Do you support or advocate, morally or ethically

Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally or ethically, the
use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state
custody?

Do you (verb)A or B for reasons (adverb)C or D
use of lethal force by parents to take their
children from state custody
(no clarification of legal status)?

The question has two OR propositions and
ignores whether custody was done with
court authority or not.

In many cases, agencies have taken physical
custody and control of children WITHOUT any
court authorization.

Certainly, any such ADVOCACY would be evident
on the internet, if there was any.

Why would you ask, when a search of the net
would reveal NO SUCH ADVOCACY?

The deliberately OBTUSE question was asked ONLY
as a smokescreen, after Kane got caught LYING,
asserting basically what the question asks completely
without any factual basis.

Kane's refusal to break the question down into
constituent parts seems to imply his dishonesty.
Like the worst stereotype of a mindless zombie
caseworker or a cult zombie, Kane
refuses to make the question clear and fair,
yet repeats it obsessively over several months,
in NUMEROUS unrelated message threads.

The obsessive repetitious nature of this OBTUSE
question rises to the level of harassment, and it
also brings up the question of Kane's mental hygiene.

Considering that Kane is an anonymous poster,
telling such lies about a person who is NOT anonymous,
that adds another dimension to the situation.

The more recent false assertions by Kane that
I have publicly threatened him and had something to do
with a list or a class of people publicly "marked for death"
is also without any basis, and certainly brings up
questions about Kane's mental health.

Perhaps some authorities need to investigate Kane's
mental health before Kane's obsessions and
false perceptions hurt somebody.

Rather than reigning in Kane, his good buddy Dan has
actually posted messages making him COMPLICIT to
these behaviors.


Kane wrote

Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services,
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents
Mon, Mar 21 2005 12:19 pm
Subject: Do you support or advocate, morally or ethically

Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally or ethically, the
use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state
custody?

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print
Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse REPORT ABUSE?

Greegor wrote:
Do you (verb)A or B for reasons (adverb)C or D
use of lethal force by parents to take their
children from state custody
(no clarification of legal status)?

No. And I did not limit YOUR doing so if you wished. I asked you to
answer in any way you wished, did I not? With your reasons as well, if
you wished?

What's holding you up? You seem to want to continually ask the same
questions over and over again about the question. Keep some notes this
time.

The question has two OR propositions and
ignores whether custody was done with
court authority or not.

It does not enter into that. If a worker came sans the authority of the
state the answer would be open to very different interpretations and
reactionsm, morally and ethically. I referred, repeatedly and clearly
to "state custody."

As far as I know from all the discussions on this subject of custody in
this ng it has never been a question of the state being not in legal
custody of the child. I have seen the legality challenged. I have never
seen the legality of THIS situation, simply having the child in state
custody, questioned.

In many cases, agencies have taken physical
custody and control of children WITHOUT any
court authorization.

In many cases that is true. In ALL cases, as far as I know, they act
within the laws of the state. If they do NOT, then folks such as Dan
got'em by the short hairs.

You are free to argue that their NOT having court authorization gives a
moral or ethical support to the idea of the use of lethal force. I'd
just like to see you cite some cases, argue with some logic, even
become as empassioned as you wish. I've created, with this question, a
prefect platform, a soapbox, for someone such as you, greegor. Suddenly
you are shy.

Certainly, any such ADVOCACY would be evident
on the internet, if there was any.

Are you saying that given your claim that the state takes the child
without court authorization that allow for the use of lethal force to
take the child back?

What of the law that is codified in policy in CPS, for instance? What
of the police officer, with no court order whatsoever, in the moment of
exigent circumstances, discovers a child HE or SHE believes requires
the protection of the state and removes that child for further
investigation?

There was not court order, but I would venture there WAS law giving
that authorization.

Why would you ask, when a search of the net
would reveal NO SUCH ADVOCACY?

Because I already know all that. I don't need to search. My question is
simple and you are free to bring in everything you wish to defend your
position on the use of lethal force, but asking me to change my
question isn't acceptable.

It's still the same. You may say, 'under the conditions of thus an so I
believe that....' or however YOU wish to phrase it. But do not hand the
question back to me. Build your own scenario.

I asked my question. I'm not changing it. Got that?

