LaVonne said
I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
can you address these questions?

You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
parents rescued him. The odd part of this is that
this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.

Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
experience from 30 plus years ago.

If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
he posted this large body of work?
No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.
He hangs around your neck like an albatross.

Kane tried using the old
"My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.

Been done before.

The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.
Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
of posting, and the determination of a poster to
post incorrect information.

Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.
I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

They have both tried to act like there was some
improper sexuality based only on minimal family
nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
admitting he walked around with his adult male
privates exposed to young children.
I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
in my families case.

When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
not see you object. Where was your civility then?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If are a moderate of their view and
speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
or at least chastised. And the witch hunt proceeds.

The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.

Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
certainly worthy of question.

Do you not understand that?

There are a bunch of people in here who are
trying to defende themselves or our society from
unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
all accused are guilty, just because they are
biological parents and they are accused.

People under attack and the attackers.

If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
it should be more understandeable than when the
other major faction insults and whitewashes.

Kane is not under attack.

He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
And he sad on a governing board over CPS.

How do you like those ethics?

My fiance' and I want our family back!

Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.
He spews his hatred of bio-parents.
He calls us scum.

His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
newsgroup ""stature"".

But that's what smears are all about.

Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
you know very well that CPS does smear parents.

Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
child beating parents every time he sees a child.

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution. A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Many acknowledge the problem.
None want to speak up about it.

So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.

But look at Kane's posts.
He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.
I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
Neal left. (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)
Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,
and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.
And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.