Doan, can you help me?

[0:-]]

It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
as you remind me, "STUPID."

Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
about? If so, thanks in advance.

What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
pertain?

"Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 "

Just a little curiosity on my part.

Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.

It's not terribly important.

And thanks again.

Kane

[Doan]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>
Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.

> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>
Sure. No problem.

> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
> pertain?
>

"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
the University of Southern California (USC)."


> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>
> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>
> It's not terribly important.
>
> And thanks again.
>
> Kane
>

[0:-]]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:

>
>On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
>> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
>> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>>
>Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.

I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.

Who knows. I could be wrong.

Sorry to trouble you.

>
>> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
>> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>>
>Sure. No problem.

Appreciated.

>> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
>> pertain?
>>
>
>"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
>University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
>The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
>California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
>Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
>the University of Southern California (USC)."

Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.

For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?




>
>
>> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>>
>> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>>
>> It's not terribly important.
>>
>> And thanks again.
>>
>> Kane
>>

[Greegor]

What's your point, Donald?
Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?


On Mar 9, 12:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>
> >> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
> >> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>
> >Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.
>
> I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
> not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.
>
> Who knows. I could be wrong.
>
> Sorry to trouble you.
>
>
>
> >> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
> >> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>
> >Sure. No problem.
>
> Appreciated.
>
> >> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
> >> pertain?
>
> >"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
> >University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
> >The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
> >California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
> >Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
> >the University of Southern California (USC)."
>
> Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
> for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.
>
> For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>
> >> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>
> >> It's not terribly important.
>
> >> And thanks again.
>
> >> Kane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[0:-]]

On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>What's your point, Donald?

Are you addressing me, Greg?

>Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?

Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.

Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?

Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?

I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
none of your business.

But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
protection for her.

I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.

Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.

You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.

And by the way, you are a ****ant..

I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.

I won't forget you, little ****ant.

What goes around comes around.

You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher and his family stay nice
and safe.

Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.

Kane

>
>On Mar 9, 12:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>
>> >> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
>> >> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>>
>> >Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.
>>
>> I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
>> not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.
>>
>> Who knows. I could be wrong.
>>
>> Sorry to trouble you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
>> >> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>>
>> >Sure. No problem.
>>
>> Appreciated.
>>
>> >> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
>> >> pertain?
>>
>> >"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
>> >University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
>> >The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
>> >California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
>> >Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
>> >the University of Southern California (USC)."
>>
>> Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
>> for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.
>>
>> For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>>
>> >> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>>
>> >> It's not terribly important.
>>
>> >> And thanks again.
>>
>> >> Kane- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

[0:-]]

On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>What's your point, Donald?

Donald is not going to answer you Greg, or haven't you figured that
out yet? He's doing his patient best to keep him and others out of
this thread.

>Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?

I didn't see "Donald" do that.

And where is Donald's wife mentioned here?

I mentioned "AnneF->" someone apparently posting under a nym, who has
gone to great trouble to post in a way that makes it appear he's Doan.

If I were Doan, and I'm not, I'd be just a bit upset at the coward
using a Nym to attack an opponent of Doan's.

I once defended you, Greg, in these newsgroups, by admonishing a
poster that posted some offensive information about you.

Rather than thank me you, with not a shred of proof (something Doan
doesn't do....<smile>" accuse ME of posting that under a Nym.

I tell you I was so offended I simply left off immediately defending
you rather than come under your wise gimlet probing eye again, and let
you fend for yourself with the poster.

Anyway, did someone tell you that "AnneF->" was connected in some way
to Donald's wife?

Who told you?

Who is it that posts under the cowardly Nym, "AnneF->," Greg?


Can I presume all this from you in this matter expresses your concern
for Donald and his wife?

0:]


>
>
>On Mar 9, 12:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>
>> >> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
>> >> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>>
>> >Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.
>>
>> I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
>> not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.
>>
>> Who knows. I could be wrong.
>>
>> Sorry to trouble you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
>> >> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>>
>> >Sure. No problem.
>>
>> Appreciated.
>>
>> >> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
>> >> pertain?
>>
>> >"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
>> >University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
>> >The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
>> >California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
>> >Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
>> >the University of Southern California (USC)."
>>
>> Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
>> for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.
>>
>> For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>>
>> >> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>>
>> >> It's not terribly important.
>>
>> >> And thanks again.
>>
>> >> Kane- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

[0:-]]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:00:22 -0800, "0:-]" >
wrote:

You know, I was just sitting here cogitating your post, Greg, and it's
content, and frankly I admit that unlike my usual calm and laid back
self I found my gorge rising about your post and you.

I was asking for an got Doan's help.

I thought he behaved in a sterling manner.

Especially given that someone was attacking HIS credibility concerning
his claim that cowards post under a Nym, by posting trying to imitate
his posting style. And deliberately using a USC provided account for
newsgroup posting.

Now you come along with this "Donald's" wife thing and add fuel to the
flames of suspicion about that "AnneF->" Nymed cowardly poster, so
that it almost appears that you are trying to involved Doan in that
cowardly poster's nasty behavior.

I implore you, don't do that. Doan doesn't deserve to be treated so
cavalierly.

Look how he tried to help me, after all.

That's the truly gentlemanly thing to do, while YOU make it appear
almost as if he's involved some way in the very deed itself.

Shame on you.

Apologize to Doan right NOW, publicly or I will hound you over this to
a degree that will make the "lethal force use" question look like a
picnic in the park.

I am DEEPLY offended at your remarks.

Doan, you'll have to forgive me. I had NO idea Greg was going to do
something such as this.

I expect him to give you a full apology here and now.

And thank you again for your help with my confusion over Whois inquiry
returns.

Kane




>On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
>>What's your point, Donald?
>
>Donald is not going to answer you Greg, or haven't you figured that
>out yet? He's doing his patient best to keep him and others out of
>this thread.
>
>>Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>
>I didn't see "Donald" do that.
>
>And where is Donald's wife mentioned here?
>
>I mentioned "AnneF->" someone apparently posting under a nym, who has
>gone to great trouble to post in a way that makes it appear he's Doan.
>
>If I were Doan, and I'm not, I'd be just a bit upset at the coward
>using a Nym to attack an opponent of Doan's.
>
>I once defended you, Greg, in these newsgroups, by admonishing a
>poster that posted some offensive information about you.
>
>Rather than thank me you, with not a shred of proof (something Doan
>doesn't do....<smile>" accuse ME of posting that under a Nym.
>
>I tell you I was so offended I simply left off immediately defending
>you rather than come under your wise gimlet probing eye again, and let
>you fend for yourself with the poster.
>
>Anyway, did someone tell you that "AnneF->" was connected in some way
>to Donald's wife?
>
>Who told you?
>
>Who is it that posts under the cowardly Nym, "AnneF->," Greg?
>
>
>Can I presume all this from you in this matter expresses your concern
>for Donald and his wife?
>
>0:]
>
>
>>
>>
>>On Mar 9, 12:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>
>>> >> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
>>> >> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>>>
>>> >Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.
>>>
>>> I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
>>> not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.
>>>
>>> Who knows. I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> Sorry to trouble you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
>>> >> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> >Sure. No problem.
>>>
>>> Appreciated.
>>>
>>> >> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
>>> >> pertain?
>>>
>>> >"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
>>> >University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
>>> >The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
>>> >California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
>>> >Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
>>> >the University of Southern California (USC)."
>>>
>>> Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
>>> for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.
>>>
>>> For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>>>
>>> >> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>>>
>>> >> It's not terribly important.
>>>
>>> >> And thanks again.
>>>
>>> >> Kane- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>

[Greegor]

On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> >What's your point, Donald?
>
> Are you addressing me, Greg?
>
> >Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>
> Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.
>
> Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?
>
> Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?
>
> I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
> none of your business.

Then WHY did you publicly post it you moron?

> But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
> protection for her.

Have you obtained her permission to be "protected" this way Don?
More to the point, do you think a JURY would see bringing up
this persons name as ""protection"" ???? You're DELUSIONAL.

> I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.

I can't get between you and your wierd comppulsions.

> Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.

Did it ever stop you?

> You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
> of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.

Like when Fern left and you pull your usual cowardly
complaints 6 months after she left?

> And by the way, you are a ****ant..

Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Hatemail from Hitler is PRAISE!

> I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
> I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.

And you brought up his wife, but you're SUPERIOR???

> I won't forget you, little ****ant.

Yes, I know you are OBSESSIVE!

> What goes around comes around.

Cliche' and empty coming from you.

> You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher
> and his family stay nice and safe.

Remember you said you used Donald L. Fisher
as a "false trail".
That means YOU set up Donald more than I did!
And Donald posted his info PUBLICLY on the WEB.
And you worked so hard for YEARS to create
hatred for yourself for that ""false trail""?
Even gratuitously posting obscenity PUBLICLY
almost daily for an entire YEAR.

Your "ethical lies" are transparent DONALD.

When Michael went to DONALD's neighborhood
you screeched like a HOWLER MONKEY.

> Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.

You are your OWN worst enemy Donald.
By naming others ""to protect them"" you might be their enemy also.

[0:-]]

On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>What's your point, Donald?
>Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?

To those of you that have not lived in ranching and livestock country,
the really big spreads, like in Texas and other western states, where
a livestock ranch, owned and leased, can run to 5000 acres plus on the
small side, and 30,000 acres or more for the bigger spreads;

A major difficulty is finding all the cows when it's time for the
various operations such as vaccination, brand or tagging (dewlap or
ear), dehorning, castration, or the last step, trucking to market, is
that they places are so damn big. Lots of wild country to get lost in,
and hide.

In fact, in the big spread some cows are lost for so long they give
birth to bull calves and a wild herd is built up. Nothing like
domestic cows.

The answer to bringing those wild one in is to gradually bring them in
closer to the ranch headquarters. Rather than bust up horses and
cowboys up in rough country or down in mean draws, the rancher uses a
the "cattle trap."

Now a cattle trap isn't a pen or corral, it's simply a device in the
fence lines that allows for passage only inward toward the ranch
headquarters or holding and working pens. Once through, there's no
going back.

Here's how it works....I've built many, as you might guess.

An opening is left between two upright stouter posts in the fence
line, about 15 or so feet apart. A pile of very thin flexible poles,
usually pine, such as Lodgepole, is trucked in and these are set so
they create a / \ shape, the entry end the heavier butt end of the
poles, and mounted solidly on posts. The exit ends /\ are quite close
together, left with no bracing post behind them and a little less of
an opening than the thickness of a cow's body measured through side
to side midway along as it passes through the partial opening.

The springy ends are sharped to a dull point...don't want to injure,
just poke and hurt a little bit so once in far enough the cow can't
back up, and can only escape by moving forward, in the direction of
the central pens: 0:-> that a'way.

So, you can see, I hope, these poles, mounted about a foot apart one
above the other, all pointing inward to the home ranch, a stack on
each side of the cow, a nice inviting wide opening at one end, that
narrow easy to push through, but impossible to back up opening at the
other. A squeeze-chute, if you will.

These won't work, of course, without bait. Why would a cow just walk
up and go through, unless they were dumb, and wild cattle aren't dumb.

So the traps are set up where there is little or no grass or water or
salt on the wild side of the cross-fences that divide the ranch up,
and of course on the other or tame cattle side, the working pens side,
a good salt and mineral block or two, a water trough, and now and then
a bale of sweet hay dropped off.

Might be, on a really big place four or five of these cross fences.

Each cross fence on the ranch has one or two of these cattle traps,
and gradually over the months and years, cows move closer and closer
to headquarters, and to humans and their activities....no hurry, and
the cows get gradually accustomed to the sights and sounds of humans,
and before you know it, almost, more tamed, won't spook, and can be
rounded up and driven along, where they then are herded into the pens,
roped, branded, castrated, tagged, vaccinated, calves and cows to the
pastures, and some...taken to market.

I thought maybe you'd like a little somewhat off-topic story to
brighten your day, or at least enlighten if you've never lived in
ranching country.

I built many of these on one of the most beautiful, but very rugged,
21,000 acre ranches in Hawaii, Island of Molokai, Puuohoku Ranch(Star
of the Sea) back in the early to mid 60's before I came back to the
mainland for college. They'd fly me in from Oahu to build those traps.

I loved Molokai so much I finally moved there. I left a bit of me
behind too. I miss it even after nearly 40 years.

I'd learned how to build those cattle traps from an old Tejon Indian
Man (fine horsemen and stockmen those guys) in the Sierras as kid. He
hired me as his helper when I was still in high school.

But back to Puuohoku Ranch.

Ever seen a 2,000lb hereford bull with horns out to...well, there.
Wild as a Spanish fighting bull, but built like a D9 Caterpillar
tractor?

Yet with all that power and those dangerous horns....once they take
that bait waiting across the fence...

....there's only one way to go...forward, after going part way through
.... right to where the builder wants them to go.

I've castrated dozens of those big bulls, and caught them with those
simple rough cattle traps. Crude, but elegantly effective.

I can still build the traps fairly well, I think. It's all in knowing
how for the kind and size of stock being handled. And knowing the
right bait to use.

And lots of patience, of course. Never a good idea to hurry.

Eventually you'll round them all up.

