View Single Post
  #9  
Old September 13th 03, 11:43 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:59:05 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Fern had written in a previous post:

Remember CPS seems NOT to have diminished the occurrence of

child
deaths in the
US.


To which, Kane had responded:

In fact it is YOU that has posted many times here that over the

years
the "occurance" has remained steady while the population has, of
course, increased tremendously.


Notice that the rate has to be going down dispite the fact that the
economy has gone up and down, a known factor that increases the
occurance and could be expected to effect the rate....but doesn't.


I then replied that the RATE of child fatalities due to abuse and

neglect
has NOT gone down, as Kane claims. His claim that occurance has

remained
steady while rates have gone down because of population growth is

incorrect.

Fern's statement, which Kane refutes, is correct. In fact, the rate

of
fatalities slightly increased. So, both occurance and rate slightly
increased in 2001.

My point was that Fern's initial comment that fatalities have NOT

gone down
was correct -- both in terms of rates and occurances -- Kane's

refutation
was incorrect.

Secondily, I asked Kane in my post for a source to his claim that

fatality
rates normally go up and down in correlation with the economy.

While he
did not respond to that request, Kane switches in his next post from

calling
Fern names for posting facts that he wrongly disputes to wrongly

challenging
my comments.

You should call the cops, Doug. Someone has been posting under your
addy and refuting your claims. Tsk.


To pull off this awkward attempt, Kane digs back and retrieves a post

I
wrote more than a year ago -- 8 months BEFORE data on 2001 fatalities

were
published.


Subject: New Child Welfare Head in Florida Is Drawing Fire
From: "Doug"
Date: 8/19/2002 1:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


Note the date of my post: 8/19/2002.
.......................

In cases of serious child abuse, the argument is moot. Police are
already actively involved in investigating (and DA's prosecuting)
child abuse and neglect. Most states require that CPS agencies

notify
police of child abuse reports they receive and specially trained
detectives conduct independent or collateral investigations.
Naturallly, CPS caseworkers have no authority over police or the
prosecutors who use the fruits of the investigation to bring child
abusers to trial. Criminal investigation and prosecution requires
that caregivers be afforded due process of law and, of course, the
jury trials are open to the public.

The involvement of police has not impacted the fatality rate of
children who are abused/neglected. The per capita rate of child
fatalities due to abuse/neglect has remained relatively constant

for
decades.

..........................................

Not your words, Doug?


Yes, my words, Kane. I appreciate you republishing them. They were

all
factual and accurate a year ago and they still are for that reporting
period. At that time, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data

System was
reporting on child fatalities through 2000.

In April, 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services

published the
NCANDS data on child fatalities for 2001. In the September, 2003

post to
which you respond, I wrote that there was an increase in child

fatalities
due to abuse and neglect from 2000 to 2001, citing that very source.

Here
is my exact quote:

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81 per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in

foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Can't have it both ways, Doug, or can you?


LOL!

Well, yes we can, Kane. You see, in 2000, the child fatality rate

was
relatively steady and, in 2001, there was an increase in child

fatality rate
.

Did you think you were fooling someone? You reached back for a post

I made
more than a year ago citing an entirely different source for an

entirely
different year of occurances.

My suggestion would be that, in the future, you consider citing the

sources
of your claims when you refute someone or quote them, as you have

done
above. If you do so, instead of "shooting from the hip" in your zeal

to
attack another member of this group, you may discover in looking for

the
source that what you are about to claim is incorrect. Secondily, my
suggestion would be that you check my citations. If you had done so,

you
would have realized that two different sources (and reporting years)

were
involved in my post of a year ago and the present one.

My point wasn't that there was no change, or even that there was,

but
that The Plant, and you to follow, seem to be extremely careful to
create an impression that the fault lies with CPS.


No, your point, based upon the false assumption that fatality rates

had gone
down, was that CPS had something to do with those statistics. You

asked
Fern whether she credited the "decrease" to organizations she

supports or to
CPS.

Now that we have learned that those rates did NOT go down, my

question of
you would be do you think CPS or this other organizations are to

blame for
that situation?

You don't know that, and neither does It.


What do you wish to accomplish by attempting to dehumanize another

human
being by using the word "it" instead of "she?" How does such

uncooth,
childish language reflect upon anyone else but who uses it? Come on.

You
disagree with another member of this forum. No problem. In this

particular
case, she happens to be right in a dispute over some numbers. Big

deal.
You have been right on other issues. Why not stick to those

issues...or
numbers...rather than personal attacks?

It's like your old argument that foster parents cause more

fatalities
of children than bio parents, when the data is clearly labeled as

IN
foster care NOT by foster caregivers. But BY bio parents, not IN

the
care of the bio parents.


My statement, reprinted yet again above with citation, was a

comparison
between to fatalities due to abuse/neglect occurring in the general
population and fatalities due to abuse/neglect occuring in foster

care.

The language in the source cited decidedly DOES NOT say "But by bio

parents"
as you, again, falsely claim. On the one side, the data measures ALL
fatalities in the general population, which includes abuse neglect

committed
by ALL caregivers, INCLUDING foster caregivers -- NOT just parents.

