any "peer-reviewed" study that look at that issue!
>>
>> Dodge. No peer reviewed study has been referenced, or alluded to. The
>> material is from a federal source, Doan, which you yourself have quoted
>> to make a claim.
>>
> The peer-reviewed studies were the ones that Doug referenced, Kane.
>
>> You are attempting to move the goal posts.
>>
> No. I am exposing your STUPID LIES! ;-)
>
>> > > You haven't proven anything but that you are deceptive sneak and when
>> > > you are cornered on one issue you try to create another so you can
>> > > draw
>> > > attention away from your failure to answer and defend your premise,
>> > > claims, or insinuation.
>> > >
>> > You are now trying to draw attention away from the fact that Ron quoted
>> > out of context, changing a conditional statement into an affirmative
>> > one.
>>
>> No. According to your own rule on this you claimed that if your posts
>> did not change the meaning then your isolated non-contextual quote was
>> not intended to change meaning.
>>
> It changed the meaing from a conditional to an affirmation, STUPID!
>
>> I concede and concur this is a true rendering of the meaning of "cherry
>> picking" or out of context quotes to deceptively post.
>>
> Baseless accusation, your M.O, Kane!
>
>> You have, of course, a long easily proven.. as I've done continually..
>> record of just such contextual deceptive postings.
>>
> Baseless accusation, Kane!
>
>> If Ron quoted while leaving something out, then you could claim that
>> since he didn't quote the entire article he was cherry picking.
>>
> Ron left out the "if" part, changing its meaning!
>
>> That would be stupid of you to do.
>>
> The STUPID LIAR here is you and I have proven so, many times!
>
>> Now, he left something out. It may have changed the appearance of the
>> article from the conditional to the affirmative, but did it change the
>> claims of the article to something else?
>>
> It changed the meaning of the sentence!
>
>> I contend it had no effect whatsoever on the overall meaning of the
>> article... that indeed a high percentage of states did NOT fail to meet
>> the federal baseline established to meet audit requirements.
>>
>> If Ron's quote changed that, I'd like to see your logic in defending
>> your claim he did so.
>>
> Why are you speaking for Ron?
>
>> >
>> > > Just another common Usenet thug, Doan and that's all you are.
>> >
>> > Another STUPID LIE from Kane! ;-)
>>
>> No, Doan, you are just as deceptive and deliberately disruptive,
>> something you've proudly admitted to, and in fact I'm doing back to you
>> in turn, as any little pack of juvenile thuggish trolls. You just hang
>> around using the same tactics.
>>
> Hihihi! More lies from you, Kane!
>
>> In other words, Doan, when you attempt your, "the Emperor Wears No
>> Clothes," game, you indeed are quite naked yourself.
>>
> Hihihi! I've never claimed to be an Emperor, Kane. I don't even
> claimed to be a "published researcher"! ;-)
>
>> Attempting to expose others who are lying in argument on an important
>> issue is a noble endeavor.
>>
> I EXPOSED your STUPID LIES! ;-)
>
>> To do that by lying indicates strong they are NOT lying but that you
>> are.
>
> I have proven the LIAR is YOU, Kane!
>
>> .
>> > Doan
>>
>> No, Doan, you are a continuously proven lying little Usenet trollish
>> thug. Common.
>>
> More baseless accussation, "published researcher" Kane! ;-)
>
> Doan
>

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> > "A State meets the national standard for this indicator if, of all
> > children in foster care in the State during the period under review, the
> > percentage of children who were the subject of substantiated or
> > indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff is 0.57% or
> > less."
>
> That's an important IF!

Yes, such statements can be.

Do you admit the question from Doan limits itself to the sentence and
paragraph?

Are you aware of what Ron was responding to?

It was a charge by Doan that I had, <tiresome sigh> lied?

Do you know what the subject was that I was supposed to have lied
about?

It was that I had mentioned .57% as part of a claim about the rate of
foster abuse?

