If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Doug unzips and exposes himself.
"Doug" wrote in message ...
How on earth did you get that title for your subject line, Kane? What follows in your post does nothing to substantiate your subject line. Mmmm...because you snipped selectively to reply in this post? It referred to a change in tactics. You have slipped into ad hom, something not common to your posts, not openly. (creating "with flowers in their hair" slogan in the sixties, Kane writes: I used to do "slogan in the sixties?" Hi, Kane! No, as you can see above, I wrote that you claimed you created the slogan, "with flowers in their hair." Not that the claim is any less absurd than how you worded your question. Well, you cut the "do" word from the previous sentence by me to create your odd claim that I made a claim. Those times were wild and I was right in the middle of it all, but I'd hardly claim to do something I didn't do. If I made any mention of "flowers in their hair" it would have been a joke, not a serious claim I made up the slogan. But you put it in quotes, let's see if you can find where I said it, hokay? I just tried a google on the entire Usenet archive, not just our thread or group. Here's what I got (and I read many permutations and variations) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...+hair%22&meta= Your post and my response. No Kane post where I claimed to have created the slogan. Gosh maybe my old brain is skipping faster than the rope is turning. Help me out here, recover the post where I said that. What were YOU doing in the sixties? People did many things. Look up the sixities and the name "the diggers" and "san francisco" if you find any pics I'm problem in some. We served free food and ran a free department store. I was 400 miles south of San Francisco doing many things, absent the flowers in my hair. I am very familar Now familiar? Who started it, and what was his profession? with the hundreds of people who collectively referred to themselves as "diggers." I knew probably less than a hundred. And I was in the thick of things. Who were these "hundreds" that I never met? The diggers did a lot to help hippies who were starving and often the victims of small-time hoods Yep, and some of us are still at helping the victims of small time hoods. By the way, the store and the free food was open to everyone. Not just hippies. who mingled with them. I liked to consider myself a hippie, but the ones with flowers in their hair often considered me part of the establishment -- a tremendous disappointment for me. Aw, we really really missed you. I found that when I flashed the peace sign at them from my Pacific Telephone van, I would get a different sort of gesture back. g Never from me. You have to do more than just have a surface appearance to earn my hand salute. But I had a family to support, so I remained with the hippies in spirit alone. So did I, and go to school, and volunteer work in the Haight. If you weren't there, you know **** about the sixties. I was there. Really. Everyone born before 1960 was there, Doug. But you weren't "there" and you just described how you weren't. You heard about it, and you observed it from time to time. That's all. No big deal. Just don't claim what you can't honestly claim. Not often. But I did drive a taxi for about a year in Honolulu. One meets a lot of celebrities in such a job, and hanging out in resort areas, which I did a lot of with my import business tends also to do the same. The list is too long, and unimportant to bother with. But you seem fascinated. Well, I can see what you would perceive it that way. Oh, you aren't then? Whew! What a relief. You would not have created and written of the illusions if they did not fascinate you. I didn't say "I" was fascinated. I said YOU were. You been dippin' into The Plants liquid fertilizer? Again? Or are you fascinated because I am? lunching with LCSW CPS caseworkers, etc.) Yep. For good reasons. Both because of the location I worked in and the opportunity to keep up on their activities. I wondered at the time you created this one why a therapist would be doing the job of an entry-level CPS caseworker. Didn't create it. It simply was so. I was neither a therapist nor cps worker. It is especially improbable because the Lincensed Clinical Social Worker would have to keep up her porficiency by seeing clients as a therapist. How does one do that when all CPS agencies I know about would consider such clinical practice a conflict of interest? Well, you see, Doug, when you start making things up in hopes you can later babble some sly camophlaged ad hom you have to start with something. You started with an assumption of what I did and what I was that wasn't true, but said in such a way to make it appear to any reader, other than me, that I was in fact either of those things. Nice try. What is important is what the man has to say. Naw. That's terrible inconsistent. You've said, possibly even more than once, that what I have to say is unimportant. What you have to say regarding child welfare issues is important, as I have stated. The old gimmick of pretending to separate the message from the messenger isn't going to fly. If what I say is important, Doug, then any logical person would assume I have some personal importance. To you, at any rate, or you wouldn't be so busy talking NOW NOT about the message but the messenger. Why IS that, Doug? This is a forum for the robust discussion of ideas and opinions. And yet you keep talking about me? What remains unimportant is who the particular contributor perceives himself to be. Principals before personalities. No Doug, that