(Greg Hanson) wrote in message om...
Fern:
Kane conveniently left out the other side of not screening out
bogus reports of child abuse. It's Federal Law.

I also conveniently left out the following:

You both are pimps to the worst of humankind; those that would
physically, emotionally, sexually, psychologically, as well as by
kicking their own children injuire their children, and you would
defend, apologize for, and celebrate their sickness and savagery.

There is more to the list, but when I am making a point I get this
strange urge not to be more obsessively encyclopedic than I already am
and Dan or somebody, has admonished me for.

So, BoyWhore, stick it up your ass with your slimy little posting
trickery.

The states are supposed to look for certain signs that the
call might have been made out of malice, from somebody with
something to gain or an axe to grind.

Crock O'**** Noontime Special, folks.

You are now required by your Whore, to open up and swallow it all,
every last drop.

The state, fortunately for many who would otherwise lose their
children and end up in jail, may pick and choose. The only things they
are REQUIRED by law to look for are evidences of abuse and neglect of
children and those factors that can and do contribute to it.

They ARE not required to prove your innocence. You are ALLOWED to do
so by virtue of our tripartate system of governance.

Legislation (and the constitution, leg one) allows YOU, if you are
charged (cps and other enforcement agencies, leg two, but YOU must be
the ONE CHARGED to be able to DEFEND YOURSELF...hangers on and pimply
gigolo boys are EXCLUDED), in a court of law (leg three).

Babbling on Usenet about the unfairness of it all, you being forced to
live in the absence of the child and use her space while tears of
grief spring out of and fall from you eyes (whenever you witless "SO"
is in the room), notwithstanding.

Unfortunately that doesn't fit the political and
financial agenda at a CPS agency.

Whatever that might be in FACT rather than the **** filled fantasies
you silly childish twits feed each other daily it did a PRIME NUMERO
UNO TOP NOTCH TO BE CHEERED AND CONGRATULATED job on one creep that
sobs his victimhood here on these ngs.

It's well documented in the US DHHS prototype caseworker
manual.

What, that they are required to do anything at all about a live in
boyfriend other than put the mother to question...."is he ****ing your
kids?"

The truth is that they seem to have turned the
"screening out" calls into an option used only to
protect agency interests. For example, complaints
about abuse in state care? Screened out.

Crap. And your first paragraph claim a lie. I gave ample information
to clarify what they can and cannot screen out.

And they do not screen on credibility guesses about the caller...they
screen on the content of the allegation and it's risk to the
child(ren) in question, and that is ALL they can screen for unless
someone says, at the end of their sleazy attempt at fraud, "I am
lying, I took lessons from a guy named Greg."

Do you really think this newsgroup is filled with suckers that will
hold their noses and open up for your dose of crappola...oh,
wait....of course, there are a few, you are addressing one that has
It's one brand of Fertilizer to make cookies with and feed to the
unwary.

The person in the original story clearly knew that
certain calls did not rise to the high standard
required to even BEGIN an investigation.

So, Whore. Give us the list of "high standard"s that set the trigger
and pull it upon the receipt of a child abuse allegation call.

I will give you a hint. No list of criteria includes a check-off
labelled "caller is lying."

While one can have a hunch, and one could even note that hunch, just
like a cop standing outside a bank with a breathless citizen
whispering, "there's a robbery going on inside" and the cop spots the
person's hand behind their back with finger's crossed, they do NOT
assume a lie. They investigate.

What if there IS an abuse going on and the cop/PS worker guesses
wrongly.

Just how quick (as we've seen in the past) will we be treated to three
weeks of discussion, media hype posted as proof of guilt, and other
babblings, over that mistake by guesswork?

Stupid. If there is any part of CPS that remains completely blameless
it's the damned overworked underpaid crises fielding PS worker and
unit.

Others can screw up, but PS had better not. There is usually zero
chance for recovery on turning down a call and it going sour on the
truth of the caller...no matter WHAT the screener might opine.

As if that isn't disgusting enough, Fern, I'll
bet if you saw how lax even the standards that person
is supposedly operating with, it might make you wretch.

I love these appeals to emotion (hey, aren't you the guy that just won
a Logical Fallacy Award?) with no proof.

So, show us the proof the standards ARE, so we may all play at being
at a Roman feast with you.

And I love how you used weasel words. You aren't scoring as high as
The Plant, but you are no slouch:

"I'll bet," "if you saw," "supposedly," "it might."

Don't you have a bone somewhere in your body with a smidgeon of
courage therein? Can't you give an opinion or make a claim that isn't
hedged in garbage for camoflage of what a little **** brained sumbag
you are?

They automatically investigate every SIDS death?

They are charged by law to investigate damn near every child death
that does not have other authorities doing so to establish who caused
or didn't.

No probable cause to think parents killed the kid, just automatic.

CPS, nor the police, or other investigative authorities are limited ot
"probable cause" to investigate. It seems they are though to charge,
and how do they get probable cause to so charge? Why by investigating.

Your wishfulness in claiming what you claim is right out of the
dayroom at the local long term lock up, little wannabee. Of course
criminals don't want cops and others to have the power to investigate,
so they pretend the law is different than it actually is.

It's so rampant these days even responsible (I think) columnists are
babbling about "rights" to avoid investigations as though somewhere in
the constitution it says that investigations cannot be conducted FOR
NO DAMN REASON AT ALL THAN THE INVESTIGATOR'S ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO OR
DIRECTED AT BY OUTSIDE FORCES AND INCIDENT OR PERSONS THAT MIGHT, JUST
MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING NAUGHTY.

Do you have anything naughty you might have done in the past 3 years
or so?

Is THAT what's drawing your attention to this screening out the fraud
calls discussion, boobie?

In truth, the screening of calls is a critical
"profit center" for CPS agencies.
It's the well spring for all federal grant money.

Hey! Shut them down then. YOU figure out how to stop child abuse
without listening to allegations of child abuse.

What color is your brain, maroon?

Because you are now in the Hall of Fallacy Fame your exploits are
being followed in hope that we can once again celebrate with you a win
of the coveted Large Red Fish once again.

So, in that vein: In this post you have used the following debating
locical fallacies; Strawman, slippery slope, false analogy, sob story,
hasty generalization, oversimplifying, equivocating (big time),
failing to accept the burden of proof for your claims, either/or
reasoning, and your usual deft and polished "casting a Red Herring in
front of those you consider swine."

I am sorry to see you have abandoned that overexercised by you and The
Plant LF tool of such power, The Ad Hominem Attack..but then you know
you are and It are such **** poor flamers as to be more embarrassing
than even you can stomach.

However, with all those you did use, this could set an all time
record. I'll check with the selection committee and get back to you
sometime soon.

Kane