Now as for the rest......?

Inevitable...since there is NO way back. Not without a great deal of
pain, if then.

So, then, Greg. How'd you like my distracting little story?

Betcha don't believe me. Lots of folks don't believe me. Then there
are some that come to...the hard way.

0:]

[Greegor]

Donald L. Fisher (Kane) wrote
> So, then, Greg. How'd you like my distracting little story?
>
> Betcha don't believe me. Lots of folks don't believe me. Then there
> are some that come to...the hard way.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110st6.shtml

Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ON
"THE ADEQUACY OF FDA EFFORTS TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF THE DRUG SUPPLY"
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this oversight investigation
and holding the first hearing of this Congress on drug safety and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This Subcommittee has a long
history of FDA oversight and, by and large, it is a fine organization
where many good people do much good work for the American people.

Unfortunately, from time to time this Committee has had to expose
problems at that Agency. It seems every so often the FDA loses its
way, sometimes because of the work of scoundrels, sometimes because of
poor management. But sometimes it is because of a more serious
breakdown in the policies and procedures that are critical to assure
the safety of the food, drugs, blood, and medical devices that are
essential to the health of the American people.

Today's hearing will deal with just such a fundamental breakdown in
policies and procedures for evaluating the safety of drugs. It is
clear from the work that Chairman Stupak has already performed, which
will be the subject of today's hearing, that the FDA is badly broken.
I expect that before we finish this investigation, which is just
getting underway, we will discover whether the problems we have found
are due to the work of scoundrels, irrational penny-pinching, or
because the doors to the FDA "hen house" have been thrown open to
foxes. It may be a combination of all three.

What we do know from our friend Senator Grassley, to whom I extend a
very warm welcome, is that this Administration appears to be engaged
in hiding wrongdoing at the FDA. We see this at other Federal agencies
as well. Yet today we will hear a warning from Senator Grassley that
during its investigation this Subcommittee will be confronted by
obfuscation and delay by an Agency that tries to hide all of its poor
decision-making behind a specious veil of Executive Privilege.

Those with the ear of the Secretary and the Commissioner of the FDA
may erroneously believe that Committees of competent jurisdiction can
be denied documents and interviews to obtain information Congress must
have to fulfill its constitutional obligations. There are those who
may be counseling the Secretary and Commissioner that Congress may not
interview or call to testify Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and FDA employees under any circumstances. There may even be
those who are tempted to think that it is permissible to deliberately
mislead us.

I promise those in charge of HHS and any other department that chooses
to deny this Committee the information and access to bring proper and
needed oversight, as is our responsibility, that they will not
succeed. There is an easy way to be investigated and there is a hard
way and the hard way is not necessarily better.

[KenPisano]

That's easy . . . just feed 'em Jell o shooters. :)

[0:-]]

On 9 Mar 2007 16:57:47 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>>
>> >What's your point, Donald?
>>
>> Are you addressing me, Greg?
>>
>> >Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>>
>> Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.
>>
>> Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?

You didn't answer. Why?

>>
>> Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?

You still didn't answer. What, no denial?

>>
>> I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
>> none of your business.
>
>Then WHY did you publicly post it you moron?

"...for a particular purpose, and what that is is none of your
business."

Why bother to ask? Never assume when give away information that it's
not well thought out, no matter how the old coot yaks it up.

Or jabs you in your testoterone gland.
>
>> But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
>> protection for her.

Aren't I generous with information.

>Have you obtained her permission to be "protected" this way Don?

What have I said that would require getting her permission? I did not
post her name. Did you?

Did you post her husband's name?

Who first, to these newsgroups, brought up Donald L. Fisher of Bend
Oregon and claimed I was him, Greg?

This is what I mean about you being too stupid to keep things properly
sorted out.

You still don't see where that puts you, do you stupid boy?

YOU force ME to deal with the ISSUE. And so do your cronies, so don't
try giving me this crap about ME creating the problem just because I
can't stomach you sick ****s, and whip your sorry asses regular.

Neither Don, nor AnneF had or have a damn thing to do with this
newsgroup or what transpires here.

YOU AND OTHERS BRING THEM IN TO TRY AND SUPPRESS MY PARTICIPATION HAVE
BUILT YOURSELF ONE ****ING HONKING TRAP FOR YOURSELVES, stupid little
punks.

You are cowardly bullies.

So was Fern.

>More to the point, do you think a JURY would see bringing up
>this persons name as ""protection"" ????

Yes, for I too have to go through certain "one way gates," to exercise
my constitutional right to free speech. Those that might either
threaten that by alluding to, insinuating, that they might harm or
otherwise interfer with me or other people are the ones at risk, Greg.

> You're DELUSIONAL.

You keep thinking that, boy.

>
>> I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.
>
>I can't get between you and your wierd comppulsions.

Quoting my secret source, "That's because you are STUPID! Hihihi!"

>
>> Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.
>
>Did it ever stop you?

Non sequitur.

>> You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
>> of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.
>
>Like when Fern left

Why did she leave?

>and you pull your usual cowardly

You call confronting someone that routinely consorted with sick ****s
here as buddies anything BUT cowardly? Fern was YOUR buddy, buddy.

And look at the list of them.

>complaints 6 months after she left?

Against Fern? Nothing is stopping her from replying, and my complaints
weren't about her, but about you and others failing to step up when
she made outrageous claims in the past, and excused beating of
children by church members.

What she did is all in the record. Notice I'm not speaking to HER
about her actions here, but to YOU for YOUR actions and inactions.

You have a great deal of difficulty sorting things out, I fear.

>> And by the way, you are a ****ant..
>
>Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Hatemail from Hitler is PRAISE!

Feelings? What about Hitler are you saying I am or do?

>> I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
>> I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.
>
>And you brought up his wife, but you're SUPERIOR???

No, I did not her up. You know precisely who did.

And YOU started that with your ****ing "You are a retired caseworker
Donald L. Fisher" ****.

You are, little man, trust me, going to be eating that for a very very
long time.

>> I won't forget you, little ****ant.
>
>Yes, I know you are OBSESSIVE!

Let me see. Am I obsessive about people's safety?

Am I obsessive about people making both oblique and insinuating
threats by third party attention getting?

Hmmmmm....If you saw a poster here with a new nym that played on
Lisa's name, and that poster was abusive of you, lied, otherwise
conducted themselves in dishonorable ways, would that draw your
attention to the fact the poster was using LISA's name, or a part of
it, hence LISA was being drawn into a risky situation.

If you make someone obsessive you little ****ing low life cocksucker,
you damn well are going to get the attention you are bucking for, and
very possibly more.

Or don't you actually care about Lisa, Greg?

>> What goes around comes around.
>
>Cliche' and empty coming from you.

I just love a good appropriate cliche', don't you?

You seem to talk in a pattern of them.

Go **** your self, stupid.

>> You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher
>> and his family stay nice and safe.
>
>Remember you said you used Donald L. Fisher
>as a "false trail".

Yep. It was forced upon me because I used his computer at his
workplace.

Much was made of that here. You don't recall, stupid?

ONCE YOU PEOPLE STUCK HIS NAME IN HERE YOU LEFT ME LITTLE CHOICE.

>That means YOU set up Donald more than I did!

Whe, stupid, first mentioned his name in these newsgroups and tried to
make out I was him?

Go on...tell us, you lying bag of pig pus.

>And Donald posted his info PUBLICLY on the WEB.

Here? In these newsgroups?

Can I assume then that anyone that posts their information publicly
that YOU decide is ME, then is at risk?

>And you worked so hard for YEARS to create
>hatred for yourself for that ""false trail""?

Nope. That was YOUR doing, Greg. YOU are a ****ing lying little
****ant child abuser, aren't you?

>Even gratuitously posting obscenity PUBLICLY
>almost daily for an entire YEAR.

RR R R R R .... no one these days takes that seriously, you dumb ****.
There is no law against it. And if you think you have the right to put
others at risk just because they don't like you and tell you to get
****ed, you are in deep deep **** little boy.

>
>Your "ethical lies" are transparent DONALD.

As what, stupid?.
>
>When Michael went to DONALD's neighborhood
>you screeched like a HOWLER MONKEY.

That was not the sound you heard.

>> Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.
>
>You are your OWN worst enemy Donald.

Bull****. I'm not Donald and I have a right to post here, without YOU
or anyone else trying to set Don and his wife. Up.

As I said, YOU best prey nothing happens to either of them, as I have
gone to considerable trouble to see that YOU will be among the first
to feel the effects.

>By naming others ""to protect them"" you might be their enemy also.

Anything is possible. But I never brought them to this newsgroup,
Greg.

YOU and your sick stupid dishonorable buddies did.

**** you and everyone like you.

You vicious sick little **** sucking asshole.

0:]

[0:-]]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:16:35 -0800, "0:-]" >
wrote:

.....greeeeEEEEEEEG!....

Better heed my warning.

You have insulted Doan by insinuation I believe. How dare you.

You better get this sorted out better than your bull**** about WHO
mentioned Don Fisher and his wife here first, you little scummy ****.

You better withdraw your insinuation about Doan, or else.

He is NOT AnneF->, you little ****. Withdraw that insinuation right
now and apologize to him.

And don't try to make something out of the IP coincidence either.

He could SUE you for that, you know.

He would never post under a cowardly Nym. I know this because he told
me so, and he never lies, or makes accusations himself without proof.

So there.

0;->

>On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:00:22 -0800, "0:-]" >
>wrote:
>
>You know, I was just sitting here cogitating your post, Greg, and it's
>content, and frankly I admit that unlike my usual calm and laid back
>self I found my gorge rising about your post and you.
>
>I was asking for an got Doan's help.
>
>I thought he behaved in a sterling manner.
>
>Especially given that someone was attacking HIS credibility concerning
>his claim that cowards post under a Nym, by posting trying to imitate
>his posting style. And deliberately using a USC provided account for
>newsgroup posting.
>
>Now you come along with this "Donald's" wife thing and add fuel to the
>flames of suspicion about that "AnneF->" Nymed cowardly poster, so
>that it almost appears that you are trying to involved Doan in that
>cowardly poster's nasty behavior.
>
>I implore you, don't do that. Doan doesn't deserve to be treated so
>cavalierly.
>
>Look how he tried to help me, after all.
>
>That's the truly gentlemanly thing to do, while YOU make it appear
>almost as if he's involved some way in the very deed itself.
>
>Shame on you.
>
>Apologize to Doan right NOW, publicly or I will hound you over this to
>a degree that will make the "lethal force use" question look like a
>picnic in the park.
>
>I am DEEPLY offended at your remarks.
>
>Doan, you'll have to forgive me. I had NO idea Greg was going to do
>something such as this.
>
>I expect him to give you a full apology here and now.
>
>And thank you again for your help with my confusion over Whois inquiry
>returns.
>
>Kane
>
>
>
>
>>On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>>
>>>What's your point, Donald?
>>
>>Donald is not going to answer you Greg, or haven't you figured that
>>out yet? He's doing his patient best to keep him and others out of
>>this thread.
>>
>>>Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>>
>>I didn't see "Donald" do that.
>>
>>And where is Donald's wife mentioned here?
>>
>>I mentioned "AnneF->" someone apparently posting under a nym, who has
>>gone to great trouble to post in a way that makes it appear he's Doan.
>>
>>If I were Doan, and I'm not, I'd be just a bit upset at the coward
>>using a Nym to attack an opponent of Doan's.
>>
>>I once defended you, Greg, in these newsgroups, by admonishing a
>>poster that posted some offensive information about you.
>>
>>Rather than thank me you, with not a shred of proof (something Doan
>>doesn't do....<smile>" accuse ME of posting that under a Nym.
>>
>>I tell you I was so offended I simply left off immediately defending
>>you rather than come under your wise gimlet probing eye again, and let
>>you fend for yourself with the poster.
>>
>>Anyway, did someone tell you that "AnneF->" was connected in some way
>>to Donald's wife?
>>
>>Who told you?
>>
>>Who is it that posts under the cowardly Nym, "AnneF->," Greg?
>>
>>
>>Can I presume all this from you in this matter expresses your concern
>>for Donald and his wife?
>>
>>0:]
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mar 9, 12:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:40:52 -0800, Doan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> It appears that about some things related to the Internet I am indeed,
>>>> >> as you remind me, "STUPID."
>>>>
>>>> >Yes, you are if you still think Senderbase is an anon proxy checker.
>>>>
>>>> I only pointed out that it returns IP information. And that should it
>>>> not do so that the odds of the IP number being a proxie go up.
>>>>
>>>> Who knows. I could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to trouble you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> Would you help me with this little Whois thing that I'm a bit confused
>>>> >> about? If so, thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> >Sure. No problem.
>>>>
>>>> Appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> >> What or who or where would this referenced Whois returned info
>>>> >> pertain?
>>>>
>>>> >"Los Nettos is operated by the Information Services Division (ISD) of the
>>>> >University of Southern California on behalf of the Los Nettos Consortium.
>>>> >The Los Nettos Consortium consists of five member organizations: The
>>>> >California Institute of Technology (Caltech), the Claremont Colleges,
>>>> >Information Sciences Institute (ISI), Jet Propultion Laboratory (JPL), and
>>>> >the University of Southern California (USC)."
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. This was listed as part of the return on an inquiry of Whois
>>>> for AnneF-> posting IP number, along with USC.
>>>>
>>>> For goodness sakes, what do you think of that, hmmm?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> "Los Nettos LOS-NETTOS-BLK3 " > > Just a little curiosity on my part.
>>>>
>>>> >> Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't wish to.
>>>>
>>>> >> It's not terribly important.
>>>>
>>>> >> And thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> >> Kane- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>

[0:-]]

On 9 Mar 2007 18:01:41 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>Donald L. Fisher (Kane) wrote
>> So, then, Greg. How'd you like my distracting little story?
>>
>> Betcha don't believe me. Lots of folks don't believe me. Then there
>> are some that come to...the hard way.
>
>http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110st6.shtml

He's not looking for votes. Nosiree.

