Doug wrote:
Kane writes:

No, Doug cons.

Hi, Kane,

I see you have run out of beef again.

I delivered "the beef," long ago in this ng. Starting over three years
ago, Doug. Proving again and again you are ignorant, and full of
bull****.

Lacking any substantative reply to
the number of children removed from homes CPS unsubstantiates for any
childmaltreatment or risk of maltreatment, you cite an article that has
absolutely no relevance to the post to which you reply.

It has great relevance to your propagandist ways. And I said so. So
once again you are using exactly those tactics of dodging and
weaseling.

The issues concerning children that are removed as 'unsubstantiated' I
have answered, and you have failed to counter.

...And childish name-calling of course.

No, it's quite adult name calling. You are an asshole. And a liar.

Yours is an understandable preoccupation, since it is impossible to excuse
much of current CPS practice with substance or authorities. The literature
abounds with empirical evidence of its failure.

The literature abounds, as I have pointed out, with even authorities
that YOU cite, that says plainly enough that the scope of child abuse
is far greater than is currently being addressed...much more of it than
is responded to sufficiently. The system is overburdened, and always
has been and THAT is what the authorities say...even your own citation
choices.



And here's just one of the ways he pulls the wool over your eyes, if
you are a reader in this ng.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=997688

Thieves live in terror of being robbed.

You that afraid are yah?

The article you cite talks about methodology in the junk science that feeds
some of your Type II errors.

No, it is exactly the opposite. But then that's the favorite first ploy
of the weasel and liar.

I think most of us in this forum would
wholeheartedly agree with what the author has to say about small studies,
self-reported situations (like prisoners complaining that they are there
because, afterall, they were spanked as kids -- we all know that it's not
the criminal's fault, but his parents and everyone else).

So do you wish to call the reports and surveys of those even YOU have
cited that include, but you ignore, clear and uncontrovertable claims
of a massive overload of the system by virtue of the amount of abuse
going on?

Or do you wish to call those folks liars?

But the article does not address anything in the post to which you reply
(and you quote below).

You continue:

Subtle changes in wording, shifting the meanings of claims and
statements by "experts,"

No comments exist in my post about so-called experts, their claims, or
anything close to it.

Why do you insist on this weaseling then? You know perfectly well I am
addressing your general propagandist methods and messages here. This is
why I call you a liar. Because you do such things to misled, and that
IS lying.

avoiding reality by taking claims out of
context -- such as data sets to measure one thing being used to make
claims about things that appear related but in themselves are not being
examined.

Nothing out of context in this post to which you reply. In fact, to the
contrary, I quoted exactly the entire section on CPS findings directly from
USDHHS' "Child Maltreatment, 2002."

I was, and you know it, referring to ALL you lies and subterfuges, not
just this one.

The quoting, while ignoring all the postings that I have shown why
those findings do NOT fit the assumptions you promote and have in the
past, is a simple lie. The cleverness of the propagandist.


These latter are Doug's stock in trade as a propagandist.

None of these things you descibe appear in the post to which you reply.

You are a liar. The very act of ignoring my past posts that answered
questions the validity of the term "unsubstantiated" is sufficient to
show you as a liar.

You
are playing with an empty hand,

I played those hands months and even years ago here, and you
systematically ignore them or wish to argue them again to the same
end...that you finally dodge the truth.

so you call the author of information you
cannot challenge childish names.

Liar is not a childish name. You are a liar. You attempt to and do
mislead.

If the information below is "propaganda", so us some beef -- some documented
information that challenges the facts I have provided.

I have in the past. Again and again. You simple with to exercise me as
a weasel tactic.

Enjoy being conned by him, if you wish, or do your own thinking and
especially watch out for him when he says the same thing but loads you
up with HIS biases and HIS agenda first.

I am sure the readers here are doing their own thinking.

You have working them like a carney on the midway. YOu appeal to the
biased, fears, and dysfunctions of character and ignorance like the pro
I think you are.

They have since
the beginning of their involvement in this newsgroup and will continue to do
so.

Nonsense. You have been playing to their vulnerabilities from as far
back as I've looked at your postings.

If you want them to consider any rebuttal you may have to what I have
written in the post to which you reply, then give them some substance...some
information they can use their own thinking to consider as refuting the
substance of my post.

They've seen my posts in reply to you for over three years. In some
part of their biased brains resides some capacity for truth and they
KNOW in that part of themselves that you are a bull**** artist of great
skill. Again and again you made claims, or attempted to refute mine,
that ended in your ignominous defeat shown by just such tactics as
these....pretending we hadn't argued it out and pretending I hadn't
shown how wrong you were, or how much a liar you were, or how stupid
you are.

From who does CPS investigations, to the use of FBI systems for
background checks, to how jobs are specialized or not in CPS, again and
again you've been shown to be a clever fool and liar.

Live with it.

By simply calling those who post information you don't like to see names,

That in itself is a lie. There are plenty of posts here that I do not
like the information in wherein I do not call the poster a liar. I only
call liars liars.

you are not giving readers a chance to think about what you have to say.

Three years of posting on the same topics over and over, at instigation
by lying AGAIN about something that you were refuted over repeatedly.

Instead, you leave them no alternative but to think of what the name-calling
says about you.

I quite agree with you that most do have the capacity to think, and
that those few who cannot, for themselves, have some place in them that
isn't foul and full of your ****. They know the truth. It will just
take time for them to grow out of their biases.

Most of what he babbles below is just more of his monumental phony
balony CPS reform crusader garbage. He's just out to destroy.

What appears below -- and the substance of the post to which you now
reply -- is:

1) The entire quoted narrative from USDHHS defining the findings made by CPS
workers. USDHHS is the agency that publishes the data on how many children
are subject to each of these findings.

I responded to this nonsense again and again. You ignore my posts
pretending it never happened. That is what makes you a liar. And THAT
is what long time readers here know.

2) The fact that 96,000 children were removed from families CPS caseworkers
themselves unsubstantiated because they found no reason to suspect that
those children were at risk of maltreatment or actually maltreated.

And that has been explained fully with authoritative reports that show
that unsubstantiated do NOT mean what you claim it means. It is a
definition NOT in use in the field.

3) The fact that child advocacy groups in Florida are seeking a federal
investigation of overcrowded foster homes after a foster carer was charged
with murdering a foster child.

Yep. And the truth is that YOU claimed that foster placements were
DOWN. They are not.

4) That foster care systems in more than a dozen jurisdictions are under the
stewardship of the federal courts because of the maltreatment of foster
children by state agencies.

And you refuse to acknowledge the posts I put here with citations that
judges have made the first order of business MORE FUNDING...NOW!!!

5) That Children's Rights, an organization founded by a family court
specialist from ACLU, has successfully won every class action suit it has
brought in federal courts against foster care systems across the nation.

Of course. They sue for the things that are caused by lack of funding.
Stop playing stupid. No one here, not even your pets are unaware of
that.

6) That a variable other than child abuse or neglect or risk of either is
the causal agent for the removal of a large percentage of children from
their families.

That is a lie. Plain and simple. The very wording is a mass of weasel
talk.

...snip more of your bull****....

But do have nice day.

0:-