simply isn't true. People come with principals(and the use of "personalities" to try and step aside from the fact you ARE talking about people is duly noted chuckle). It is important to note that those bent on their own demogogery and agenda do a lot of work trying to hide that very thing, because if applied to them the cat may be out of the bag rather quickly. You have associated with people in this ng that are highly questionable not by their surface appearance but what they themselves have related they do and their intent. Not only that, dangerous people. Your unwillingness to confront them reflects on the value you put in them for their agreement with you on some things. You are tainted by their stink. Tsk, Doug. Why prove my assertions about you as true? What assertions are those, Kane? That you are deceptive and dishonest. I have written nothing here that confirms any of your "assertions" that I know of. I just trotted you through a few, and I have continuously in other posts. To the contrary, I have poked a little fun at some of the more odd assertions you have made about yourself. You went out of your way to stop discussing issues to give your attention to my credibility. Some of it is hardly poking fun. So tell us, why were you "poking fun?" When you pretend to levity it does not ring true. You are a cold calculating fish. It is important to employ critical thinking skills in validating or rejecting his comments and, as some do from time to time, debating on this forum those items you take issue with. Yep. And interestingly, when folks dig long enough they find I am usually correct. I can understand how you would perceive yourself to be usually correct. That sentence could have been missing and you would have fully made your point with the comment below. You included it to bias the reader. No big deal, I just didn't want anyone to miss it. Since contributors to this newsgroup obviously believe themselves to be correct, I mentioned that it is important for readers to exercise critical thinking in coming to their own conculsions. Smoke and mirrors. And the first words out of a con man's mouth. "You were picked to be a participant on your obvious ability to be discriminating and on your good taste." "We know you will do the right thing." "In fact we insist that you fully test our product and return it for full refund if you are not satisfied." "Of course "we" will pull up stakes and be in another state by the time you catch on to how we have conned you." No, Doug, I am going to be honest with these folks as I have been in the past, but no poking fun. They have sucked up to you precisely because they LACK actual critical thinking skills..formal ones as taught at university level. Everyone THINKS they are a critical thinker, until their first day in a class dissecting a new article or a TV pitch transcript, from the words of a trained journalist and pr man. Boy do the lights come on. You are very skilled, Doug. I admire that, but not what I think your agenda is. It's made your life interesting, right? It is, of course, solely up to me to make my life interesting. Another one of the "set the bias hood" preambles. I try my best. Generally, I find the world and the folks who inhabit it to be very interesting. All ideas and opinions regarding child welfare issues are of interest to me. It is what is written in this forum that interests me, not its authors. People come with something more than a title, Doug. They bring principles or the lack of them with them. And you just said what I have to say is important. How does that fit with this bit of minimizing about folks not having any interest except as to "why doesn't he tell us, etc." What you have to say about child welfare issues is important. Some think I have something important to say about other issues, that will turn out to be very closely connected. Who you perceive yourself to be and any surrounding mystery you perceive is created by not telling us is of no interest to me. Yet you go on and on, and repeating that. I find it fascinating. Tsk Doug. Could I be getting to you? You really fumbled your way through this one. How on earth could you be "getting to me?" Well, Doug...........here you ARE. Because we take different positions on some child welfare issues? Nope. Though we are in short supply here. It could be you are interested because of my persistance. Of course not. Your nose is growing. The name-calling has never bothered me any more than it would bother you if I chose to do it. You have name called me just as much as I you. Why does it not look so to the less decerning reader? Because I am honest. And you are a sneak. Why would I be concerned about what you think about me personally? You don't know me. You don't know that I don't. How is it that I am, as you have claimed, so unimportant, yet you spend your time and energy working so hard to discredit me? Especially as I get closer to the core....which you recently dodge as fast as you could make your little legs churn. I work to discredit the misinformation you post to the newsgroup about CPS policy and practice. Then why so much focus on me lately as I bring up new subjects? I first responded to HSLDA defense many months back. You reacted. You made me more curious. I looked at what I knew already and even expanded on it a bit to make sure things hadn't changed. I work to debate your position on some of the issues we discuss. Yes, you do "work" alrighty. This is important to me because readers may act based upon this misinformation and open the door to having the state do damage to their children and their families. Yet you went on for many posts defending a ploy that