By the way, the FDA isn't USDHHS.

You wouldn't be suggesting that my little story is the same as this
tough talking Dingell story, would you?

R R R R R RR R R R R R R

You tell me you believe me?

Or that you don't and don't believe him either?

Passive aggressives fascinate me endlessly.

Opps, I see my post was worded very like the typical passive
aggressive...where the heck could I have picked this habit up.

I keep trying to debate here, and damned if YOU guys are training me
into passive aggressiveness.

Must be some way to stop you...but I'm sure not figuring it out.

Just can't figure out what to do with things like posting my opinion
on something, with reference to one set of actors, and having someone
come back retitle the post claiming I'm lying, and then using as
proof, information about an entirely different set of actors.

Then castigate ME for not doing my research as well as the opening
accusation of lying?

How can an opinion be a lie?

Or just the telling of one's observations?

Sure puzzling how the passive aggressive mind works, eh Greg?

So, can you sort out what your point was for me?

My post is almost totally missing here, and I've decided to be a bit
lazy and not do your work for you. Please refer to my prior post and
point out any connections and what you think they mean.

Best of Luck.

0:]



>
>Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Chairman
>Committee on Energy and Commerce
>
>SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ON
>"THE ADEQUACY OF FDA EFFORTS TO ASSURE THE SAFETY OF THE DRUG SUPPLY"
>February 13, 2007
>Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this oversight investigation
>and holding the first hearing of this Congress on drug safety and the
>Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This Subcommittee has a long
>history of FDA oversight and, by and large, it is a fine organization
>where many good people do much good work for the American people.
>
>Unfortunately, from time to time this Committee has had to expose
>problems at that Agency. It seems every so often the FDA loses its
>way, sometimes because of the work of scoundrels, sometimes because of
>poor management. But sometimes it is because of a more serious
>breakdown in the policies and procedures that are critical to assure
>the safety of the food, drugs, blood, and medical devices that are
>essential to the health of the American people.
>
>Today's hearing will deal with just such a fundamental breakdown in
>policies and procedures for evaluating the safety of drugs. It is
>clear from the work that Chairman Stupak has already performed, which
>will be the subject of today's hearing, that the FDA is badly broken.
>I expect that before we finish this investigation, which is just
>getting underway, we will discover whether the problems we have found
>are due to the work of scoundrels, irrational penny-pinching, or
>because the doors to the FDA "hen house" have been thrown open to
>foxes. It may be a combination of all three.
>
>What we do know from our friend Senator Grassley, to whom I extend a
>very warm welcome, is that this Administration appears to be engaged
>in hiding wrongdoing at the FDA. We see this at other Federal agencies
>as well. Yet today we will hear a warning from Senator Grassley that
>during its investigation this Subcommittee will be confronted by
>obfuscation and delay by an Agency that tries to hide all of its poor
>decision-making behind a specious veil of Executive Privilege.
>
>Those with the ear of the Secretary and the Commissioner of the FDA
>may erroneously believe that Committees of competent jurisdiction can
>be denied documents and interviews to obtain information Congress must
>have to fulfill its constitutional obligations. There are those who
>may be counseling the Secretary and Commissioner that Congress may not
>interview or call to testify Department of Health and Human Services
>(HHS) and FDA employees under any circumstances. There may even be
>those who are tempted to think that it is permissible to deliberately
>mislead us.
>
>I promise those in charge of HHS and any other department that chooses
>to deny this Committee the information and access to bring proper and
>needed oversight, as is our responsibility, that they will not
>succeed. There is an easy way to be investigated and there is a hard
>way and the hard way is not necessarily better.
>

[0:-]]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:48:36 -0800, "0:-]" >
wrote: .... in the prior post to this thread, where you and I discuss
who is deliberately exposing others to risks, you seem to think I am
the one that initiated this, and keep it going, get YOU, without
prompting have many times brought up the persons names.

And for a very long time, I might add:


Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Greegor" >
Date: 11 Jan 2005 15:10:31 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 11 2005 3:10 pm
Subject: Re: The Question revisited. Just when IS it abusive and
damaging?
So you're not Donald L. Fisher who lives near Portland,
with a wife named Ann who wrote various books on
Home Schooling? You don't have an adult Daughter
named Calle who works for the state of Washington?

Your grandmother's name was not Nellie Kneeland?
Your littlest brother Will did NOT see your absent
Australian grandfather in San Francisco?
www.clan-cleland.org/_Talk/0000000e.htm
....

In other words, you did an extensive lookup on Donald Fisher, did you
not, Greg? And posted the above in a newsgroup notorious for threats
to state workers in child protection, did you not?

Why?


Let me show you how your crap has been piling up, Greg, with just a
few samples of stupid claims you have made, and your continual pulling
Fisher's name into these newsgroups, and some of the choice things you
were following up by those that were screaming violent hatred and
death wishes at him:

>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Did you read his Geneology crap about the Aussie grandfather
>>> who did bad things to his mother?

I hope you aren't saying what I think you are saying there. I found no
such thing in YOUR post of Fisher's discussion of ancestry.

You do understand what you did, no?

While you asked a question, you included with in it, and affirmative
claim of child abuse...apparently, by Fisher's grandfather. Hmmmm..You
really are a stupid little man, aren't you?

Here you attempt to pop in yet another uninvolved innocent bystander
because of your embarrassment of having your own confessions here
thrown back at you:

> From: Greegor - Date: Tues, Jan 11 2005 5:10 pm
> Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.child-protective-services

> So you're not Donald L. Fisher who lives near Portland,
> with a wife named Ann who wrote various books on
> Home Schooling? You don't have an adult Daughter
> named Calle who works for the state of Washington?

The only Calle Fisher I know of doesn't work for the state of
Washington. She works for the Udub, as they call it on campus...the
University of Washington (UW).

....
http://ilabs.washington.edu/staff/index.html

Calle Fisher, Research Study Coordinator, Infant Studies Lab
.............

Don Fisher says he does not know any Calle with the same last name as
his.

Yet, there is that extraordinarily unique name, you have posted it in
a thread, by the way, where threats included the hope that Don
Fisher's "daughters" being raped while he's being killed. YOU posted
that name in a question. Very very interesting to think about, Greg.

I'm trying to protect people, and YOU and your ****, your "friends"
continually post this crap so I have little recourse but to try and
create a public enough exposure of you to make it much more dangerous
for you to act...and you think this is MY fault?

And you think this is lightweight stuff don't you, because I offended
people? Hmmmm. Do YOU wish harm to Don Fisher simply because Kane
offends you?

Or to Don if I WERE him?

Even if it were Don himself being offensive you seem to be helping the
person expressing all that bile and hatred and death and rape wishes
to Don and his family...and can you justify providing that information
AFTER the rape of Don's "daughters" wish was posted?

Or don't you keep track of these scenarios you jump in to lend your
kindly help to?

Time after time, in the middle of debate and argument, when things
just aren't going our way, Greg, this is what pops up out of nowhere:


Greegor
More options Dec 23 2006, 12:11 am
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Greegor" >
Date: 23 Dec 2006 00:11:37 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 23 2006 12:11 am
Subject: Kane plays Spanish Inquisition

>I need to prove WHAT exactly and WHY exactly??

Megalomania flaring up again Don?
Delusions of being Torquemada?

Kane ( Donald L. Fisher of Bend Oregon ) wrote ...

You do this, Greg, not only to me in argument, but to others, which of
course then puts them on the spot not knowing what to believe.

In other words you attempt to influence others by claiming I am
someone that YOU define as untrustworthy simply because of WHERE he
was employed, not even knowing for sure what he did there...and most
certainly not knowing if he helped parents, or hurt them (I'm, told he
helped people work the system to keep kids in family)...just making
your stupid raving antigovernment propaganda based bull****
presumptions:

Greegor
Dec 29 2006, 8:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Greegor" >
Date: 29 Dec 2006 08:00:05 -0800
Local: Fri, Dec 29 2006 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Accident or Pattern ?
....

LaMarr: Why are you now acting like the system
is so interested in punishing itself?

How long have YOU known that Kane is Donald L. Fisher,
former "child protector" retired from the state of Oregon? ...

On, must ask, Greg, where the **** DID that come from, and what WAS
your purpose in asking? Fisher had not even been mentioned in the
thread this came from.

If LaMarr/spd KNOWS Don Fisher, a worker from Oregon, and KNOWS that
Fisher was a "vile viscious worker," don't you think, given spd's
experience with state workers he's told us here HE WOULD HAVE COME
BACK AND OUTED ME AS DON FISHER?

Either I'm not Fisher, stupid, or spd knows Fisher is a good person
that helps families. Or, dip****, BOTH ARE TRUE.

Here's more of this bringing up Fisher for YOUR own purposes, Greg. In
this one you even go so far as to change the standard reply formatting
of Usenet posting to say:


Greegor
Jan 17, 2:59 pm
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Greegor" >
Date: 17 Jan 2007 14:59:25 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 17 2007 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: Spanking Leads To Child Aggression

0:-> ( AKA Kane, AKA Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker)
wrote:
...


I'm arguing with two others about studies on spanking, and you pop in
with THAT?

To what purpose, Greg?

Could it be you simply wish to get as much exposure out there as you
can to push an agenda of forcing me off the newsgroup?

You are pretty stupid if you think that you can. The MORE you do that,
no matter if I WERE Don, the LESS likelihood I could leave and let
people just draw conclusions.

YOU are forcing me to defend Fisher, and myself.

YOU, stupid.

And have YOU tried to give any "Kill CPS workers" nutso's a location
to find one, Greg?

KANE IS DONALD L. FISHER OF BEND OREGON
Correction You are Donald L. Fisher or Bend Oregon. That should read:
KANE IS DONALD
L. FISHER OF BEND OREGON. He worked for the Oregon SS. Thank you for
your attention.
Desperation, thy Name is Greg The CPS AGENT PROVOCATEUR. ...
Dec 24 2006 by 0:-> - 25 messages - 6 authors

Donald L Fisher of Bend Oregon ... Is it really Kane?
.... What's in Prineville? Lot's of rural development went on in and
around Bend since
I first saw it in 1971. LIttle hick town, to major central Oregon city
today. Did
you know that Don Fisher was and is very involved in that development?
....
Jan 4 by 0:-> - 12 messages - 6 authors

Merry frigging christmas. I HATE CPS
.... Donald L. Fisher of Bend Oregon, former operator of Oregon
adoption web site) wrote
No he didn't Don Fisher in bend never heard of you, me, or CPS other
than as just
some state agency he wishes would end the damn child abuse out there.
....
Dec 24 2006 by 0:-> - 13 messages - 6 authors

Here's Proof Kane is Donald L. Fisher
Dont know, Dont care. Ron Ronald VanDyne wrote IOW, my lame little
friends,
if one does a google search one will find that there are quite a few
Donald
Fishers all across the country, and a few in Bend Oregon. ...
Dec 26 2006 by Ron - 46 messages - 10 authors

Evie was a ""foster kid""
Greegor wrote: ...here it comes folks, the attempt to rebuild the
crumbling cover
story of a CPS AGENT PROVOCATEUR. ... So what's it like to get hate
mail from Hitler?
Thank you Donald L. Fisher of Bend Oregon, former state drone. Nope.
....
Dec 24 2006 by 0:-> - 54 messages - 6 authors

Greg Scott Hanson, are you?????
.... of Sanity Charles P Adams. Earl 8man12 Oscar Chuck Charles Edwards
ThePsyko
Jolly Fatman Jake I can prove he is actually Donald L. Fisher of Bend
Oregon. Dan Sullivan are you king of the socks?
Jan 18 by 0:-> - 34 messages - 8 authors

****ING CONTESTS
Don is Kane. Donald L. Fisher, d'geezer, :->, Kane are all the same
former
Oregon caseworker. And he lives in Bend Oregon too. RRRRRR RRRR .. How
many times have you been asked to produce proof, Greg? ...
Jan 13 by 0:-> - 70 messages - 10 authors

Welcome Fathers Rights and Family Rights people!
Kane AKA Donald L. Fisher of Bend Oregon wrote YOU ARE A CPS
AGENT, OR DUPE OF THEM. Wake up, stupid. This is FUNNY coming
from a guy who ran the Oregon adoption web site!
Dec 24 2006 by Greegor - 41 messages - 7 authors

Greg, and crew, Vandals...Re: Firemonkey (aka Buttmonkey) ...
Kane (Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon Caseworker) Still haven't come
up with that
proof yet, have you, Greg? Try calling Don Fisher of Bend and asking
him if he's
a former CPS caseworker. wrote YOU, Greg, are a vicious destructive
VANDAL. ...
Jan 4 by 0:-> - 35 messages - 7 authors
...........end of listing where YOU brought up Don Fisher, Greg and I
was forced to answer you, instead of continue the debate I wished to
pursue. Nice tactic, ****ant.