The
data on the other side measures fatalities occurring as the result of

abuse
and neglect in foster care.

Here is my exact quote yet again, complete with citations.

The rate of child fatalities due to abuse neglect in 2001 was 1.81

per
100,000.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/...five.htm#child
The rate of child fatalities due to abuse and neglect occurring in

foster
care was 3.40 per 100,000. http://tinyurl.com/n1ma

Such careful wording by reporters is noteworthy, and makes it

rather
clear that they aren't counting convictions of fosters, but they

very
likely ARE of bio parents.


Nope. The NCANDS data does not count *convictions* in either of the
categories. It does not even consider criminal charges. NCANDS data

is
based upon data submitted by state CPS agencies and their civil

findings.

Your claim is yet again false.

The reporting and harvesting of data isn't quite as simple as you'd
like folks to believe.


Who are you talking to here, Kane? It is good thing for you to keep

in
mind.

Your assumptive attempts to isolate bits and pieces of data and con
the reader is duly noted.


Please review the thread again. As we have seen above, it has been

your
inaccurate assumptions that have been problematic. You attempted to

dispute
valid data offered by another poster with a false assumption and then

went
on to make charges against what she had written based upon your false
assumption. You go further still to isolate one of my posts made to

this
newsgroup in August of last year to attempt to discredit my statement

based
on current data made available 8 months after the post you

selectively
pasted.

Who is attempting to con who?

This is a field with massive amounts of data and many varying

opinions
and analyses of such. It makes it fertile ground for grow nonsense
Trees. Like yours and The Plants.


Yes. Massive pools of data. Please feel free to post your claims

based
upon the data and cite that data so that we can all see the basis of

your
point. Thus far, all you have done is shoot from the hip with

assumptions.
These assumptions have been proven to be incorrect.

I agree with you that the available data can lead to a writer to

reach many
conclusions. I try to cite the source of the data I draw upon to

make my
conclusions. If you do the same, I will be able to see where you are

coming
from. Your attempt to challenge the comparative data in this post

fails
because, as pointed out, you assumed language that was not in the

source
material cited. You *assumed* the categories and sources of the data

had
something to do with criminal *convictions* when the data in both

categories
(foster care and general population) has nothing to do with criminal
charges, let alone convictions.

Though it's terribly heavy going I recommend a visit to

http://tinyurl.com/n44h

if for no other reason than to see the enormity of this field of
interest.


I will go there. Are you citing any specific information from this

source
to support claims that you have made? If so, please restate the

those
positions you have taken here that are supported by this source.

And for those with a bent to research I'm sure they'll find you are
full of ****. At least part of the time and from place to place,
source to source, analyst to analyst.


I am certain that I will make mistakes from time to time. I am a

human
being, so mistakes can be a birth defect. If I do, I would hope a

reader
would dispute my conclusions based upon cited sources of information

or data
that challenges my conclusions, rather than shooting from the hip

with
assumptions that have no basis in fact. I would rather spend time

here
discussing the issues than disproving your assumptions.

It isn't that data can't be found that you quote...but that data

can
be found to support many points of view, all peer reviewed, and

nicely
packaged.


Where is it?

Please...share it with us in the same way that I share the data I

have
found. I would be overjoyed to review data that challenges the data

that I
have cited. It's the only way I can learn more about child welfare.

A
discussion that draws upon multiple sources of data would be

enlightening
for all of us in this forum.

In other words, YOU, gentle reader, just as Doug, can find

something
to support your position no matter how much you change it from time

to
time. R R R R.


As clearly documented above, I have not in any way changed my

position
regarding child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. I have,

however, drawn
upon new data as it has become available, citing each source

separately. In
April of 2003, data on the year 2001 became available and I cited it

in
making a comparision to 2000.

A favorite hobby of mine, when reading such data sources is to note
things about collection and source, and what is missing. Some of

the
data you and I have gone over before had massive amounts of missing
reportage from various states but you insisted that the data had
validity for your point of view, but not mine. Consistency is a
continuing and unsolved challenge.


What data are you talking about, Kane? The data for the immediate

issue --
child fatalities due to abuse and neglect -- is not missing "massive

amounts
of reportage from various states." If you could specify what

positions I
have taken based upon missing data and cite sources of that data, I

will be
able to respond. It is impossible to respond to shoot from the hip
generalities.


So far, Doug, you have stuck to your story of fatalies in foster care
being the same as fatalities caused by foster caregivers.

No such information is available.

The chart in question said clearly, By Bio parents, and IN foster
care. They were not being COMPARED, yet you continually, along with
other fools use data that does not say what you claim it does to make
a claim that foster caregivers have a higher rate of killing children
than bio families do.

Unproven and you won't admit it. ALL your claims are poisoned by that
stubborn refusal to differentiate between IN an BY.

The chart cited was not posted for such comparisions and you know it.

And in this instance we are discussing, the claim isn't even what you
say it is. We aren't discussing up or down, but what The Plant's
intent it.

And yours.

Your campaign to turn child welfare into a fascist exercise has been
well documented here, by you.

The bottom line is you are pushing for a police state.

Go **** up a rope.

Kane