bobb brought up until you finally had to admit that the impression people were going to be left with would mislead them to think they had some assurance of protection from CPS intervention. When you cloak this misinformation in commentary about on hands experience, I don't have to cloak it. And don't. like having lawyers sunning themselves in your backyard at the very moment we are discussing legal issues, I found it a funny coincidence. In fact I laughed with my wife and Kim about it and about you when I joined them. The lengths you are going to to discredit me is way beyond obvious...and I thought you only were interested in the "issues. it becomes appropriate Why? to point out your habit of creating characters and events to support your argument. I had a lawyer involved in educational issues sitting on my deck chatting with my wife and you think I created her? I'll tell Kim you think I made her up and that she wasn't here that day. That your crediability is in question does not make your posts any less interesting. But it is very important to you to go after my credibility now, isn't it, Doug? You never so blatantly worked at this in the past. And I've brought up three organizations. Coincidence? As far as getting to the "core," as you put it, we move into delusional land. Nope. I've posted not only names but even supplied URLS for anyone's access that wanted to check. There is no delusion about the people, the organizations, or the intent. I have cited others that do research. I have cited the principles involved, and in the best tradition...but with FAR more access offerred....extended the invition you claim to do...that people examine the facts for themselves. Yet you appear to be claiming I haven't. Why, Doug? You are not usually so easily caught in a lie. What motivates you to take this much of a chance? What urgency is there? For instance, just to show how bad your memory is, or how much of a liar you a http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...g.goog le.com In this post of Sept 03, in this ng, I provided about 4 or five clickable URLS, two of which were from the very people themselves: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html www.chalcedon.edu www.ustaxpayers.org This isn't new stuff, Doug. I have no idea of what you are talking about. Short memory. I've been talking about an organization that you are very familiar with and have gone to great lengths to defend the actions of. You will again in this post. I have also brought up CR, which resulted in yet more interest in minimizing by you and others here....oddly, all folks that side with you in the CPS question. Now I've mentioned two MORE organizations, K-12 and Knowledge Universe, Michael Farriss and Michael Milken, and here you are hammering away very uncharacteristically and two of your butt lickin cronies right behind you attemting to discredit any thought that CR might be of critical interest. What is this "core" you perceive you are getting close to? Without knowing what the heck you are referring to, I am at a loss to respond in any other way than I am now. I think you are pretending ignorance. I mentioned K-12 and KU and the principles and here you are, knocking yourself out shuffling about as fast as I've ever seen you go, taking far more risks and going on and on about ME rather than what I have to say. The uncharacteristic behavior of a subject should be of interest to those in intelligence work, law enforcement, and journalism. What some intellgence officers, and law enforcment, and journalists forget though is the axion works both ways. Uncharacteristic behavior by them waves a flag. And either they should not behave uncharacteristically, or they should do so for an exlicit purpose. So, I have to ask myself: Is Doug behaving uncharacteristically (and I'm not suggesting you are any of the above but a journalist) because he doesn't know the axiom, or because he does and he has a purpose? So far, no luck. I haven't a clue what you are up to, but one of your fools might give it away. I love how they came after me in concert with you. I am unwilling to share in delusions or waste time looking for shadows cast by unseen, paranoid-induced creatures. Ooooo...very good one. Yet I posted very exact references and later in this post I do yet again...meaning before you hit the send button, you knew that. You had read them. Yet you left this bit of desperation stand. "delusions""shadows" " creatures" "paranoid induced." Could you please hold that flag up higher. I think the red washes out against the coward yellow background on your agenda. If you want to talk about some sort of core allegence you perceive I have, lets get out of Plato's cave and discuss it in the light of day. The questioner dislikes questions? Tsk. As for my perceptions, well they come and they go, they change and the wax and they wane and I rethink them, and then reconsider the past thinking...you know, analysis. Keep talking. No, Doug. It's not the usual crop of vendors, as you claim, that are going to serve CPS clients. There are new players on the field and I've seen you defend one of the pack. Who are these "new players?" Apparently you don't read through a post before asking questions, Plato. Regardless of the "professionals" involved, CPS malpractice has been the fruit of federally mandated procedures since 1974 and the measures we discussed are simply extensions of that malpractice. I would agree with many social work researchers who have concluded that the system needs to be torn down and rebuilt before any real change can be expected in child welfare practice. Until then, adjustments such as those you posted will