The sentence in question does not change the meaning of Ron's response.


The meaning of the paragraph had nothing to do with rate but with what
I actually said.

Is this too complex for you?

Doan tried yet another contextual lie.

By referring to something said and pretending it did not apply to Ron's
reply. His reply addressed the fact that I had not lied, and had posted
the information correctly, as he then showed by his quote.

> Like Doan said it changed the statement from a conditional to an
> affirmation.

It has no bearing on whether or not I used the figure .57%, Greg. I
did, Ron showed I did because the article inquestion from the
government site did in fact use the same figure.

Doan pulled Doug out of his ass to attempt to break the thread and
provide him an escape from having made an error.

No mention of Doug by Doan was used previously in the thread. I happen
to mention Doug only in the context of Doan attempting to pull a
"Douggie." Irrelvant to Doans argument that I "lied," Greg.

> Bluster and stew Kane, maybe if you rant and rave enough nobody will
> notice.

If you believe that what I've posted in response is bluster and stew
and Doan is not as usual, trying all the weasel tricks not, and back
then in the thread under discussion you are truly mentally ill.

Doan claimed I lied. Ron showed him were I had not, with proof.

Doan quickly shiftef then from proving I had, which of course he
couldn't, and attacked Ron as having posted out of context, as in
"cherry picking" to change the meaning of something.

Doan failed to show how Ron's post effectively changed my comment about
..57% as Doan claimed I was lying.

It was .57%, and it still is .57% and it represents just about one half
of a percent of abuse by foster parents in out of the total of all
abuse to children in that year in the US, as I recall.

Given you, Doan, and any who wish to read and understand, objectively,
a sense of who abuses children at a greater rate, foster families, or
bio families.

The issue was whether I had lied or not. Doan said I did. Ron showed I
hadn't, and Doan dropped any more pursuit of that, and did his usual
grab for straws to build a strawman out of...which wasn't even a true
claim.

It matters not that Ron didn't included the first line in the
paragraph. He did not do so to mislead.

He left a great deal out that was in the article. Was he attempting to
mislead?

Nope. He addressed the issue Doan had brought up. A lie. One I did not
do.

Now show otherwise.

0:->

[Doan]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

> > What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
> > admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
> > sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
>
> Post number 4
>
Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?

Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
Can we move on?

Doan

> Ron
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>
>>> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
>>
>> Post number 4
>>
> Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?

He made an error. I suspect he was copying and pasting URLs as he worked
his way through searches and opening now pages.

I've done that.

Want to bet me he won't correct it?

Your claim right about now would be that he's lying.

My claim would be that he made an error, and will correct it when he
notices.

I left it, though I had seen it, just to see if you would made a
spectacle of ourself, and by golly, look what happened.

So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because you
cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?

> Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
> claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
> that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
> Can we move on?

I don't believe he did or needs to admit this particular quote was out
of context, because it was only a case of NOT quoting what was not
relevant to your claim and his rebuttal of it.

You claim I made a statement about .57%. He was simply pointing out that
from the page at the url he provided, indeed that was the figure in
question.

No lie by me, none intended, because I do not attempt to mislead.

He saw that.

His comment made NOT difference in the that context...your claim.

You appear to be overreaching again.

We'll see according to how you respond.

Oh, and what Ron did admit to as his mistake, and you did not own up to
yours when he pointed out you likely wouldn't, was his misreading, by
failing to read far enough, about the "10,0000" as you posted it with
that extra "0"

He admitted his error.

I suppose you want everything to be someone else's "lie," I wouldn't be
surprised, since you've done it to me many times, if you claim an error
is a lie.

That's rather odd, because one cannot lie unless it's intentional, and
you have failed repeatedly to show where a mistake was intentional to
create a lie.

Run, monkeyboy, run.