Greg I invited you to call Donald L. Fisher of Bend Oregon, (he's in
the phone book), and tell HIM you have posted his location here and
identified him as a state worker in a little pack of anti government
thugs and nutsos that have in fact urged the killing of CPS workers.

Why have you not done so...or, have you made that phone call to him,
and are now ****ting yourself for having made that fraudulent and
slanderous claim when you found out he has nothing to do with CPS or
ever did?

Do you want ME to call him and alert him to your bull**** here?

(Or worse, if you were telling the truth and HE is a former
caseworker...****, you stupid idiot. YOU have made YOURSELF the
perfect fall guy if someone did decide to act out their stupid
antigovernment crap.)

Just how ****ing stupid are you Greg?

The people that set the Christines up are still out there, you twit
with the brain of a ****ant.

KNOW ANY OF THEM, GREG? Think the are stable solid citizens Greg?

Looking to be a hero, are yah?

Yer not. Yer a ****ant. Nothing more.

Kane


>On 9 Mar 2007 16:57:47 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
>>On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>>> On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >What's your point, Donald?
>>>
>>> Are you addressing me, Greg?
>>>
>>> >Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>>>
>>> Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.
>>>
>>> Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?
>
>You didn't answer. Why?
>
>>>
>>> Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?
>
>You still didn't answer. What, no denial?
>
>>>
>>> I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
>>> none of your business.
>>
>>Then WHY did you publicly post it you moron?
>
>"...for a particular purpose, and what that is is none of your
>business."
>
>Why bother to ask? Never assume when give away information that it's
>not well thought out, no matter how the old coot yaks it up.
>
>Or jabs you in your testoterone gland.
>>
>>> But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
>>> protection for her.
>
>Aren't I generous with information.
>
>>Have you obtained her permission to be "protected" this way Don?
>
>What have I said that would require getting her permission? I did not
>post her name. Did you?
>
>Did you post her husband's name?
>
>Who first, to these newsgroups, brought up Donald L. Fisher of Bend
>Oregon and claimed I was him, Greg?
>
>This is what I mean about you being too stupid to keep things properly
>sorted out.
>
>You still don't see where that puts you, do you stupid boy?
>
>YOU force ME to deal with the ISSUE. And so do your cronies, so don't
>try giving me this crap about ME creating the problem just because I
>can't stomach you sick ****s, and whip your sorry asses regular.
>
>Neither Don, nor AnneF had or have a damn thing to do with this
>newsgroup or what transpires here.
>
>YOU AND OTHERS BRING THEM IN TO TRY AND SUPPRESS MY PARTICIPATION HAVE
>BUILT YOURSELF ONE ****ING HONKING TRAP FOR YOURSELVES, stupid little
>punks.
>
>You are cowardly bullies.
>
>So was Fern.
>
>>More to the point, do you think a JURY would see bringing up
>>this persons name as ""protection"" ????
>
>Yes, for I too have to go through certain "one way gates," to exercise
>my constitutional right to free speech. Those that might either
>threaten that by alluding to, insinuating, that they might harm or
>otherwise interfer with me or other people are the ones at risk, Greg.
>
>> You're DELUSIONAL.
>
>You keep thinking that, boy.
>
>>
>>> I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.
>>
>>I can't get between you and your wierd comppulsions.
>
>Quoting my secret source, "That's because you are STUPID! Hihihi!"
>
>>
>>> Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.
>>
>>Did it ever stop you?
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>>> You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
>>> of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.
>>
>>Like when Fern left
>
>Why did she leave?
>
>>and you pull your usual cowardly
>
>You call confronting someone that routinely consorted with sick ****s
>here as buddies anything BUT cowardly? Fern was YOUR buddy, buddy.
>
>And look at the list of them.
>
>>complaints 6 months after she left?
>
>Against Fern? Nothing is stopping her from replying, and my complaints
>weren't about her, but about you and others failing to step up when
>she made outrageous claims in the past, and excused beating of
>children by church members.
>
>What she did is all in the record. Notice I'm not speaking to HER
>about her actions here, but to YOU for YOUR actions and inactions.
>
>You have a great deal of difficulty sorting things out, I fear.
>
>>> And by the way, you are a ****ant..
>>
>>Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Hatemail from Hitler is PRAISE!
>
>Feelings? What about Hitler are you saying I am or do?
>
>>> I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
>>> I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.
>>
>>And you brought up his wife, but you're SUPERIOR???
>
>No, I did not her up. You know precisely who did.
>
>And YOU started that with your ****ing "You are a retired caseworker
>Donald L. Fisher" ****.
>
>You are, little man, trust me, going to be eating that for a very very
>long time.
>
>>> I won't forget you, little ****ant.
>>
>>Yes, I know you are OBSESSIVE!
>
>Let me see. Am I obsessive about people's safety?
>
>Am I obsessive about people making both oblique and insinuating
>threats by third party attention getting?
>
>Hmmmmm....If you saw a poster here with a new nym that played on
>Lisa's name, and that poster was abusive of you, lied, otherwise
>conducted themselves in dishonorable ways, would that draw your
>attention to the fact the poster was using LISA's name, or a part of
>it, hence LISA was being drawn into a risky situation.
>
>If you make someone obsessive you little ****ing low life cocksucker,
>you damn well are going to get the attention you are bucking for, and
>very possibly more.
>
>Or don't you actually care about Lisa, Greg?
>
>>> What goes around comes around.
>>
>>Cliche' and empty coming from you.
>
>I just love a good appropriate cliche', don't you?
>
>You seem to talk in a pattern of them.
>
>Go **** your self, stupid.
>
>>> You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher
>>> and his family stay nice and safe.
>>
>>Remember you said you used Donald L. Fisher
>>as a "false trail".
>
>Yep. It was forced upon me because I used his computer at his
>workplace.
>
>Much was made of that here. You don't recall, stupid?
>
>ONCE YOU PEOPLE STUCK HIS NAME IN HERE YOU LEFT ME LITTLE CHOICE.
>
>>That means YOU set up Donald more than I did!
>
>Whe, stupid, first mentioned his name in these newsgroups and tried to
>make out I was him?
>
>Go on...tell us, you lying bag of pig pus.
>
>>And Donald posted his info PUBLICLY on the WEB.
>
>Here? In these newsgroups?
>
>Can I assume then that anyone that posts their information publicly
>that YOU decide is ME, then is at risk?
>
>>And you worked so hard for YEARS to create
>>hatred for yourself for that ""false trail""?
>
>Nope. That was YOUR doing, Greg. YOU are a ****ing lying little
>****ant child abuser, aren't you?
>
>>Even gratuitously posting obscenity PUBLICLY
>>almost daily for an entire YEAR.
>
>RR R R R R .... no one these days takes that seriously, you dumb ****.
>There is no law against it. And if you think you have the right to put
>others at risk just because they don't like you and tell you to get
>****ed, you are in deep deep **** little boy.
>
>>
>>Your "ethical lies" are transparent DONALD.
>
>As what, stupid?.
>>
>>When Michael went to DONALD's neighborhood
>>you screeched like a HOWLER MONKEY.
>
>That was not the sound you heard.
>
>>> Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.
>>
>>You are your OWN worst enemy Donald.
>
>Bull****. I'm not Donald and I have a right to post here, without YOU
>or anyone else trying to set Don and his wife. Up.
>
>As I said, YOU best prey nothing happens to either of them, as I have
>gone to considerable trouble to see that YOU will be among the first
>to feel the effects.
>
>>By naming others ""to protect them"" you might be their enemy also.
>
>Anything is possible. But I never brought them to this newsgroup,
>Greg.
>
>YOU and your sick stupid dishonorable buddies did.
>
>**** you and everyone like you.
>
>You vicious sick little **** sucking asshole.
>
>0:]
>

[Greegor]

On Mar 9, 9:48 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 16:57:47 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> >On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> >> On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> >> >What's your point, Donald?
>
> >> Are you addressing me, Greg?
>
> >> >Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>
> >> Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.
>
> >> Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?
>
> You didn't answer. Why?

It's OBVIOUS Kane, YOU did!

Posting her name to enhance her security is
like Fornicating for virginity!

> >> Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?
>
> You still didn't answer. What, no denial?
>
> >> I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
> >> none of your business.
>
> >Then WHY did you publicly post it you moron?
>
> "...for a particular purpose, and what that is is none of your
> business."

When you posted it PUBLICLY on the World Wide Web
your purpose is none of my business??

Seriously dude, your mental illness has gotten worse.

>
> Why bother to ask? Never assume when give away information that it's
> not well thought out, no matter how the old coot yaks it up.
>
> Or jabs you in your testoterone gland.


>
>
>
> >> But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
> >> protection for her.
>
> Aren't I generous with information.
>
> >Have you obtained her permission to be "protected" this way Don?
>
> What have I said that would require getting her permission? I did not
> post her name. Did you?
>
> Did you post her husband's name?

I posted YOUR name.

> Who first, to these newsgroups, brought up Donald L. Fisher of Bend
> Oregon and claimed I was him, Greg?
>
> This is what I mean about you being too stupid to keep things properly
> sorted out.
>
> You still don't see where that puts you, do you stupid boy?
>
> YOU force ME to deal with the ISSUE.

You're getting help for your Megalomania?

> And so do your cronies, so don't
> try giving me this crap about ME creating the problem just because I
> can't stomach you sick ****s, and whip your sorry asses regular.

By flapping your gums?

> Neither Don, nor AnneF had or have a damn thing to do with this
> newsgroup or what transpires here.
>
> YOU AND OTHERS BRING THEM

YOU brought in Ann claiming it was for her good!
Yer a freakin mental case!

IN TO TRY AND SUPPRESS MY PARTICIPATION

WHY would anybody want to suppress your much
bragged about year of posting gratuitous obscenity?

or your obscene epithets toward a grandmother named Fern?

> HAVE BUILT YOURSELF ONE [f-bomb] HONKING TRAP
> FOR YOURSELVES, stupid little punks.

Run short on your psych meds there mental case?
More Megalomania and delusions of grandeur?

> You are cowardly bullies.

You posted your wife (or ex-wife)'s name. Is that brave?

You and Dan have posted my SO's name. Was that brave?

> So was Fern.

Yes, you made it clear recently she is EVIL! because
she was in favor of protecting the civil rights of a man
who was AQUITTED by a JURY but who broke your
abberant idea of the rules. Evil, evil E-V-I-L Fern!
She is a bully because she agreed with a JURY!
EVIL!

> >More to the point, do you think a JURY would see bringing up
> >this persons name as ""protection"" ????
>
> Yes, for I too have to go through certain "one way gates," to exercise
> my constitutional right to free speech. Those that might either
> threaten that by alluding to, insinuating, that they might harm or
> otherwise interfer with me or other people are the ones at risk, Greg.
>
> > You're DELUSIONAL.
>
> You keep thinking that, boy.

> >> I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.
>
> >I can't get between you and your wierd comppulsions.
>
> Quoting my secret source, "That's because you are STUPID! Hihihi!"
>
> >> Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.
>
> >Did it ever stop you?
>
> Non sequitur.

Of course!

> >> You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
> >> of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.
>
> >Like when Fern left
>
> Why did she leave?
>
> >and you pull your usual cowardly
>
> You call confronting someone that routinely consorted with sick ****s
> here as buddies anything BUT cowardly? Fern was YOUR buddy, buddy.
>
> And look at the list of them.
>
> >complaints 6 months after she left?
>
> Against Fern? Nothing is stopping her from replying, and my complaints
> weren't about her, but about you and others failing to step up when
> she made outrageous claims in the past, and excused beating of
> children by church members.
>
> What she did is all in the record. Notice I'm not speaking to HER
> about her actions here, but to YOU for YOUR actions and inactions.

And this is supposed to be exciting or what?

>
> You have a great deal of difficulty sorting things out, I fear.

In regard to sorting things out, you have recently
posted your gibberish about Doan in a thread
where that subject had absolutely no place.
Are your cognitive processes malfunctioning?

> >> And by the way, you are a ****ant..
>
> >Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Hatemail from Hitler is PRAISE!
>
> Feelings? What about Hitler are you saying I am or do?

You're a Meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur, for starters.

> >> I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
> >> I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.

YOU claimed that YOU set Don up as a FALSE TRAIL.
This was an attempt to cover up the fact that you ARE Donald.

If you were not Donald, and you knew him, why would you
set up an innocent friend to get feedback from your
verbal (textual) abusive comments? The obvious answer is you
wouldn't.
Ergo you ARE Donald, but you LIE about it.
It's the main and biggest one of your ""ethical lies"".