simply extend -- and usually compound -- the present dysfunction in practice. Your soap box needs a new coat of paint. You've left it out in the weather, or your lies have faded it. There is not system of anykind, even marriage, that MIGHT not improve by destruction and replacement. It's a simple strawman dressed in buttons and bows to hide the stench of the rotten vegetation. Yes, no one would disagree that a system can likely be improved by destroying and rebuilding. What they miss it the cost. Lives and money, and personal freedom. And they aren't after being smalltime vendors of therapy and rehabilitation. They want the whole ball of wax, which includes mandated entre' into family homes. Owners and operators of "group homes" and "residential treatment facilities" for foster children are hardly smalltime. Compare to the folks I believe have their eyes on the prize, your examples are selling lemonade from a cardtable on the sidewalk. They are huge, multi-state corporations with very high profit margins. Well, for non-profits, as most are, I'd say that's quite a feat. There are thousands of big time players in the current system sucking off the teat of federal and state child welfare funding. I once worked for what was considered the premier one in the state I resided in. Not a fancy car among them. The director lived in a middle class neighborhood, and old one. No Bahama vacations. No world cruises. A three year old car purchase was celebrated like the second coming. You are, as usual lying. The worst abuses by vedors are the NEW ones that hopped on with great celebration by some in this ng because it was supposed to reform CPS abuses, and a couple of years later they folded. And you while you agree with me on that being bad.....of course you do....(but I wonder how you intend providing "front end services" to people that don't want them)....you seem very reluctant to, even waving your hands with a very clear message, "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain." *I* do not intend to provide front end services involuntarily. You know *You* don't but I know that it's coming. The above paragraph was to kic you in your sleeping self centered ass and wake you up. My very point in the post was that such services could not successfully be provided to people who did not want them. The issue isn't the efficacy of services you misleading lying subject segwaying twit, caught once again, but that someone bigger than any before have their eyes on this income source, and they will, if Bush is reelected, GET IT. And it will cost citizen's bigtime and I'm not just talking money here. I believe that the feds have plans to finance involuntary services on the front end just as they now finance involuntary services. I have to assume you miskeyed your first, "involuntary" and it was meant to be "voluntary." I'll start by assuming you meant exactly what you wrote, presuming front end as preventive, and the "now finance" as in home services to clients in the system. That IS my problem. Preventive services means eiter voluntary and we know how fast the junkies will flock to that. Or it means uninvited intrusion either slyly by smilling service workers at the door when there is a new baby, with baskets of information and welcome wagon sample bags (apologies to the Welcome Wagon ladies). Or, presuming the typo: No mincing about....a law that says register with the state when you have a child and expect a visitor within 12 working days and you will be breaking the law if you do not let the visitor examine the baby and the rest of your children, your pantry and the marriage bed. I don't see anyone waving their hands behind the curtain, Kane. Do you? Peekaboo. Your zipper is undone and you are hanging out. I don't see any shadows of any characters behind the curtain. The one directly below the light casts too small a shadow for him to notice. If you aren't in the employ of the people I keep pointing at you are missing one hell of a bet to line your pockets richly. You could DO better work for them than you do right here. You've sucked this pack in very well. They were easy and probably just practice for you, but you did it well. Every old con I've ever seen is present here. Glad handing. The Pigeon Drop. Ponzi. All over the place. You've got these folks lapping it up hence doing ANYTHING but critically thinking. Me, they don't like much at all....R R R R ....and dispite themselves they WILL think. I've assured that. Or what I've put in these posts will nag them and nag them and nag them. They think about me (as if THAT mattered, it's really the message) in their dreams, I'll guarantee it. And the important part (again, not me) will keep coming back. Can they risk being wrong? Honorable people can't. The rest can stick it up their asses, of course. I'm not looking to recruit the likes of those YOU do. I want people that wake up to be decent and honest. And interestingly some of the ones I sometimes give the worst time to have that in them. They don't have to agree with me, only be provoked to thing...critically, and actually look at the data. If you do, lets get those suckers the hell out of there and take a look at them. You didn't read the whole post first. Right now, it seems you are standing behind spectators making finger gestures and casting shadows on the wall. Well, if the URLs I've posted from September last year in this ng are the shadows produced by finger gestures, here's one for you: oo0o And the two most recent one's I posted that I KNOW you read before you posted this...do they have anything at all to do with your sudden interest in me personally rather than my message? Let me