Kane

>
> Doan
>
>> Ron
>>
>

[Doan]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >
> >>> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
> >>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
> >>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
> >>
> >> Post number 4
> >>
> > Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?
>
> He made an error. I suspect he was copying and pasting URLs as he worked
> his way through searches and opening now pages.
>
> I've done that.
>
> Want to bet me he won't correct it?
>
> Your claim right about now would be that he's lying.
>
> My claim would be that he made an error, and will correct it when he
> notices.
>
> I left it, though I had seen it, just to see if you would made a
> spectacle of ourself, and by golly, look what happened.
>
> So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because you
> cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?
>
> > Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
> > claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
> > that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
> > Can we move on?
>
> I don't believe he did or needs to admit this particular quote was out
> of context, because it was only a case of NOT quoting what was not
> relevant to your claim and his rebuttal of it.
>
> You claim I made a statement about .57%. He was simply pointing out that
> from the page at the url he provided, indeed that was the figure in
> question.
>
> No lie by me, none intended, because I do not attempt to mislead.
>
> He saw that.
>
> His comment made NOT difference in the that context...your claim.
>
> You appear to be overreaching again.
>
> We'll see according to how you respond.
>
> Oh, and what Ron did admit to as his mistake, and you did not own up to
> yours when he pointed out you likely wouldn't, was his misreading, by
> failing to read far enough, about the "10,0000" as you posted it with
> that extra "0"
>
> He admitted his error.
>
> I suppose you want everything to be someone else's "lie," I wouldn't be
> surprised, since you've done it to me many times, if you claim an error
> is a lie.
>
> That's rather odd, because one cannot lie unless it's intentional, and
> you have failed repeatedly to show where a mistake was intentional to
> create a lie.
>
> Run, monkeyboy, run.
>
> Kane
>
Why don't you let Ron answer for himself, Kane? Are you Ron? ;-)

Doan

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
>>>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
>>>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
>>>>
>>>> Post number 4
>>>>
>>> Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?
>> He made an error. I suspect he was copying and pasting URLs as he worked
>> his way through searches and opening now pages.
>>
>> I've done that.
>>
>> Want to bet me he won't correct it?
>>
>> Your claim right about now would be that he's lying.
>>
>> My claim would be that he made an error, and will correct it when he
>> notices.
>>
>> I left it, though I had seen it, just to see if you would made a
>> spectacle of ourself, and by golly, look what happened.
>>
>> So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because you
>> cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?
>>
>>> Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
>>> claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
>>> that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
>>> Can we move on?
>> I don't believe he did or needs to admit this particular quote was out
>> of context, because it was only a case of NOT quoting what was not
>> relevant to your claim and his rebuttal of it.
>>
>> You claim I made a statement about .57%. He was simply pointing out that
>> from the page at the url he provided, indeed that was the figure in
>> question.
>>
>> No lie by me, none intended, because I do not attempt to mislead.
>>
>> He saw that.
>>
>> His comment made NOT difference in the that context...your claim.
>>
>> You appear to be overreaching again.
>>
>> We'll see according to how you respond.
>>
>> Oh, and what Ron did admit to as his mistake, and you did not own up to
>> yours when he pointed out you likely wouldn't, was his misreading, by
>> failing to read far enough, about the "10,0000" as you posted it with
>> that extra "0"
>>
>> He admitted his error.
>>
>> I suppose you want everything to be someone else's "lie," I wouldn't be
>> surprised, since you've done it to me many times, if you claim an error
>> is a lie.
>>
>> That's rather odd, because one cannot lie unless it's intentional, and
>> you have failed repeatedly to show where a mistake was intentional to
>> create a lie.
>>
>> Run, monkeyboy, run.
>>
>> Kane
>>
> Why don't you let Ron answer for himself, Kane?

I'm not stopping him am I?

Why don't you let Greg, or Ken, or others answer for themselves, if you
think your question is relevant?

Are you then stopping Greg from answering for himself when you join the
conversation?

> Are you Ron? ;-)

Do you think I am? 0:-]
If so why did you just address me as "Kane?"

>
> Doan
>

Or could it be that you have no real argument to make?