> >And you brought up his wife, but you're SUPERIOR???
>
> No, I did not her up. You know precisely who did.

You DID bring her up, this month and in THIS thread.
If there was ever any hazard in mentioning her, then
WHY did you bring her up YET AGAIN?

Ironically claiming you are helping her security????

If that were true, then anybody else who mentioned
her name must have ALSO been enhancing her security?

> And YOU started that with your [f-bomb] "You are a retired caseworker
> Donald L. Fisher" ****.

Remember that you said you "set up" that person as a "false trail".

> You are, little man, trust me, going to be eating that for a very very
> long time.

For YEARS you expended great effort to harass people, made insulting
and abusive comments towards opponents, posted obscenities
and worked hard to create much animosity, all from the
comfort of an anonymous identity. You ABUSED anonymity.
You thought anonymity was a license to abuse others without recourse.
When ID'd your lame defense was to tell one of those
""ethical lies"" that you had set up Donald as a "false trail".
This LIE was of course transparent.

> >> I won't forget you, little ****ant.
>
> >Yes, I know you are OBSESSIVE!
>
> Let me see. Am I obsessive about people's safety?

You got CARRIED AWAY with the idea you
were anonymous and could abuse people with impunity.
You apparently FORGOT that you had PUBLICLY
identified yourself years before.

You and your associates should have considered that
when you posted my SO's name and taunted me
using her name various times.

Did you have delusions about enhancing HER security also?

> Am I obsessive about people making both oblique and insinuating
> threats by third party attention getting?

Describing your own actions again?

> Hmmmmm....If you saw a poster here with a new nym that played on
> Lisa's name, and that poster was abusive of you, lied, otherwise
> conducted themselves in dishonorable ways, would that draw your
> attention to the fact the poster was using LISA's name, or a part of
> it, hence LISA was being drawn into a risky situation.

Perhaps you should have thought more before you did this.

> If you make someone obsessive you little [f-bomb] low life [ed],
> you damn well are going to get the attention you are bucking for, and
> very possibly more.

That kind of sums up my position about YOU, Donald!
You complain about your security after you worked
very hard to create hostility in many people.

> Or don't you actually care about [redacted], Greg?

I didn't make you obsessive.
You are a fanatic, an idealogue maniac.
Did your childhood ADHD blossom into full blown mental illness?

> >> What goes around comes around.
>
> >Cliche' and empty coming from you.
>
> I just love a good appropriate cliche', don't you?
>
> You seem to talk in a pattern of them.
>
> Go **** your self, stupid.

Does your ISP know you post like this?
Does your profanity indicate your logic is superior? <g>

> >> You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher
> >> and his family stay nice and safe.
>
> >Remember you said you used Donald L. Fisher
> >as a "false trail".
>
> Yep. It was forced upon me because I used
> his computer at his workplace.

Good luck with that one!

> Much was made of that here. You don't recall, stupid?
> ONCE YOU PEOPLE STUCK HIS NAME IN HERE

Donald L. Fisher posted in PUBLIC newsgroups.

> YOU LEFT ME LITTLE CHOICE.

Awwwww!

> >That means YOU set up Donald more than I did!
>
> Whe, stupid, first mentioned his name in these newsgroups and tried to
> make out I was him?
>
> Go on...tell us, you lying bag of pig pus.
>
> >And Donald posted his info PUBLICLY on the WEB.
>
> Here? In these newsgroups?
>
> Can I assume then that anyone that posts their information publicly
> that YOU decide is ME, then is at risk?

At risk of what?
Were they all hiding behind a duck blind of anonymity
to harass others with no consequences?
Did they all brag how they publicly posted gratuitous
obscenty for over a year?

Was their name lifted from a letter they sent
to a Congressional Ways and Means committee?

> >And you worked so hard for YEARS to create
> >hatred for yourself for that ""false trail""?
>
> Nope. That was YOUR doing, Greg. YOU are a [f-bomb]
> lying little ****ant child abuser, aren't you?

You are an obsessed witch hunting mental case.

> >Even gratuitously posting obscenity PUBLICLY
> >almost daily for an entire YEAR.
>
> RR R R R R .... no one these days takes that seriously, you dumb [f-bomb].
> There is no law against it. And if you think you have the right to put
> others at risk just because they don't like you and tell you to get
> [f-bomb], you are in deep deep [ed] little boy.

You and your cohorts posted my SO's name.

> >Your "ethical lies" are transparent DONALD.
>
> As what, stupid?.
>
>
>
> >When Michael went to DONALD's neighborhood
> >you screeched like a HOWLER MONKEY.
>
> That was not the sound you heard.
>
> >> Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.
>
> >You are your OWN worst enemy Donald.
>
> Bull****. I'm not Donald and I have a right to post here, without YOU
> or anyone else trying to set Don and his wife. Up.

Which ISP supports your right to PUBLICLY post profuse obscenity?

You ARE Donald L. Fisher and you're wetting yourself because
you thought you were anonymous and thought you
could verbally (textually) abuse, harass, taunt and threaten
endlessly while hiding behind a "duck blind" of anonymity.
You ABUSED anonymity.
You admitted that YOU set up Donald as a "false trail".

> As I said, YOU best prey nothing happens to either of them, as I have
> gone to considerable trouble to see that YOU will be among the first
> to feel the effects.
>
> >By naming others ""to protect them"" you might be their enemy also.
>
> Anything is possible. But I never brought them to this newsgroup,
> Greg.
>
> YOU and your sick stupid dishonorable buddies did.
>
> [f-bomb] you and everyone like you.
>
> You vicious sick little [expletive deleted] sucking [expletive deleted].

What ISP supports your PUBLIC posting of profanity?

Siege mentality comments and gratuitous obscenity?
Would the "debate society" be proud of you?

[0:-]]

On 11 Mar 2007 01:49:49 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:

>On Mar 9, 9:48 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2007 16:57:47 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 9, 3:03 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
>> >> On 9 Mar 2007 12:40:19 -0800, "Greegor" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >What's your point, Donald?
>>
>> >> Are you addressing me, Greg?
>>
>> >> >Bringing your wife ( or is it ex? ) into this? Why?
>>
>> >> Well, I can't speak for Donald, but I can respond to your question.
>>
>> >> Who brought AnneF-> into this, Greg?
>>
>> You didn't answer. Why?
>
>It's OBVIOUS Kane, YOU did!

Then you are saying that I'm the cowardly poster hiding behind the
Nym, "AnneF AFfromdreamland@..."?

Well, ask Doan to run it down for you. He might be able to find the
owner of the account using USC ISP services for mail and newsgroup
posting delivery.

If it's me, I'll certainly own up. And I presume whoever he finds will
do the right thing and own up as well.
>
>Posting her name to enhance her security is
>like Fornicating for virginity!

Once the name is posted, as YOU did, when you asked, in a single post,
if was not Don Fisher, and you named his wife, and you named some poor
lady at the University of Washington and some poor innocent man in
Bend Or, YOU, Greg, set the stage for ME to have to defend all those
folks.

I can't ignore your blather without the risk of people assuming you
are telling truth, now can I Greg??

Especially considering the history in ascps of death wishes and even
describing how to do it (the line was crossed, legally) to workers,
and claiming that Don Fisher was a CPS worker.

>> >> Or do you think those are my posts screeching the usual Doan nonsense?
>>
>> You still didn't answer. What, no denial?
>>
>> >> I brought up Don's wife for a particular purpose, and what that is is
>> >> none of your business.
>>
>> >Then WHY did you publicly post it you moron?
>>
>> "...for a particular purpose, and what that is is none of your
>> business."
>
>When you posted it PUBLICLY on the World Wide Web
>your purpose is none of my business??

Yep.

Who posted it first, Greg?

Who continues to post the clever little threat by insinuation using
parts of Don's wife's name, Greg?

Who keeps screeching, when they can't mount a reasonable logical
argument and wish to discredit mine, "Kane is Donald L. Fisher a
retired...etc. etc. etc.and he live in etc. and his wife is etc..."

Is that me, Greg, or is that YOU, little ****ant?
>
>Seriously dude, your mental illness has gotten worse.
>

Let me see now. YOU post Fisher's name, that of his wife, his supposed
location, his supposed daughter's name and where she is alleged to
work, and *I* have a mental illness?

Hmmmmm....go to the DSM-IV. See if you can't find something that
addresses paranoid and threatening behavior like YOURS.
>>
>> Why bother to ask? Never assume when give away information that it's
>> not well thought out, no matter how the old coot yaks it up.
>>
>> Or jabs you in your testoterone gland.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> But I'll share this much with you....it is partly to increase the
>> >> protection for her.
>>
>> Aren't I generous with information.
>>
>> >Have you obtained her permission to be "protected" this way Don?
>>
>> What have I said that would require getting her permission? I did not
>> post her name. Did you?
>>
>> Did you post her husband's name?
>
>I posted YOUR name.

You posted a name. Did you not post Donald L. Fisher's name, along
with Ann Fisher's name, identifying her as an author of home schooling
books? And indicating she has a website?

And did you not name a Calle (sp) Fisher as his daughter, and point to
her employment...where with a name like that she'd be an easy lookup?

>
>> Who first, to these newsgroups, brought up Donald L. Fisher of Bend
>> Oregon and claimed I was him, Greg?

Why did you not answer this question above? Something to hide?

>> This is what I mean about you being too stupid to keep things properly
>> sorted out.
>>
>> You still don't see where that puts you, do you stupid boy?
>>
>> YOU force ME to deal with the ISSUE.
>
>You're getting help for your Megalomania?

You getting help for your hysterical blindness and fantasy that doing
what you've done doesn't constitute a very real risk to others?

Don't you even watch the news on TV?

>> And so do your cronies, so don't
>> try giving me this crap about ME creating the problem just because I
>> can't stomach you sick ****s, and whip your sorry asses regular.
>
>By flapping your gums?

By responding to YOUR repeated blatant display of their names.

>> Neither Don, nor AnneF had or have a damn thing to do with this
>> newsgroup or what transpires here.
>>
>> YOU AND OTHERS BRING THEM
>
>YOU brought in Ann claiming it was for her good!

That is not what I said.

>Yer a freakin mental case!

You misrepresenting what I said is more likely to be seen as either
complicit or mental, Greg.

>
>> IN TO TRY AND SUPPRESS MY PARTICIPATION
>
>WHY would anybody want to suppress your much
>bragged about year of posting gratuitous obscenity?

That's your excuse?

What about my obscenity creates any threat to persons lives or
physical safety, Greg?

Or to the income of a much respected author on home schooling?

>>or your obscene epithets toward a grandmother named Fern?

You need to look at the sequence of events, Greg.

And the fact that Fern posted under a Nym. There is no proof or even
indication that she's is even a women, let alone a grandmother, until
YOU make that claim, LONG after the exchanges I had with "FernNNNN"
>
>> HAVE BUILT YOURSELF ONE [f-bomb] HONKING TRAP
>> FOR YOURSELVES, stupid little punks.
>
>Run short on your psych meds there mental case?
>More Megalomania and delusions of grandeur?

I'm not the one posting people's names and identifying locales in a ng
notorious for death talk and actual threats against that profession.
>
>> You are cowardly bullies.
>
>You posted your wife (or ex-wife)'s name. Is that brave?

I didn't post my wife's name. I posted Don's wife's name.

And ONLY, if you'll take notice, once YOU people did, Greg.

Was I supposed to run?

>You and Dan have posted my SO's name. Was that brave?

Yes. Is she or was she related to a class of people death threats are
made against in this ng?

Did YOU not bring your case, that included her, into this ng?

When did Don Fisher come here and discuss his "case" that involved his
wife, Greg.

Did I ever mention his wife here BEFORE you did?
>
>> So was Fern.
>
>Yes, you made it clear recently she is EVIL!

Yep. I consider people that would look at a case like that church
case, in a newsgroup like either ascps, and aps, and NOT mention the
moral issues involved, and excuse the preacher's actions by ONLY
focusing on his "constitutional rights" as immoral. Evil, if you will.

>because
>she was in favor of protecting the civil rights

Nope. I made NO such claim. Mine was that she ONLY discussed HIS civil
rights, and NOT the rights of the children to be safe under THE BILL
OF RIGHTS.

>of a man
>who was AQUITTED by a JURY but who broke your
>abberant idea of the rules.

Let me see now, I don't want children beaten. But MY idea of rules is
abberant...mmmmmhhhhhmmmmmm.

>Evil, evil E-V-I-L Fern!

Absolutely. And remember, we are discussing someone using a Nym here.
I don't know the person that uses that nym.

>She is a bully because she agreed with a JURY!
>EVIL!

Yes. Absolutely, if she excused the beating by agreeing with them.

I made NO charge that she was wrong to defend his CIVIL rights.

I do that she would ignore those of the children, and that she would
ignore the pain and suffering of the children involved.

And I think the same of you, and others that refused to argue the
moral question and kept crawling back on your slimy bellies to your
circular reasoning that it had to be okay because the jury said so.

