Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

He is also an "published" researcher

Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

So you never claimed that you are a researcher? ;-)

I never claimed I was a published researcher, so you are lying above,
as usual, Doan.

and yet unable to read a simple
chart! ;-)

Show your proof.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...84d67c ce3614

QED!

And I pointed out that I had done a quick calculation in my head and
missed some entries from the chart.

So, Doan, when you claim I am "unable" to read a chart, you are lying
again.

I certainly can read it, and like anyone else I can make an error and
admit it. Anyone else but you, liar.

You never admit your mistakes, and you come back and repeat them just
as you are doing now. Here IS my post that responds to your current
lie, with my actual comments, rather than your lies.

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!

Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan








Doan

Aline/Alina

Anne From Dreamland