And you simply tried to dodge by asking a stupid question or two?

My, you are brilliant.

0;->

[Doan]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:

> Doan wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
> >
> >> Doan wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
> >>>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
> >>>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
> >>>>
> >>>> Post number 4
> >>>>
> >>> Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?
> >> He made an error. I suspect he was copying and pasting URLs as he worked
> >> his way through searches and opening now pages.
> >>
> >> I've done that.
> >>
> >> Want to bet me he won't correct it?
> >>
> >> Your claim right about now would be that he's lying.
> >>
> >> My claim would be that he made an error, and will correct it when he
> >> notices.
> >>
> >> I left it, though I had seen it, just to see if you would made a
> >> spectacle of ourself, and by golly, look what happened.
> >>
> >> So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because you
> >> cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?
> >>
> >>> Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
> >>> claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
> >>> that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
> >>> Can we move on?
> >> I don't believe he did or needs to admit this particular quote was out
> >> of context, because it was only a case of NOT quoting what was not
> >> relevant to your claim and his rebuttal of it.
> >>
> >> You claim I made a statement about .57%. He was simply pointing out that
> >> from the page at the url he provided, indeed that was the figure in
> >> question.
> >>
> >> No lie by me, none intended, because I do not attempt to mislead.
> >>
> >> He saw that.
> >>
> >> His comment made NOT difference in the that context...your claim.
> >>
> >> You appear to be overreaching again.
> >>
> >> We'll see according to how you respond.
> >>
> >> Oh, and what Ron did admit to as his mistake, and you did not own up to
> >> yours when he pointed out you likely wouldn't, was his misreading, by
> >> failing to read far enough, about the "10,0000" as you posted it with
> >> that extra "0"
> >>
> >> He admitted his error.
> >>
> >> I suppose you want everything to be someone else's "lie," I wouldn't be
> >> surprised, since you've done it to me many times, if you claim an error
> >> is a lie.
> >>
> >> That's rather odd, because one cannot lie unless it's intentional, and
> >> you have failed repeatedly to show where a mistake was intentional to
> >> create a lie.
> >>
> >> Run, monkeyboy, run.
> >>
> >> Kane
> >>
> > Why don't you let Ron answer for himself, Kane?
>
> I'm not stopping him am I?
>
I don't know. Are you?

> Why don't you let Greg, or Ken, or others answer for themselves, if you
> think your question is relevant?
>
When have I not?

> Are you then stopping Greg from answering for himself when you join the
> conversation?
>
Were your question directed at Greg and not me?

> > Are you Ron? ;-)
>
> Do you think I am? 0:-]
> If so why did you just address me as "Kane?"
>
I asked a question to Ron, and you answered? Are you just STUPID?

> >
> > Doan
> >
>
> Or could it be that you have no real argument to make?
>
> And you simply tried to dodge by asking a stupid question or two?
>
You just asked me two!

> My, you are brilliant.
>
And you are STUPID!

> 0;->
>

[0:->]