>
>> >More to the point, do you think a JURY would see bringing up
>> >this persons name as ""protection"" ????
>>
>> Yes, for I too have to go through certain "one way gates," to exercise
>> my constitutional right to free speech. Those that might either
>> threaten that by alluding to, insinuating, that they might harm or
>> otherwise interfer with me or other people are the ones at risk, Greg.
>>
>> > You're DELUSIONAL.
>>
>> You keep thinking that, boy.
>
>> >> I will again, from time to time, you can be sure.
>>
>> >I can't get between you and your wierd comppulsions.
>>
>> Quoting my secret source, "That's because you are STUPID! Hihihi!"
>>
>> >> Thugs need to KNOW they are being watched. It's always been that way.
>>
>> >Did it ever stop you?
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>Of course!

You agree then that your comment in form of a question does not
respond to what proceeded it?

Okay. 0:]

>> >> You turn your back on them, you let them rest with their little smirks
>> >> of thuggish gleeful lust, you invite them to do MORE.
>>
>> >Like when Fern left
>>
>> Why did she leave?


No answer. As usual. Just duck the harder questions. Nice going,
cheat.

>>
>> >and you pull your usual cowardly
>>
>> You call confronting someone that routinely consorted with sick ****s
>> here as buddies anything BUT cowardly? Fern was YOUR buddy, buddy.
>>
>> And look at the list of them.
>>
>> >complaints 6 months after she left?
>>
>> Against Fern? Nothing is stopping her from replying, and my complaints
>> weren't about her, but about you and others failing to step up when
>> she made outrageous claims in the past, and excused beating of
>> children by church members.
>>
>> What she did is all in the record. Notice I'm not speaking to HER
>> about her actions here, but to YOU for YOUR actions and inactions.
>
>And this is supposed to be exciting or what?

I don't know what excites you, beyond a strong possibility it might
have something to do with little girls and showers.

Or was I mistaken in what read that you wrote?

>>
>> You have a great deal of difficulty sorting things out, I fear.
>
>In regard to sorting things out, you have recently
>posted your gibberish about Doan in a thread
>where that subject had absolutely no place.
>Are your cognitive processes malfunctioning?

What an odd question from someone that for four years plus could not
stay on topic in post after post, and drug the discussion, sometimes
by might leaps and bounds, to "my case with Iowa CPS."

>
>> >> And by the way, you are a ****ant..
>>
>> >Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Hatemail from Hitler is PRAISE!
>>
>> Feelings? What about Hitler are you saying I am or do?
>
>You're a Meglomaniac with delusions of grandeur, for starters.

Still can't find it in the DSM-IV?

>> >> I note you still wish to be part of this, and you still want to claim
>> >> I'm Don, and you know perfectly well the risks to Don and his family.
>
>YOU claimed that YOU set Don up as a FALSE TRAIL.
>This was an attempt to cover up the fact that you ARE Donald.

No. That was to put more separation between he and I because he does
not deserve to be threatened.

It's called confusing the enemy, Greg. You **** ants don't get to be
sure of your target.

>If you were not Donald, and you knew him, why would you
>set up an innocent friend to get feedback from your
>verbal (textual) abusive comments? The obvious answer is you
>wouldn't.

Let me see now, I suffer from megalomania, but you answer for
me...uuummmmhuuummmm..

>Ergo you ARE Donald, but you LIE about it.
>It's the main and biggest one of your ""ethical lies"".

And you are absolutely sure of your supposition, right?

Yet, you don't provide proof. You won't, presumably, call Donald L.
Fisher in Bend Oregon and get back to us. You run when I point out
that YOU posted his name here FIRST, before me, Greg.

As did others.

I DID NOT POST DON FISHER'S NAME IN THIS NEWSGROUP..until others did
with accusations.

>> >And you brought up his wife, but you're SUPERIOR???
>>
>> No, I did not her up. You know precisely who did.
>
>You DID bring her up, this month and in THIS thread.

Nope. Not until others did.

>If there was ever any hazard in mentioning her, then
>WHY did you bring her up YET AGAIN?

On what do you base your claim there is no hazard?
>
>Ironically claiming you are helping her security????

Yep. Since she was brought into this and more distant discussions
here, there is little choice but to respond with answer to the
accusations you and others make....

Like the claim that her husbands sells babies, by advertising them on
the Web.

Have you forgotten your own very recent response to the Rumanian?
>
>If that were true, then anybody else who mentioned
>her name must have ALSO been enhancing her security?

No. They aren't me, nor are they Don.

They are people that have participated in various activities to
dehumanize Don Fisher, make false claims, and wish him death, and his
"daughter's raped" among other things.

They have previously classified him with others they have made death
threats against.

>> And YOU started that with your [f-bomb] "You are a retired caseworker
>> Donald L. Fisher" ****.
>
>Remember that you said you "set up" that person as a "false trail".

I set up a false trail AFTER he was named in these newsgroups, dummy.
And it was claimed he was me.

>> You are, little man, trust me, going to be eating that for a very very
>> long time.
>
>For YEARS you expended great effort to harass people,

Greg, you stand indicted as a class A (for Asshole) harasser.

New posters here, that come for help against CPS get routinely beat up
by you and run off almost immediately.

And those here that have helped families, or recovered their own
children and successfully dealt with their CPS case have been YOUR
routine targets.

Don't give me any **** about my arguments against you ****ants.

>made insulting
>and abusive comments towards opponents, posted obscenities
>and worked hard to create much animosity, all from the
>comfort of an anonymous identity. You ABUSED anonymity.

You abuse families and children fighting CPS, Greg. That's why I
'abuse' YOU.

>You thought anonymity was a license to abuse others without recourse.
>When ID'd your lame defense was to tell one of those
>""ethical lies"" that you had set up Donald as a "false trail".
>This LIE was of course transparent.

And so you and your cronies bring Don Fisher into the argument, but
provide NO proof I'm him?

Interesting line of argument, Greg.

And you bring in his Wife?

And his "daughter's" or daughter, NAMING HER? And in fact getting that
wrong?

The woman in Washington is no relation to Don Fisher, or he lied to
me. I suspect he's telling the truth, and YOU are posting inaccurate
information about not even remotely connected to this issue, Greg.

>> >> I won't forget you, little ****ant.
>>
>> >Yes, I know you are OBSESSIVE!
>>
>> Let me see. Am I obsessive about people's safety?
>
>You got CARRIED AWAY with the idea you
>were anonymous and could abuse people with impunity.

Odd, I recall every single one of you being able to answer back, in
full, and many from the "comfort of an anonymous identity."

Doan won't post his full name. Fern posted and was abusive of others,
and ran a lot of freely insulting bull****, such as claiming someone's
Doctorate was a mail order degree (a flat out libelous falsehood,
stupid).

Your buddy Dennis posted for a considerable time under two or three
nyms that were uncovered as him. WITH PROOF.

He attacked from "comfort of an anonymous identity."

observer?

bobb?

KillCPSbob, who became "Destroy?"

And dozens of socks of various brands and weaving 0:]

>You apparently FORGOT that you had PUBLICLY
>identified yourself years before.

Oh, then your claim I post from the "comfort of an anonymous
identity," is believe by even YOU TO BE YOUR LIE.

Interesting.

>You and your associates should have considered that
>when you posted my SO's name and taunted me
>using her name various times.

At no time was Lisa, either as a private person, or as a member of a
class of people mentioned in any death threats, or "rape your
daughters," little man.

She has been treated well except to question her choices concerning
YOU, ****ant.

Did you not post reference to your testimony to a congressional
committee where her name and address was publicly posted?

Did you not post that you were from (and we presume living) in a city
in Iowa?

>
>Did you have delusions about enhancing HER security also?
>

When was her security threatened?

Was she named as paramour of a class of people threatened with death?

Was she associated with someone accused of selling babies by
advertising them on The Web?

You are aware that many of the parents of hard to place children would
be, by obvious circumstances, criminally associated, and dangerous
persons?

Like I said, you don't bother to sort things out, Greg, before you hit
that Send button.

Is Lisa married to an alleged baby seller?

Is she married to a CPS worker?

Is she married to a class of persons specifically named in these
newsgroups as subject to rationalized MURDER, Greg?

Anyone wished her husband dead? Anyone wish her daughter's raped?

You are too stupid to believe.

>> Am I obsessive about people making both oblique and insinuating
>> threats by third party attention getting?
>
>Describing your own actions again?

No, those of you and our cronies.

>> Hmmmmm....If you saw a poster here with a new nym that played on
>> Lisa's name, and that poster was abusive of you, lied, otherwise
>> conducted themselves in dishonorable ways, would that draw your
>> attention to the fact the poster was using LISA's name, or a part of
>> it, hence LISA was being drawn into a risky situation.
>
>Perhaps you should have thought more before you did this.

Did what?

Point to where I've wished harm to Lisa, or her daughter. Have you
seen me write her name in relation to any threats to you or her or her
daughter, such as YOU have done in this newsgroup where such threats
have been made to Don and his?

You are too stupid for words, little man.

>> If you make someone obsessive you little [f-bomb] low life [ed],
>> you damn well are going to get the attention you are bucking for, and
>> very possibly more.
>
>That kind of sums up my position about YOU, Donald!

So my discussion with you of YOUR case, that YOU keep bringing up,
amounts to the same as you bringing up the Fisher family here?

Please explain.

>You complain about your security after you worked
>very hard to create hostility in many people.

YOU worked hard to create the hostility you have found here. So have
about a dozen other people that have attacked innocent bystanders (Don
and family...and even strangers with the same last name) and most of
those have done so from anonymity...your excuse for attacking Don, or
me, however you wish to have it.

Did you stop to think about the consequences to YOU, should I happen
to turn out to BE Don Fisher and admit it here?

Man you are stupid.

>> Or don't you actually care about [redacted], Greg?
>
>I didn't make you obsessive.

Count the number of times you have spontaneously brought up the Fisher
name, Greg.

Most recently claiming he sells babies by advertising on the Web.

>You are a fanatic, an idealogue maniac.

Actually, Greg, that is a perfect description of you. You have a one
note tune you sing about CPS endlessly.

You attack people that have beaten CPS, which is very strange,
considering the tune you sing.

>Did your childhood ADHD blossom into full blown mental illness?

Did your showering little girls blossom into pedophilia?

>> >> What goes around comes around.
>>
>> >Cliche' and empty coming from you.
>>
>> I just love a good appropriate cliche', don't you?
>>
>> You seem to talk in a pattern of them.
>>
>> Go **** your self, stupid.
>
>Does your ISP know you post like this?

Of course. Do you think posting a note to them will result in any more
than a chuckle. This is the Internet, Greg. There is NO rule against
obscenity here.

>Does your profanity indicate your logic is superior? <g>

Nope. My logic does, when it comes to you and your cronies.

The obscenity comes with out any charge.

>> >> You, and your thug buddies, best prey Fisher
>> >> and his family stay nice and safe.
>>
>> >Remember you said you used Donald L. Fisher
>> >as a "false trail".
>>
>> Yep. It was forced upon me because I used
>> his computer at his workplace.
>
>Good luck with that one!

I never brought up Don Fisher's name here spontaneously. It has come
out of a FIRST mention by others, Greg.

And a continual trail of more mention by others.

>> Much was made of that here. You don't recall, stupid?
>> ONCE YOU PEOPLE STUCK HIS NAME IN HERE
>
>Donald L. Fisher posted in PUBLIC newsgroups.

And this has what do to with THIS newsgroup, and the repeated mention
of him, with threat against him and his family, in this newsgroup?

>
>> YOU LEFT ME LITTLE CHOICE.
>
>Awwwww!

I believe your sympathy is wasted. Save it for yourself.

>> >That means YOU set up Donald more than I did!
>>
>> Whe, stupid, first mentioned his name in these newsgroups and tried to
>> make out I was him?
>>
>> Go on...tell us, you lying bag of pig pus.
>>
>> >And Donald posted his info PUBLICLY on the WEB.
>>
>> Here? In these newsgroups?
>>
>> Can I assume then that anyone that posts their information publicly
>> that YOU decide is ME, then is at risk?
>
>At risk of what?

Go back and read this newsgroup..ascps..for years, and very recently
as well. You missed the death wishes for a class of people, and about
DON FISHER himself, and threats to his family?

>Were they all hiding behind a duck blind of anonymity
>to harass others with no consequences?

Most were, stupid. Some where your own friends.

Some simply posters here that you had to have read.

>Did they all brag how they publicly posted gratuitous
>obscenty for over a year?

You aren't going to claim some of my opponents didn't use obscenity,
now are you?

>Was their name lifted from a letter they sent
>to a Congressional Ways and Means committee?

Did you not brag about that letter?

When did Don Fisher come here and engage in this newsgroup topic?

>> >And you worked so hard for YEARS to create
>> >hatred for yourself for that ""false trail""?
>>
>> Nope. That was YOUR doing, Greg. YOU are a [f-bomb]
>> lying little ****ant child abuser, aren't you?
>
>You are an obsessed witch hunting mental case.

Nope. I'm obsessed with child abusers, as many are, and wish the
abuses to stop.