put it this way: if you are honorable and ethical, and I'm quite comfortable with the idea you might be, I can do NO harm turning you on to what I have been saying for some time now, and you have read. You might do something honest about a real problem...who knows. What is it about where I'm going that has you so very interested in discrediting me, Doug? Where are you going, Kane? I haven't a clue. Well, since I've been talking about HSLDA for some time, and recently I've pointed even more emphatically at them, and just recently at more of the same crowd, I have to ask, ARE YOU BLIND ASSHOLE? My interest in challenging statements you have made that I believe to be untrue has been ongoing for some years now. That has not changed. What a dumb ****. Do you think I missed that you just changed the subject? I didn't ask you about about our counter debates. I haven't even mentioned them. I have talked only about the risks of a new set of players, who have been around setting this up for some time, to step into the light and make their move publically now that they have support at the highest levels. First by saying that what I say is unimportant, now that it is, and who knows what next, as long as it will pull everyones eyes away from what I'm talking about to our little exchanges. I never said that what you had to say was unimportant. To the contrary, I have written that what you have to say is important. You have conveniently ignored when I've cornered you over your analysis of data. That amounts to the same thing. And: (chinese case-guardianship) "What you just said is silliness." "What you have done is shoot yourself in the foot." "This is just an internet newsgroup, Kane. What is said here is just not that important. No big deal." I have said that who you perceive yourself to be is unimportant -- at least to me. Then why are you spending so much time telling me and retelling me? If it were actually true to you you would ignore it. How on earth has this posture ever taken everyone's eyes away from what you are talking about? How on earth do you live with yourself when you do this kind of misleading and misdirection? I made no claim that your treatment of ME was a misdirection, but that you bother to might just be. It's as much when you do something as what you do, probably More important in fact. If I hadn't just brought up the key players in what I think is going to be a very bad scene for families (one that you champion with the same excuse used to justofy everything from eating the last piece of pie, to genocidal purging)we wouldn't be having this conversation. Had you suddenly switched your style right after some other issue I brought up we'd be having THAT conversation. But this conversation ripe with discussions of me that might go to my crediblity and barren of any real discussion of the subjects I brought up THIS TIME. Teh same old saw about the great service to families by HSLDA doesn't cut it. And refusal to look at that "service" against the possiblity of a larger agenda by the servers, or maybe it should be, "servicers," is again, duly noted chuckle. I have tried over the years to point out what you are talking about and sometimes challenge it. You haven't "tried." What a silly thing to say. Here you go folks. And this time I will NOT give citations. I want YOU to do the work yourself. Because I believe our system of government works when people invest in it by their own labors and thought. Here are a series of keywards for search fields. It you don't know how to google or use other search engines this the time to learn: (use any and all combinations) "Michael Milken" "William Bennett" "Knowledge Universe" "K-12" "Michael Farris:" "Christian Reconstructionism" "HSLDA" "Patrick Henry College" "Intelligence training" (put these two together) "Cyber school" And as Doug suggests, do some critical thinking. See if you can put things together as the links start to show up. Look for names that turn up in more than one place. Organizations, in convoluted but imaginative relationships to each other. Apparently they are not completely proud of what they are doing. But it's got billions of dollars in it, so they will continue. Look for who is funding what...as in wealthy very right-wing folks. They seem like shadows to me. No, Doug, the shadow NOW, is right were you stand by this attempt to minimze and divert folks from looking for themselves. YOu, the great champion of folks doing critical thinking for themselves are trying to direct them away. With all due respect, Translation: "With every intent to divert and pretend to a respect I do not have." I think I will pass. Never let it be said that a "critial thinker" wasted a moment on someone else's suggestion that an issue deserved attention. I'm coming to think I misjudged you. That my name calling and ad hom fell far short of what you really are. If you are ever willing to come out into the daylight with what you are talking about, I would be happy to learn what you have to teach. I have done so. You are dodging. I am not going to post entire webpages on this ng. I have pointed by URL to the pages that give the story better than I could tell it. If YOU are a critical thinker all you'll have to do is read and make the connections yourself. YOu were a journalist. You know exactly how to do that. YOu know to watch for names that appear in more than one place to indicated connections to causes and organizations. You know (or you were as poorly a trained journalist as you are a tactician) how to find the connections between organizations. You know how to ferret out intent in a declaration. And you know perfectly well that if I slipped just