The deliberately OBTUSE question

No, it was a deliberately plain, simple, uncomplicated question. It
leaves nearly every condition and nuance up to the one who is asked and
answers. You can defend you position with just about anything you wish.
I can debate you on your defenses and your position, of course.

was asked ONLY
as a smokescreen, after Kane got caught LYING,

I and one other that I recall, have asked you to post my lie. You
posted my statements, and I pointed out that I had asked questions.
Questions, by default, do not qualify as lies or lying. They are simply
questions.

I asked you what you meant in your post to the ex cop...and I told you
how it appeared to me. I asked if I was correct, and invited you to
show me how your statement did NOT defend the right to use lethal
force, since you were arguing the cop had the right or at least did it.


You have not answered my question relating to that, nor any other.

asserting basically what the question asks completely
without any factual basis.

That is a nonsense statement. There was the post. I have given you
other posts with questionable expressions by you about the safety of
government agents, caseworkers, one of which you seemed to express a
desire for a house to drop on. And you mocked the cop when he spoke
against people waving guns in others faces to force them to comply...in
reference to the Christines.

Kane's refusal to break the question down into
constituent parts seems to imply his dishonesty.

YOU, are free to break it down anyway you wish. But you know I'll
continue to ask about the essentials. I want to see either a denial
that you would support or advocate, (and if you wish, reference to the
moral and ethical principles you would make that denial of the use
upon) or a support for the use of lethal force, and reference to moral
or ethical principles upon which you would base that position.

Like the worst stereotype of a mindless zombie
caseworker or a cult zombie, Kane
refuses to make the question clear and fair,
yet repeats it obsessively over several months,
in NUMEROUS unrelated message threads.

I have not made it the question you WANT me to ask you.

I ask MY question, not yours.

However, if YOU would like to pose this same basic question in YOUR
terms, be my guest. In fact I insist.

Go ahead. Pose the question so that it addresses ethics and morals,
sticks to what someone might do or not do by those standards, including
the use of lethal force of course, parents, of course, and state
custody of the child, of course. And of course, taking that child or
children by the use of lethal force.

Your question would be?

The obsessive repetitious nature of this OBTUSE
question rises to the level of harassment,

You seem to be quite comfortable with Doug's long history of repetition
on issues related to CPS and it's practices. I ask the same question
not because I can't change how I ask it, but because you don't answer.
I will continue to.

You may call it what you wish. I see it as seeking the truth in matters
of great importance. Safety for parents, (they could end up like Brian
and Christine...or worse, dead), state agents like workers and foster
parents (remember the methheads that also were part of motivating the
question?), and most important of ALL, the children, who, in both
instances, where present with the waving about and pointing of guns and
threatening with them.

The children were in the state van when Brian pointed the gun AT the
person in the state van. That is highly dangerous behavior. Dangerous
even for the children. Unless he was a practiced shooter with handguns
he cannot know just how far afield a shot from a handgun can go. I have
seen cop car videos of a thug and a cop exchanging rapid fire from no
more than ten feet from each other....a massive number of rounds from a
semi auto in one case, where every single round MISSED the target, cop
OR perp, and those shoots luckily had no one behind either person.

There were kids behind the state worker. What if he or she had
struggled for the gun? People do, you know. The assumption is that you
are going to die. I trust the worker decided the child's safety was
more important than their own life. Brian didn't think so, apparently.
Why don't you write and ask him how he feels about having pointed a gun
in the direction of his own children. Now that he's had time to think
about it?

and it
also brings up the question of Kane's mental hygiene.

Okay. Ask away. As a former mental health worker I can assure you I pay
attention myself, and my family members and I have agreed upon
proceedures should any of us show signs of losing our mental capacity.
(It's what happens with people in mental health work..they know how to
take care of business...and I'm not the only one in my family).

Considering that Kane is an anonymous poster,
telling such lies about a person who is NOT anonymous,
that adds another dimension to the situation.

Is that why Furneal left us? DestroyCPS? SueCPS Bob? Can we expect
bobber the swift, to enjoy HIS "another dimension" to his situations?