>> >Even gratuitously posting obscenity PUBLICLY
>> >almost daily for an entire YEAR.
>>
>> RR R R R R .... no one these days takes that seriously, you dumb [f-bomb].
>> There is no law against it. And if you think you have the right to put
>> others at risk just because they don't like you and tell you to get
>> [f-bomb], you are in deep deep [ed] little boy.
>
>You and your cohorts posted my SO's name.

You identified her by location and relation to YOU and your
activities, Greg.

Don Fisher never came here and ID'd his wife, or anyone else.

YOU folks did that, stupid.

>> >Your "ethical lies" are transparent DONALD.
>>
>> As what, stupid?.
>>
>>
>>
>> >When Michael went to DONALD's neighborhood
>> >you screeched like a HOWLER MONKEY.
>>
>> That was not the sound you heard.
>>
>> >> Your attempts to silence me, are duly noted, ****ant.
>>
>> >You are your OWN worst enemy Donald.
>>
>> Bull****. I'm not Donald and I have a right to post here, without YOU
>> or anyone else trying to set Don and his wife. Up.
>
>Which ISP supports your right to PUBLICLY post profuse obscenity?

Almost all, stupid, as to Web posting, and especially in an
unregulated setting...USENET.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Profanity+%2BUsenet&btnG=Search

ISPs can, if they wish, limit such things, but those that provide
USENET access service, pretty much stay out of that problem because
it's UN****ING REGULATED, stupid.

That IS the point of Usenet.

You don't see me posting to places that do regulate, with obscenity.

>You ARE Donald L. Fisher

You have no proof.

>and you're wetting yourself

Projection. The one thing you can't do on Usenet, for sure, is make
claims like someone is a baby seller. Now you can call "Kane" the
anonymous poster, a baby seller and I'll laugh all day at you, but you
named a real person and called him a baby seller and "good mixed race
child" adoption advertiser. And asked your poster, 'what's the price.'

And you can't figure out what you did, but I'll bet it's starting to
soak into your....Depends.

>because
>you thought you were anonymous and thought you
>could verbally (textually) abuse, harass, taunt and threaten
>endlessly while hiding behind a "duck blind" of anonymity.

Well, that's Usenet for you. And how child abusers and those that
excuse and try to help child abusers can expect to be treated here.

Did I ever accuse you of selling "good mixed race babies," Greg?

>You ABUSED anonymity.

You can't abuse it where it's allowed, stupid. Or you have to speak to
whoever is posting as AnneF-> and his or her abuse of Doan by
pretending to be him by way of using a lot of his signature words and
phrases.

>You admitted that YOU set up Donald as a "false trail".

I admitted that after someone tried to LINK us, I did that very thing.

There aren't a lot of choices in such instances. I could run from the
coward that first posted that, or I could meet it head on. I, and with
Don's permission, given the agency he worked for and the routine
threats to employees by the criminal element among the client they
serve, decided upon a head on method.

You like?

Or do you admire those more that run...like so many of your buddies
have when confronted with their risky behavior?

>> As I said, YOU best prey nothing happens to either of them, as I have
>> gone to considerable trouble to see that YOU will be among the first
>> to feel the effects.
>>
>> >By naming others ""to protect them"" you might be their enemy also.
>>
>> Anything is possible. But I never brought them to this newsgroup,
>> Greg.
>>
>> YOU and your sick stupid dishonorable buddies did.
>>
>> [f-bomb] you and everyone like you.
>>
>> You vicious sick little [expletive deleted] sucking [expletive deleted].
>
>What ISP supports your PUBLIC posting of profanity?

This is usenet, Stupid. If I wrote you private e-mail using the same
language you'd have every right to expect my ISP to take some action.

In fact, I do suspect a recent acquaintance of ours...well, yours, ran
into the same problem...private wild accusatory obscenity filled
attacks, and even claims of the other person being a racist, by way of
forging their signature.

>Siege mentality comments and gratuitous obscenity?
>Would the "debate society" be proud of you?

I'd say the repeated mention of Don's name, and others related or
connect to him, or even those connected only by the coincidence of
name, AND the claims like "mixed race baby seller," creates a siege
atmosphere, wouldn't you?

Now if you want to make fun of a court pleading I've authored, or
discuss my anonymous wife, Pohaku Wahine, then feel free.

But you called Don Fisher a baby seller. That is an ILLEGAL activity.

You may attack ME, but you may not attack him.

And were I HIM I'd be obligated, as Kane to both continue playing with
your sorry assed, or when and if you decided you could and did come up
with proof, I'd be forced to take action..by alerting him and letting
HIM take the action.

Who I am is of NO consequence, Greg.

Not in an unregulated forum.

And as long as I speak against those that have made ANY effort to
remain anonymous, or have posted their OWN stories personally for
opinion (which you have) I am most certainly not in a class of ****ant
thugs such as you.

How much patience do you reckon Don has, little boy?

Kane

[0:-]]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:12:50 -0700, "0:-]" >
wrote: ... Is the stupid little p****, that allows himself to be used
like a lab rat by his cronies, out to threaten Don Fisher and his
family to suppress the right of free speech of Kane?

Judge for yourself. He claim I "brought" up Fisher's name and that of
family and circumstances...

There has been a continuous string of Fisher being brought up by Greg,
and now and then other immoral dangerous thugs. This might help
clarify this issue for you Greg, but trust me, your cronies will try
to pooh pooh it to use you some MORE for their agenda...the coward.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/f311ba92015f513/939545f3290ae00c?lnk=st&q=%2Bfisher+%2Bkane+%2BAnn&rnum=1&hl=en#939545f3290ae00c

http://tinyurl.com/2gwcz8

In other words, Greg and his friends, believing that I am Fisher, when
to a great deal of trouble to background him in the belief they could
silence me.

The question remains, however, exactly what would be the significance
if Don Fisher actually posted here?

Even if under a nym?

Has Greg involved himself with baiters....the kind that pulled the
Christians into rash and costly actions?

Well, Greg once was asked about his apparent belief, then withdrew
under pressure, the use of lethal force by parents against state
workers could be equated with the use of force police represent by
carry a gun.

Gosh it only took me two years of constant questions to get him to
actually state he wouldn't support it.

I promised I wouldn'd bring this up again. I have decided to change my
mind for Greg's own good. I am bringing it up now to impress on him
the danger he's put himself in, and he's let others put him in, by his
actions and accusations.

So, Greg, a new question.

Why did you align yourself with the poster that put up long dead links
to Oregon's waiting minority children on an adoption website, and used
that site to defame Donald Fisher, and those who adopt mixed race
children?

Why have you used those circumstances to attack Don Fisher yourself?

Why did you use terms like, "good mixed race babies," along with
"what's the price?"

Were you NOT suggesting that Fisher sold babies?

Do you in fact claim he was or is a baby seller?

It is impossible for you to NOT know, especially given your recent
story about workers being threatened about entering high crime areas,
that many of the child that are adopted are in fact from parents that
are criminals.

Thus, Greg, supporting the person that went out of his way to put Don
Fisher, and those children and their families in danger.

Do you EVER think, Greg?

Do you ever stop to sort things OUT before you post your dangerous
nonsense?

I find it fascinating, and a sure sign that YOU know and knew what you
were doing that Google group messages from you in the Ukraine babies
thread are missing.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/240c549771193a3d/2e77a9492462df0c?tvc=1&hl=en#2e77a9492462df0c

The very ones in which you call Fisher a baby marketer by asking him
how the Ukrainian one's differ.

fascinating you'd remove those. I'll let you read them again, from the
copies that I have in my newsreader cache.

Possibly you'd like to rethink your concerns about Donald Fisher's and
the state of Oregon's "baby marketing," enterprise and have another
discussion about that here in this newsgroup where you appear to
making that charge, and agreeing with the original poster of that
claim?

Missing post 4 Greegor Mar 3:

[[[ What my files show was said by Greg in that post: ]]]

G > Apartments, Real Estate, Dating, Matrimonials
G > and International adoptions?
G > You're a busy fellow Konstantyn!

Kane wrote
> Oh brilliant, just brilliant. Responding to spammers as though they
> are a serious issue here to these newsgroups.
> Your head rattles a lot when you nod, "Yes," doesn't it?

Do you think he's a real baby seller or a fake baby seller?
How much does a Ukrainian baby cost?
Or is it a pfishing/bank fraud/identity fraud scam?

How different is his baby marketing from yours, Donald L. Fisher?
[[[ why did you have the post pulled, Greg? Aren't you proud of your
stand on baby sellers? If I thought someone was selling babies I'd be
happy to post it and leave it. ]]]

Now for post 6 Greegor Mar 3

....also now missing from Google. Of course I can find it elsewhere,
just like the children's files were archived...so were YOURS, stupid.
Don't you think this if justice though? I know I DO.

You supported and still do in subsequent posts, someone using archived
files to embarrass and even possibly threaten the safety of children
and their families....something you seem oblivious to...here, and
again in this instance.

Here's what you had to say in that post, Greg:
....You're just mad because the archive exposed some
agency dirt the agency wanted buried or destroyed.
And you kiss agency ass constantly Kane!

Anybody who looks at the archive can see
how the state ""marketed"" children publicly. ...

Now you have to wonder if I've alerted the state to THIS thread, like
the one on the waiting child website.

hhmmmmm...now the next one is really curious. Here you don't just
stick your foot in it, when I confront you, Greg. You are wading hip
deep in your ****.

9 Greegor Mar 7:

OPPS! Greg, OOOOOOPPPPPPS!

I hope you have a "sent" folder on your newsreader, because I'm saving
this one without revealing what you said. I think it will be more
useful that way.

But YOU can look at it in your Sent folder and cogitate, and figure
out what you are going to "pretend to claim," as you like to say, just
exactly what you meant about the state, and Don Fisher.

You just get smarter by the day, don't you, little boy?

Here I am trying to help you stop this kind of self endangering
nonsense and on you go...exercising your free speech.

Well, far be it from me to stop a fool from exercising his free
speech, or even suggesting...at this late date, he exercise it to pull
his ass out of the hot water he's obviously gotten himself into.

Kane

[Firemonkey]

Let this little bitch fry Kane, no one is more deserving of whatever
comes his way.
Maybe someone will wash his private parts with some acid and a wire
brush.


On Mar 11, 5:24 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:12:50 -0700, "0:-]" >
> wrote: ... Is the stupid little p****, that allows himself to be used
> like a lab rat by his cronies, out to threaten Don Fisher and his
> family to suppress the right of free speech of Kane?
>
> Judge for yourself. He claim I "brought" up Fisher's name and that of
> family and circumstances...
>
> There has been a continuous string of Fisher being brought up by Greg,
> and now and then other immoral dangerous thugs. This might help
> clarify this issue for you Greg, but trust me, your cronies will try
> to pooh pooh it to use you some MORE for their agenda...the coward.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2gwcz8
>
> In other words, Greg and his friends, believing that I am Fisher, when
> to a great deal of trouble to background him in the belief they could
> silence me.
>
> The question remains, however, exactly what would be the significance
> if Don Fisher actually posted here?
>
> Even if under a nym?
>
> Has Greg involved himself with baiters....the kind that pulled the
> Christians into rash and costly actions?
>
> Well, Greg once was asked about his apparent belief, then withdrew
> under pressure, the use of lethal force by parents against state
> workers could be equated with the use of force police represent by
> carry a gun.
>
> Gosh it only took me two years of constant questions to get him to
> actually state he wouldn't support it.
>
> I promised I wouldn'd bring this up again. I have decided to change my
> mind for Greg's own good. I am bringing it up now to impress on him
> the danger he's put himself in, and he's let others put him in, by his
> actions and accusations.
>
> So, Greg, a new question.
>
> Why did you align yourself with the poster that put up long dead links
> to Oregon's waiting minority children on an adoption website, and used
> that site to defame Donald Fisher, and those who adopt mixed race
> children?
>
> Why have you used those circumstances to attack Don Fisher yourself?
>
> Why did you use terms like, "good mixed race babies," along with
> "what's the price?"
>
> Were you NOT suggesting that Fisher sold babies?
>
> Do you in fact claim he was or is a baby seller?
>
> It is impossible for you to NOT know, especially given your recent
> story about workers being threatened about entering high crime areas,
> that many of the child that are adopted are in fact from parents that
> are criminals.
>
> Thus, Greg, supporting the person that went out of his way to put Don
> Fisher, and those children and their families in danger.
>
> Do you EVER think, Greg?
>
> Do you ever stop to sort things OUT before you post your dangerous
> nonsense?
>
> I find it fascinating, and a sure sign that YOU know and knew what you
> were doing that Google group messages from you in the Ukraine babies
> thread are missing.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> The very ones in which you call Fisher a baby marketer by asking him
> how the Ukrainian one's differ.
>
> fascinating you'd remove those. I'll let you read them again, from the
> copies that I have in my newsreader cache.
>
> Possibly you'd like to rethink your concerns about Donald Fisher's and
> the state of Oregon's "baby marketing," enterprise and have another
> discussion about that here in this newsgroup where you appear to
> making that charge, and agreeing with the original poster of that
> claim?
>
> Missing post 4 Greegor Mar 3:
>
> [[[ What my files show was said by Greg in that post: ]]]
>
> G > Apartments, Real Estate, Dating, Matrimonials
> G > and International adoptions?
> G > You're a busy fellow Konstantyn!
>
> Kane wrote
>
> > Oh brilliant, just brilliant. Responding to spammers as though they
> > are a serious issue here to these newsgroups.
> > Your head rattles a lot when you nod, "Yes," doesn't it?
>
> Do you think he's a real baby seller or a fake baby seller?
> How much does a Ukrainian baby cost?
> Or is it a pfishing/bank fraud/identity fraud scam?
>
> How different is his baby marketing from yours, Donald L. Fisher?
> [[[ why did you have the post pulled, Greg? Aren't you proud of your
> stand on baby sellers? If I thought someone was selling babies I'd be
> happy to post it and leave it. ]]]
>
> Now for post 6 Greegor Mar 3
>
> ...also now missing from Google. Of course I can find it elsewhere,
> just like the children's files were archived...so were YOURS, stupid.
> Don't you think this if justice though? I know I DO.
>
> You supported and still do in subsequent posts, someone using archived
> files to embarrass and even possibly threaten the safety of children
> and their families....something you seem oblivious to...here, and
> again in this instance.
>
> Here's what you had to say in that post, Greg:
> ...You're just mad because the archive exposed some
> agency dirt the agency wanted buried or destroyed.
> And you kiss agency ass constantly Kane!
>
> Anybody who looks at the archive can see
> how the state ""marketed"" children publicly. ...
>
> Now you have to wonder if I've alerted the state to THIS thread, like
> the one on the waiting child website.
>
> hhmmmmm...now the next one is really curious. Here you don't just
> stick your foot in it, when I confront you, Greg. You are wading hip
> deep in your ****.
>
> 9 Greegor Mar 7:
>
> OPPS! Greg, OOOOOOPPPPPPS!
>
> I hope you have a "sent" folder on your newsreader, because I'm saving
> this one without revealing what you said. I think it will be more
> useful that way.
>
> But YOU can look at it in your Sent folder and cogitate, and figure
> out what you are going to "pretend to claim," as you like to say, just
> exactly what you meant about the state, and Don Fisher.
>
> You just get smarter by the day, don't you, little boy?
>
> Here I am trying to help you stop this kind of self endangering
> nonsense and on you go...exercising your free speech.
>
> Well, far be it from me to stop a fool from exercising his free
> speech, or even suggesting...at this late date, he exercise it to pull
> his ass out of the hot water he's obviously gotten himself into.
>
> Kane