Doan wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>
>> Doan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:-> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doan wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What link, Kane? Ron, can you confirm this? I may have missed your
>>>>>>> admission that you indeed quoted it out-of-context. If so, I am truly
>>>>>>> sorry, Ron and will post a public apology!
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/bf6984aaf1a209dc/c42b04648c9f73b3?hl=en#c42b04648c9f73b3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post number 4
>>>>>>
>>>>> Post number 4 is from Kane. Are you Kane, Ron?
>>>> He made an error. I suspect he was copying and pasting URLs as he worked
>>>> his way through searches and opening now pages.
>>>>
>>>> I've done that.
>>>>
>>>> Want to bet me he won't correct it?
>>>>
>>>> Your claim right about now would be that he's lying.
>>>>
>>>> My claim would be that he made an error, and will correct it when he
>>>> notices.
>>>>
>>>> I left it, though I had seen it, just to see if you would made a
>>>> spectacle of ourself, and by golly, look what happened.
>>>>
>>>> So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because you
>>>> cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, if you indeed admitted that you quoted it out-of-context just I
>>>>> claimed than I hereby offer my public apology to you, Ron, for claiming
>>>>> that you have not admitted to it. My mistake!
>>>>> Can we move on?
>>>> I don't believe he did or needs to admit this particular quote was out
>>>> of context, because it was only a case of NOT quoting what was not
>>>> relevant to your claim and his rebuttal of it.
>>>>
>>>> You claim I made a statement about .57%. He was simply pointing out that
>>>> from the page at the url he provided, indeed that was the figure in
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> No lie by me, none intended, because I do not attempt to mislead.
>>>>
>>>> He saw that.
>>>>
>>>> His comment made NOT difference in the that context...your claim.
>>>>
>>>> You appear to be overreaching again.
>>>>
>>>> We'll see according to how you respond.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and what Ron did admit to as his mistake, and you did not own up to
>>>> yours when he pointed out you likely wouldn't, was his misreading, by
>>>> failing to read far enough, about the "10,0000" as you posted it with
>>>> that extra "0"
>>>>
>>>> He admitted his error.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you want everything to be someone else's "lie," I wouldn't be
>>>> surprised, since you've done it to me many times, if you claim an error
>>>> is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> That's rather odd, because one cannot lie unless it's intentional, and
>>>> you have failed repeatedly to show where a mistake was intentional to
>>>> create a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Run, monkeyboy, run.
>>>>
>>>> Kane
>>>>
>>> Why don't you let Ron answer for himself, Kane?
>> I'm not stopping him am I?
>>
> I don't know. Are you?

If you don't know, then why did you form your question in rhetorical
affirmation?

I certainly don't know if he's stopped from posting by me.

Why not ask him questions about him?

Go for it.

>
>> Why don't you let Greg, or Ken, or others answer for themselves, if you
>> think your question is relevant?
>>
> When have I not?

Darned if I know. I was following your logic, not mine. I've never
thought that you offering your opinions, or lies, have stopped any of
them from posting.

>> Are you then stopping Greg from answering for himself when you join the
>> conversation?
>>
> Were your question directed at Greg and not me?

"Were your question directed at"[sic] Ron and not me?

Oddly enough your grammatical error makes my response grammatically
incorrect.

Oh well, 0:-> I can't correct everything of yours that you err on.
>
>> > Are you Ron? ;-)
>>
>> Do you think I am? 0:-]
>> If so why did you just address me as "Kane?"
>>
> I asked a question to Ron, and you answered? Are you just STUPID?

So when I ask someone a question and you responded are you being "just
STUPID," stupid, when you respond with an answer?

Or could it be when I responded I asked you questions you cannot deal
with, such as this one?:

"So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie (because
you cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?"

It seems I'm addressing your attempt to defame another rather than
answer the question you ask Ron. Had I been answering in his place I
would have said precisely why he posted what appears to me to be an error.

So in fact, I answered for myself, not him. I said what I inferred from
the form of his possible error.

How is that answering for him?

>>> Doan
>>>
>> Or could it be that you have no real argument to make?
>>
>> And you simply tried to dodge by asking a stupid question or two?
>>
> You just asked me two!

Oh, I asked you more than that.
1 - "Want to bet me he won't correct it?"

2 - "So, you going to, as is your usual tactic, claim with a lie
(because you cannot know what his intent was) that he did that to lie?"

3 - I'm not stopping him am I?

And some a challenge as well.

I note you have not answered any. My conversation with you about Ron's
possible error is between you and I, not Ron and I or you.

Are you upset and offended that I interrupted you to ask for
clarification? And offer my opinion on some?

>
>> My, you are brilliant.
>>
> And you are STUPID!

And you are going to wear your little pick slippers out if you keep
stamping your foot.

Focus, Doan Focus Focus.

Learn to count question marks, if you are going to make a positive
claims as to number.

0;-]

>
>> 0;->
>>