The more recent false assertions by Kane that
I have publicly threatened him

I believe you have by claiming I am a caseworker and in this newsgroup,
and you know it, caseworkers have been threatened with death, and their
actual deaths have been not only minimized, but in fact pointed out as
appropriate for the agenda's of those making that claim.

and had something to do
with a list or a class of people publicly "marked for death"

Were caseworkers not so "marked for death" in this ng? Are you that
short of memory? Would you like me to cite and quote the threats and
comments?

is also without any basis, and certainly brings up
questions about Kane's mental health.

Greegor, you know perfectly well there was a long and explict series of
posts that did in fact claim caseworkers SHOULD be shot or killed. You
claim I'm a caseworker.

Do you get the logical connection? Or are you now prepared to claim
that while you claim I am a caseworker, I have special dispensation and
should not be subject to the threats made by others to kill
caseworkers, and you will protect me?

Perhaps some authorities need to investigate Kane's
mental health before Kane's obsessions and
false perceptions hurt somebody.

Which obsessions? Clarifying the threats of death to caseworkers in
this ng? Asking you if you approve or disapprove of death threats
(lethal force) against (parents making them with gun in hand, or
machete, or knife, or bludgeon...all of which have figured in worker
deaths) workers or other state agents, such as foster parents?

Those "obsessions?"

Next you'll be claiming that because YOU publically claimed I'm a
caseworker (not true), and caseworkers have been killed for being
caseworkers doing their jobs, and posters to this newsgroup claimed
that was a good thing to do, that I'm paranoid.

Please. Go ahead.

Rather than reigning in Kane, his good buddy Dan has
actually posted messages making him COMPLICIT to
these behaviors.

Reigning in? (He is NOT urging me to take the throne or the crown,
greegor...but you might have better said, "reining him in."

Let's discuss Dan for a moment, shall we? At the risk of Dan having to
correct me I'm not only going to relate what I think I've seen in his
post and the few conversations I've had with him over the phone, and
what I think my experience with him means.

First of all, you betcha....he IS complicit. I believe he does NOT want
to sanction murder.

He said that when I invited all or any to answer the question I have
been asking you. His quick reply was, as I recall, on the order of,
"absolutely not."

I take that as not wishing to justify the killing of state agents in
someone's act of taking their children back from the state custody at
gun point or the use of other lethal force.

I also think he's complicit in that he has a concern that some have
made some major threats on this issue, in this ng.

And he, as I (not so often myself anymore) can find outselves in the
very buildings from time to time, and in the company of others there,
children, parents, relatives, visitors, vendors, workers, that it was
said would be killed in an explosion and the innocent ones should not
have been there and were nothing more than collaterial damage.

Now greegor, YOU may think blathering fools that make such threats are
to be ignored, but anyone that has lived in the real world, pays
attention to the media, and history, or, like myself, has had a great
deal of contact with mentally unbalanced people, KNOWS that those are
exactly the kinds of rantings that have proceeded again and again, just
such actions.

The boy in Minnesota that killed 9 and himself, was prone to that kind
of exploration. So were the two Columbine killers. They posted such
things on the Internet too.

So, both Dan and I, and I suspect anyone here that has any morals and
any intellegence, would like to know is, do we have any more folks that
advocate for the murder of state workers, and the peripheral losses
that might accompany such efforts.

I have a hunch that Dan actually does care about the children.

And when I, for instance, think of the Christines, and Brian, and those
kids in the van, with him pointing a gun in their direction, and still
armed taking off with them in a state van (imagine if the cops had had
a patrolman close by that day what might have happened), everything
else, YOUR ****in' "rights" Brian's "rights" even the worker's rights
(which they had and neither YOU or Brian actually had) take a distant
backseat to the rights of the children.

Those three girls were put at risk of their lives, and NOONE has spoken
to that. Not here, not in the press. Not the attorneys. NO ONE.

And it's just that kind of thinking I suspect Dan finds dispicable, and
I know I do.

Post your own form of the question, or answer this one, and stop your
silly repetitious 0:- dancing about.

Either you have a moral ethical position on this issue or you don't.
Which is it?

Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally or ethically, the
use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state
custody?

Kane

Kane wrote

Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services,
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents
Mon, Mar 21 2005 12:19 pm
Subject: Do you support or advocate, morally or ethically

Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally or ethically, the
use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state
custody?