right that I might be subject to a charge of libel or slander. I've done this too long to fall for that one, smartass. I can only point to the evidence and let YOU make your own critical analysis. If you won't look then I have to ask what makes you so sure there is nothign to see, or is it that you want the other readers to think there is nothing to see? Three of you, going at me hammer and tongs over this. Hmmmmmm....... As I have said before, you seem preoccupied with individual and group personalities and their motives. And this has a significance in relation to normal human behavior how? Are you pretending that people are not generally and universally preoccupied with others behavior and motives? YOu the great reformer of CPS by questioning its intentions and motives and that of vendors, and other "child welfare industry" profiteers? Wanna play some more, sucker? I hope you understand this vantage point does not interest me. I hope you understand that I can see you clearly trying to influence others away from taking a look for themselves. I trust that a few will not step out of your sphere of influence and look, but I also trust that many here, even those you've misled and conned, have at their core a solid decency and will look for themselves. I am interested in their ideas and the position they take on child welfare issues. What they have to say is important to me. Who they are is not. Then how is it you want to make your judgement of whether or not to look based only on their names and my referrancing them, and NOT at the "What they have to say," eh? As in, "I think I'll pass" when I offered you the chance to look for yourself? Now if you like I can post my URLs all again, but they aren't hard to find in my past posts. Just google on my addy with the search subjects above and you'll have them all. Someone told me once I'd probably like you if we met face to face. So far. No luck. But if you are the man you claim to be that could happen. Go look. Stop dancing. What they have to say has a great deal to do with family. Education is the door. Note the political forays, HSLDA would be a good place to start...an organization that is nonprofit...but it has an arm that is very involved in legislation and politics, as we've seen here. Here comes the blah blah again. Are you too ignorant to remember what is intended by the statement, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," and those that lobby that same government? Do you always assume that the simple stated intent is all the intent? That NOT looking at other possibilities of intent is the smart thing to do? Boy, are you going to make a great politician. HSLDA was instrumental in getting Congress to require CPS workers to learn about rights retained by children and their families and to require CPS to obtain warrants before seizing children. These were excellent reform measures which now govern CPS practice. HSLDA is very active in legally defending its members against wrongful CPS interventions. I applaud these efforts. I know little of the organization that carried them out. I am not interested in WHO initiated these measures to protect children and their families, but in the measures themselves. It represents progress in reforming a system badly in need of reform. Biased nonsense wrapped in hyperbolic propaganda. It didn't need a new law. It needed enforcement. A few court cases could have done it. YOu yourself have posted, and your cronies, caselaw that would support just such training and protection. When you go to the feds with a plea for help you are stepping into the presence of a Don Corleone presence. You ARE going to be asked for a favor someday. And that is exactly how power is managed. When you start talking about what is important, really important, and note how hard Doug works to discredit me, and leave off discussions with his little crew of twits, you might compare some notes here and catch on. I thought we were talking about what is really important in this newsgroup. Yes. Exactly. If you have something else that is more important to talk about, please go right ahead and share it with us. I did above and pretending I didn't doesn't work now nor has it in the past for you. YOu are not just exposing yourself now, you are jacking off publically for everyone to see. That one couldn't get by even The Syncophant Plant. If you don't, and others don't that are also looking at some of these things outside this ng, we are in for a very bad time in America. The right, and especially the fundy religious right want to not only politically control this country but to profit personally from that control themselves. Shadows. Everything has a shadow. And if that's all you look at then it's pretty obvious what you wish to do here. Are you saying they do NOT want to control the government and they are not real? You are either one of them then and diverting, and you are a damn fool for makin such a stupid claim given the current administration. They even admit it. And if you aren't THEM, you are dogmeat. Who are they? Lost your guts? That's either a coward talking, or someone that has been outted and can't think of what else to say. "They" are who I have given many citations about, and names and intent, and invited folks to go look for themselves. So far your two faithful puppies have shown a reluctance to do anything but ad hom attack...and now YOU...tsk, Doug. Tsk. Why are you minimizing this? Enjoy, Doug. Thank you! You too, sir! I do, every minute of it. Especially when you feel your back against the wall and lose your usual composure and start babbling a bit. Doug Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|