On Jul 28, 8:05 pm, Greegor wrote:
I can't speak for Firemonkey. As for myself, my only "threat" has
taken the form of, action should you or your cronies, present or past,
cause or appear to be trying to cause harm to me, mine, or Don's.

You mixed past tense and future tense. Getting lost?

One time he posted a general warning letter
which did not name any person,

Why would one in a general statement.

A proper cease and desist order would not
be based on INNUENDO, but specific actions,
and would specifically name the party intended for.

Of course. What cease and desist order did I mention?

That's what your ""lawyer approved"" threatgram was.

I have said, "if," Greg, repeatedly.

Have a stutter?

I am no long willing to tolerate your studied
and deliberate ignorance, that you think frees you to
make the same false claims over and over again.

Kane wrote
"no long willing to tolerate"

LOL Ptbptbptbthth

This was resolved long ago in exchanges with us, and you simply ignore
that and lie again, about what I said and how I said it.

Feel free to post my actual Usenet post that would support your claim.

What you posted was more like some ROYAL DECREE,
a public display of your Megalomania.

That I would not tolerate you or anyone involved going without action
should one of YOU take action against me and mine?

how is that megalomania, Greg?

Kane wrote

I am no long willing to tolerate your studied
and deliberate ignorance, that you think frees you to
make the same false claims over and over again.

Whiny and megalomaniac comments!

G not even an alias it was addressed to,
K No reason to post that here.

Not if you don't intend it to be a legal notice.

It was a notice, not a legal action. All that is required in it is for
me to describe...and I really don't have to do that, the conditions
under which I would take action "if."

I did that. But I certainly didn't include all my options.

Did it fulfill some innermost need for you?

G and he said that his
G attorney had read and approved the letter.
K Yes, he did.
G He conveniently never mentioned the supposed lawyers name.
K Why would I?

To lend it some authenticity, at the very least.

I don't NEED his name or anyone's to
make a simple statement of my intent.

In other words it was just more GASBAGGING.

Without his name, signature and Bar Association
number your claims are obvious fraud.

What claims?

Your ""lawyer approved"" letter was just more GASBAGGING.

And would that make my statement of intent to take action "IF" a
'fraud.' I wrote it. I said it. I meant it.

You dealt it, you ""smelt"" it.

Even if I never activate for cause, "if" factor, it's not a fraud.
Unless you can read my mind and I'm telling you I never intended to
act on it "if" you little twerps did anything.

Bla Bla bla... Keep flapping your gums...

So, while your in there, look for my memory of that airline stewardess
I dated in the 60s. Can't seem to recall her face any more. 0:]

Thank you Commander McBrag!

G His sock or idiotic protege' Firemonkey has ALSO made
G false accusations and threats of action against me by her
G ex the cop AND threats of legal action.
K So, defy her and continue.

I fart in your general direction.

As usual, just like when you ****, the wind is in your direction.
That's what you get for being too 'general.'

In other words, you are determinedly stupid, as are others, and refuse
to take this seriously the possible consequences of your own actions.

You are a wheazing old senile bag of flatulence.

Either through arrested development or "second childhood"
you seem to have thought processes very much like
a petulent kid with ADHD, angry and on a
crusade against spanking and parents.

You want to be taken SERIOUSLY? LOL

Stop making impotent threats and sue me.
Prove you are something more than a flatulent old gas bag.

G Firemonkey claimed she paid for ""information"" on me.
K Did she?
She so claimed.
For information that's in the online phone book!

One can put false information in an online phone book. One can request
the site remove, or change information.

Do you wear Depends or some other brand of incontinence products?

G Just like Kane's many threats of legal action,

K I did not make many threats, and I followed through.

Not the threats you made to me. Pure gas bagging.

I didn't make any threats to you, other than contingent on, "if"
certain things happened.

Gas bagging. Pure flatulence.

K One reader knows that, to his sorrow.

Proof?

You? Ask ME for proof?

It was already posted in this newsgroup.

And the cause as well.

It should be EASY to search out and link to then!
Was it a legal action?
Can I look it up through online court records?