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print
Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse REPORT ABUSE?

It's been brought to my attention by you, Gregory Hanson, that my
question is too complex or too full of choices that seem ambiguous or
otherwise too complicated.

You asked why the choices of "advocate," or "support," and "morally,"
or "ethically." I presume you find nothing as difficult for you to
understand or deal with in "lethal force," and "state custody."

So in my usual spirit of fairness and cooperation when you make a
request, or ask a question, I'll continue to point out that you can
answer in any way you see fit, any portion, or all portions, either in
a collectively composed way using all of the combinations, or you by
taking any of the combinations you wish.

Here is the possibilities list:

1. Gregory Hanson, do you support, morally or ethically, the use of
lethal force by parents to take their children from state?

2. Gregory Hanson, do you advocate, morally or ethically, the use of
lethal force by parents to take their children from state?

3. Gregory Hanson, do you support, morally, the use of lethal force by
parents to take their children from state?

4. Gregory Hanson, do you advocate, morally, the use of lethal force by
parents to take their children from state?

5. Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally, the use of
lethal force by parents to take their children from state?

6. Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, ethically, the use of
lethal force by parents to take their children from state?

7. Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, morally or ethically,
the use of lethal force by parents to take their children from state?

I believe I got them all, but if you see combinations I missed that
you'd rather address, please feel free.

Remember, I am interested in either your moral position, or your
ethical position and either your advocacy, or your support, for or
against the use of lethal force by parents to take their children from
state custody.

And we established in a prior post that of course, according to the
law, the custory would be legal. Not "judicial" though that of course
is a subset of "legal," but simply in compliance with state and federal
laws on custody of children.

I include "federal" because if an alledged causal act for custody
taking happens on federal lands, then federal law prevails.

What you have accomplished, of course, by your dodging rather than
answering, is the appearance of more complexity to the question than
need be, but you seem reluctant to, as I invited, create a simple
enough format of your own for this question, so I' thought I'd offer
some templates for you to chose from.

Any one question from the list will serve to answer what I am
interested in exploring with you.

It's all in the spirity of lively debate, and uncovering the truth,
regardless of Doug's attempt to dodge it himself by claiming it's an
idiotic question to ask if someone is inclined to support death
threats, in the form of using lethal force.

Call me crazy, but I do not consider death threats anything but
serious. And so do others, rather a lot of them in fact. Naturally
that takes them out of the realm of the idiotic.

Oh, and those that make such threats, and those that do not challenge
those that make such threats, are complicit in making this newsgroup
and extremely frightening place for families that came here for help,
and have more than enough trouble with the government, and do not need
to get advice from, or even post in reply to, those that make threats,
and or do not admonish others that do.

Clue.

(I've had backchanneled posts from lurkers, never posting in the ng,
that have said they will NOT participate with assholes like you and
your little pack of viscious dangerous fools meandering
about....immorally making or allowing such threats. Yah think they want
the state they are dealing with to see them in a group with you
jackoffs?)

So if you want to make sure no family coming here gets direct help in
this ng, just keep it up, and keep refusing to answer the simple
question I ask.

Thanks for your attention.

Kane

Kane:
Miraculously these imaginary e-mails you receive
and ceremoniously call "back channel" all had the
same delusion you did about threats being made?

Are you sending e-mails to yourself again?

Hey! Doctor Strangelove had a midnight
showing here in one of our theatres last
weekend!

It must be recirculating in theatres!

Get ready with your jars of "bodily fluids"!

You disparage everybody who you disagree
with or more importantly, anybody who
disagrees with YOU! This is pretty much
standard behavior for CULT LEADERS.

Solopcism? (SP?)

It's YOUR WORLD and everybody else just
lives in it, right? : )

Are you now or have you ever been
a member of the Communist party?

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane:

snip

It's YOUR WORLD and everybody else just
lives in it, right? : )

Actually, Greg, it's MY world.

Please leave NOW!!!

Greegor wrote:
Kane:
Miraculously these imaginary e-mails you receive
and ceremoniously call "back channel" all had the
same delusion you did about threats being made?

Oh? They aren't imaginary. Perfectly nice people leave because of the
**** you folks spread that I'm not willing to just let you get away
with. They tire of our "banter."