[Condoleezza HaHa]

Firemonkey wrote:
> Let this little bitch fry Kane, no one is more deserving of whatever
> comes his way.
> Maybe someone will wash his private parts with some acid and a wire
> brush.

Hey Don - see you got your gaggle of socks, fags, kooks, and Nambla
monkey spankers to overrun ascps. Quite a smoke screen. lol

So tell us scumbag - still rounding up kiddies for perverts?? Stll
advertising your state's most vulnerable children to usenet?

How many innocents have perished because of your issues?

You and your perverted groupies are some real weiners.

Did any of the children who were forced to suffer because of your
stupidity ever look you up??Is that why you hide behind gates and
cameras like a scared sissy??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> Then castigate ME for not doing my research as well as the opening
> accusation of lying?

Castigate a person who posted gratuitous profanity for a year?

Didn't you castigate yourself?

I was thinking of another word.

[0:->]

On Mar 14, 12:47 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> Kane wrote
>
> > Then castigate ME for not doing my research as well as the opening
> > accusation of lying?
>
> Castigate a person who posted gratuitous profanity for a year?
>
> Didn't you castigate yourself?
>
> I was thinking of another word.

In other words, as usual, ad infinitum (I was thinking of another
word), you are going to make claims, and NOT defend them when
confronted.

Okay, just checking.

Here it is again.

Just in case you change your mind and get honest:



0:-]
View profile
More options Mar 11, 3:24 pm
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men
From: "0:-]" >
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0700
Local: Sun, Mar 11 2007 3:24 pm
Subject: I he a baby seller of "good mixed race babies?"
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:12:50 -0700, "0:-]" >
wrote: ... Is the stupid little p****, that allows himself to be used
like a lab rat by his cronies, out to threaten Don Fisher and his
family to suppress the right of free speech of Kane?

Judge for yourself. He claim I "brought" up Fisher's name and that of
family and circumstances...

There has been a continuous string of Fisher being brought up by Greg,
and now and then other immoral dangerous thugs. This might help
clarify this issue for you Greg, but trust me, your cronies will try
to pooh pooh it to use you some MORE for their agenda...the coward.

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

http://tinyurl.com/2gwcz8

In other words, Greg and his friends, believing that I am Fisher, when
to a great deal of trouble to background him in the belief they could
silence me.

The question remains, however, exactly what would be the significance
if Don Fisher actually posted here?

Even if under a nym?

Has Greg involved himself with baiters....the kind that pulled the
Christians into rash and costly actions?

Well, Greg once was asked about his apparent belief, then withdrew
under pressure, the use of lethal force by parents against state
workers could be equated with the use of force police represent by
carry a gun.

Gosh it only took me two years of constant questions to get him to
actually state he wouldn't support it.

I promised I wouldn'd bring this up again. I have decided to change my
mind for Greg's own good. I am bringing it up now to impress on him
the danger he's put himself in, and he's let others put him in, by his
actions and accusations.

So, Greg, a new question.

Why did you align yourself with the poster that put up long dead links
to Oregon's waiting minority children on an adoption website, and used
that site to defame Donald Fisher, and those who adopt mixed race
children?

Why have you used those circumstances to attack Don Fisher yourself?

Why did you use terms like, "good mixed race babies," along with
"what's the price?"

Were you NOT suggesting that Fisher sold babies?

Do you in fact claim he was or is a baby seller?

It is impossible for you to NOT know, especially given your recent
story about workers being threatened about entering high crime areas,
that many of the child that are adopted are in fact from parents that
are criminals.

Thus, Greg, supporting the person that went out of his way to put Don
Fisher, and those children and their families in danger.

Do you EVER think, Greg?

Do you ever stop to sort things OUT before you post your dangerous
nonsense?

I find it fascinating, and a sure sign that YOU know and knew what you
were doing that Google group messages from you in the Ukraine babies
thread are missing.

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

The very ones in which you call Fisher a baby marketer by asking him
how the Ukrainian one's differ.

fascinating you'd remove those. I'll let you read them again, from the
copies that I have in my newsreader cache.

Possibly you'd like to rethink your concerns about Donald Fisher's and
the state of Oregon's "baby marketing," enterprise and have another
discussion about that here in this newsgroup where you appear to
making that charge, and agreeing with the original poster of that
claim?

Missing post 4 Greegor Mar 3:

[[[ What my files show was said by Greg in that post: ]]]

G > Apartments, Real Estate, Dating, Matrimonials
G > and International adoptions?
G > You're a busy fellow Konstantyn!

Kane wrote

> Oh brilliant, just brilliant. Responding to spammers as though they
> are a serious issue here to these newsgroups.
> Your head rattles a lot when you nod, "Yes," doesn't it?

Do you think he's a real baby seller or a fake baby seller?
How much does a Ukrainian baby cost?
Or is it a pfishing/bank fraud/identity fraud scam?

How different is his baby marketing from yours, Donald L. Fisher?
[[[ why did you have the post pulled, Greg? Aren't you proud of your
stand on baby sellers? If I thought someone was selling babies I'd be
happy to post it and leave it. ]]]

Now for post 6 Greegor Mar 3

....also now missing from Google. Of course I can find it elsewhere,
just like the children's files were archived...so were YOURS, stupid.
Don't you think this if justice though? I know I DO.

You supported and still do in subsequent posts, someone using archived
files to embarrass and even possibly threaten the safety of children
and their families....something you seem oblivious to...here, and
again in this instance.

Here's what you had to say in that post, Greg:
....You're just mad because the archive exposed some
agency dirt the agency wanted buried or destroyed.
And you kiss agency ass constantly Kane!

Anybody who looks at the archive can see
how the state ""marketed"" children publicly. ...

Now you have to wonder if I've alerted the state to THIS thread, like
the one on the waiting child website.

hhmmmmm...now the next one is really curious. Here you don't just
stick your foot in it, when I confront you, Greg. You are wading hip
deep in your ****.

9 Greegor Mar 7:

OPPS! Greg, OOOOOOPPPPPPS!

I hope you have a "sent" folder on your newsreader, because I'm saving
this one without revealing what you said. I think it will be more
useful that way.

But YOU can look at it in your Sent folder and cogitate, and figure
out what you are going to "pretend to claim," as you like to say, just
exactly what you meant about the state, and Don Fisher.

You just get smarter by the day, don't you, little boy?

Here I am trying to help you stop this kind of self endangering
nonsense and on you go...exercising your free speech.

Well, far be it from me to stop a fool from exercising his free
speech, or even suggesting...at this late date, he exercise it to pull
his ass out of the hot water he's obviously gotten himself into.

Kane

[Condoleezza HaHa]

0:-> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:47 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>> Kane wrote
>>
>>> Then castigate ME for not doing my research as well as the opening
>>> accusation of lying?
>> Castigate a person who posted gratuitous profanity for a year?
>>
>> Didn't you castigate yourself?
>>
>> I was thinking of another word.
>
> In other words, as usual, ad infinitum (I was thinking of another
> word), you are going to make claims, and NOT defend them when
> confronted.
>
> Okay, just checking.
>
> Here it is again.
>
> Just in case you change your mind and get honest:
>
>
>
> 0:-]
> View profile
> More options Mar 11, 3:24 pm
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
> alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
> soc.men
> From: "0:-]" >
> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:24:03 -0700
> Local: Sun, Mar 11 2007 3:24 pm
> Subject: I he a baby seller of "good mixed race babies?"
> Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:12:50 -0700, "0:-]" >
> wrote: ... Is the stupid little p****, that allows himself to be used
> like a lab rat by his cronies, out to threaten Don Fisher and his
> family to suppress the right of free speech of Kane?
>
> Judge for yourself. He claim I "brought" up Fisher's name and that of
> family and circumstances...

You're a real retard Don - do you really think anybody here gives a ****
about your delusions of grandeur.

You're a ****in scumbag Don - a mental case - you and your ungodly spawn
might make a good "X Files" episode -

But then to know that you make your living destroying innocent lives -
well it makes real folk wanna puke.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Greegor]

> Well, Greg once was asked about his apparent belief, then withdrew
> under pressure, the use of lethal force by parents against state
> workers could be equated with the use of force police represent by
> carry a gun.
>
> Gosh it only took me two years of constant questions to get him to
> actually state he wouldn't support it.

I never stated that I did support violence against state workers.

What set you off was when I pointed out that when an LEO
walks up to a person with a big old shootin iron strapped to
their side you pretended there was no intimidation there.

You started crowing and screeching like crazy and
launched into this two year parade of your mental illness.

I never advised the Christines.
But I just LOVED Kanes TWO YEAR delusion that I did.

[0:->]

On Mar 14, 6:38 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> > Well, Greg once was asked about his apparent belief, then withdrew
> > under pressure, the use of lethal force by parents against state
> > workers could be equated with the use of force police represent by
> > carry a gun.
>
> > Gosh it only took me two years of constant questions to get him to
> > actually state he wouldn't support it.
>
> I never stated that I did support violence against state workers.

What made you so reluctant then to simply say so when I first asked
you.

> What set you off was when I pointed out that when an LEO
> walks up to a person with a big old shootin iron strapped to
> their side you pretended there was no intimidation there.

Oh, I did? That's a flat out lie, Greg.

My point was that you were responding to the cops negative reaction to
a parent using a gun to take their child from legal state custody.

You were doing a "well you do it" argument, like the cops use of a
gun, for whatever legal purpose, gave the parent the right to use a
gun to intimidate.

I carry, and should I pull and menace, buddy, I better be able to
prove I had good cause.

That's why gunowners that are law abiding KNOW you don't pull without
intent to use...in other words you best be in real danger you can
prove.

Now tell us that in that case the parent had reason to believe he or
his children were in danger.

Hurry up, little liar.

You chastised the cop for the LEGAL use of his or her gun, when HE
was questioning the ILLEGAL use of a gun.

Look up, "menacing with a firearm," then think about the risk the
children were put to in that case.

> You started crowing and screeching like crazy and
> launched into this two year parade of your mental illness.

I simply asked you to defend your position on the cop using a gun to
intimidate and comparing it to someone using a gun to take children
from legal custody.

You didn't defend it then, and you can't now. And you refused to
answer one way or the other for over two years.

So NOW you have, as usual, taken to lying about it.

> I never advised the Christines.

I didn't say you did. What would you have advised?

> But I just LOVED Kanes TWO YEAR delusion that I did.

Again with the lies. At no point did I claim you advised them.

All I asked you, and for two years, was to take a position, one way or
the other, on the use of lethal force to take children from government
agents who had them in legal custody.

Are you delusional, lying, are having those severe memory problems
again?

Go ahead, show us the posts where I said you advised the Christines,
Greg.

I'll be here.

Kane