You have tooted this horn over and over again
but always just a bit off pitch.

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?

If you can't figure it out, then that's your loss. And explains why
you are so stupid as to threaten me with false claims.

What claim did you ever prove?

G none of the threats came true even though I am
G openly listed in the phone book.

Did I name you specifically?
Yes.

Contingent on what?

Flatulence.

Sappy "candy bar" logic lesson snipped

And are we out of time?
Yes.

G There IS such a thing as abusing threats of law suit.
K Is there? You have a statute that clarifies your claim?
Not necessary.

Then you made an empty claim, based on your opinion. I also then have
abused, by my statement above, abusing threats to send a chocolate
bar.

That is your opinion based on your interpretation of my opinion.
How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck
wood?

And the two are just about equally funny to view when your comment of
'abuse' is added.

You are easily amused.

G Attempting to intimidate, drive off or squelch an
G opponent is certainly an abuse.

K That depends on methods used and the
K truth of YOUR claim that I did.

K I still have copies of me begging you to stay.
K Have you forgotten them.

Meaningless

On the contrary. They were seriously meant, and seriously written, and
read seriously to anyone that can comprehend the english language
sufficiently. I do not want you to ever leave this forum.

You are my "Nazi in a bell jar".

That doesn't mean that I'll give up my rights to free speech and
withhold my opinions of you to keep you here.

Yes, without an opinionated nature you would cease being.
You wear your issues on your shirt sleave and your
concept of self importance is based on that, isn't it?

Won't they let you take a computer to the Nursing Home? LOL

What methods have I used to attempt to drive you off, or intimidate
you? Please be clear in your explanation

You are a gracious social butterfly! LOL

G Kane and his crowd have a propensity for such
G threats of legal action.
K Crowd?
cohorts

The use of that word strongly suggests a group that each member has
some responsibility for the actions or every other. That they act in
concert, and they decide together what acts to take, and the rationale
for them.

Or it could be as simple as you all kiss each others butt constantly.

We've even disagreed publicly, if you include Dan and Betty. I believe
I may have differed with others as well, that have not taken a liking
to you.

Aw! You're breaking my heart, really! You mean person you!

You accused me, after I admonished one of them, of them being a sock
attacking you and me covering that it was I that took what I felt to
be unethical actions.

Does that look like a "cohort" response?

Yes, to a "Double Naught Spy" like you! Secret Agent Man....

Your financial dealings that became legal issues were outside the
purvey of this forum, and your personally stated reasons for being
here. I did not protest the marital and domestic abuse issue simply
because it WAS part of the subject matter you introduced.

Thank you Lord Kane! LOL

You never discussed your finances other than your job issues. Hence I
was not tolerant of that being a point of discussion.

You were not tolerant? What a power tripping fartbag!

In fact, as I look back and your admitted work record, it occurs to me
now I might have been wrong to admonish the poster. You DID say you
were on a sabbatical, and we can be fairly sure it was for at least
three years.

In any case, I defended you, and you are so caught up in yourself and
your little games you could not accept that. Show that I posted as
someone else that made that disclosure.

Flapping your lips when you type again?

Kane wrote
I have a question for you. If you think I'm Don Fisher, and you have
all this action going about him, with various threats of your own, and
claims of illegal ...

Claims of illegal what?

... acts.

Thank you for catching my oversight.

What claims of illegal acts by Donald?

completely reduntant text snipped





http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...tive-services/...

Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services,
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.foster-parents, alt.support.divorce
From: Greegor
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:06:05 -0700
Local: Mon, Jul 16 2007 3:06 am
Subject: Fairfax CPS Socialworker fabricates Sexual Abuse
Allegations.

K You seem awful touchy lately.

Who's swearing?

Say, tell me, do you think Donald L. Fisher, who you have identified
as living in Bend Oregon and an employee of CPS, actually pandered to
perverts and spammed children in state custody to them, Greg?

Yes. ...

Kane wrote



... remember you

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, whoi is Kane's lawyer? Is ist the same one Don Fisher gonna use?
If so, I'd say Kane should get a colonoscopy. Maybe then he can find
his head!

AF