But their leaving isn't sufficient motivation for me to just let you
**** babble.

Are you sending e-mails to yourself again?

Never have...oh wait. Wrong. When I've have more than one e-mail
account I send a test post, and I've been known to use my e-mail
accounts as a kind of note taker, a reminder service to myself.

Recently I sent myself an E-mail. It said, "Kane, ease up on the
feebleboy. He is looking pretty stressed."

See how nice I am.

Hey! Doctor Strangelove had a midnight
showing here in one of our theatres last
weekend!

Taking notes, were yah?

It must be recirculating in theatres!

Or you run the film in your head.

Get ready with your jars of "bodily fluids"!

You want MY bodily fluids?

I don't think so.

You disparage everybody who you disagree
with or more importantly,

Funny. I've had a number of folks I disagree with right here in this ng
right in front of you. Dan's one. And Dan's disagreed with me. Witchy.
chickeyd.

Or do you think that disagreeing amounts to disparaging?

You have a strange notion of the English language.

anybody who
disagrees with YOU!

Naw. I don't disparage a whole lot of people that disagree with me. I
haven't got time for them all.

How you doin' on g'parents of the little girl and the love you got for
them in your heart? The caseworkers? Oh, damn near forgot, sorry. Dan?


This is pretty much
standard behavior for CULT LEADERS.

Don't tell me you think Doug is a cult leader. I'd NEVER think up such
a creative name, even if it fit. You -are- talented

Solopcism? (SP?)

Do you mean "solipsism?" from the philosophical theory that the self is
the only thing that can be known and verified. Or that the self is the
only reality?

Funny you should use such and apropo term that would apply so well to
you.

It's YOUR WORLD and everybody else just
lives in it, right? : )

Do you feel I leave you out? I'm sorry. I'll try harder to make you
feel as though you are real to me.

You are, you know.

Or I would't bother with you, and I wouldn't take your implied threats,
and your failure to answer such a simple question very seriously. I do
take them seriously.

The language in this ng for a couple of years was the language we see
recalled when folks are interviewed about perps just AFTER the murder.
No, not name calling. That's a nice steam relief valve for some.

It's the vivid descriptions of killing and how to kill and why to kill
that convince me that we have, or had, some serious nutcases here. It
seemed downright obsessive to me at the time. Then it came up again
recently, and rather than let folks go off again, with their "workers
deserve to die" bull****, I thought I'd save your asses and ask a
question that you could eitehr answer honestly if you do NOT advocate
or support killing state agents, or lie about if you do but need to
cover your butts.

I can't help but wonder if we have any left. Nutcases that is. I KNOW
we have "butts" here. I'm posting to one right now.

Frankly, 0:-, I'm nervous about you claiming so vehemently that I'm a
case worker named Don Fisher, and doing it in a newsgroup where
discussions of wanting to kill or threats of death to caseworkers run
the gamut from insinuation and vague associations with ideas of waving
guns in people's faces, up to and including explicit urgings and
threats to kill caseworkers.

And greegor, not once did Dan or a lot of others in this ng do any of
that. But greegor, there was a group that did. And I can't help but
remember what good terms you were on with them. Even admiring in some
instances.

Am I wrong about that? Did you not admire them? I suppose I could be
wrong. Shall we go googling and find out?

Or do you wish to rape the english language yet again and claim my
questions are "lies?"

By the way, lest you forget. Which you have in your desperation to find
something to block out my question with.

I expressed really strong feelings about wishing you would off
yourself, or someone would casterate you?

Did that make YOU feel nervous at all?

Care to ask me if I morally or ethically support or advocate that
someone castrate you or supply you with rope?

I'll happily answer in the affirmative.

The moral and ethical argument lies in your Motion, your own story of
your history with Lisa and her daughter. Basically it goes like this:
It's not nice to move in on a little girl and displace her from her
mother then refuse to do those things that would her back home.

See, there IS a moral position to be taken. The one of your "not
niceness."

Yer a twit. We don't like twits that hurt little girls.

Want to argue my moral and ethical position on this matter?

Whoa..wait, I've been inviting you to do that for 2 years plus now.
What made me think you'd be willing to do it NOW when you've done
nothing but dodge for those years. Tsk on me, tsk.

Kane