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
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Dan:
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote: Dan: I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me. Wouldn't matter, Greg. Our opinion of you, while of course hardly complimentary, is nothing compared to how important it is to make any newcomers aware of what a dangerous source you are if they want help with fighting CPS. You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. You have never helped a single person coming here to succeed in regaining their children, or oveturning CPS foundings, yet you attempt to discredit the ONLY person here that ever had succeeded, and done so repeatedly, even wiht cases where the parent was guilty as charged. dan STILL won, and you can't even win in a case you claim the perp is innocent...your OWN case. 6 years you've taken advantage of a single mother. Where is it going to end, Greg? How many more times are you going to try for another victim here? How many more times are you going to insult people that have prevailed against CPS with Dan's or my help, just because they don't buy into your mindless, dangerous, and even illegal crap "advice?" It's really simple, Greg. You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant. There are lots of such people in the world. They just don't come by here in all that great a number. But each one presents a terrible threat to parents here for help. Buy some rope. Be of some use. 0:- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote:
Dan: I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me. Wouldn't matter, Greg. Our opinion of you,snip You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum? Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. REALLY? Citations please! You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant. And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! g Kane wrote snip! Buy some rope. Be of some use. Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote: Greegor wrote: Dan: I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me. Wouldn't matter, Greg. Our opinion of you,snip You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum? Notice the snip? Your brain still not attached? Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. REALLY? Citations please! Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant. And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! g Yep. And typical narcissistic response, Greg. The only attention you can get is as a dangerous trouble maker. Notice? Kane wrote snip! Buy some rope. Be of some use. Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see! It wasn't mean as a charity to you, but to others. 5/8ths Sisal is cheap, like you, and will easily hold your weight. 0:- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. You think that I advised the Christine family? And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? That's the best ya got? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. You think that I advised the Christine family? I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling around with those that did the advice giving, stupid. And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this newsgroup knows it. That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less. And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you not? And who said she had a drug relapse? Who would tell you such a thing? Could it have been that wonderful supporter, Chuckles The Clown? You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out. They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are. That's the best ya got? Answer my questions and we'll decide. This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre trial. " From: Greg Hanson - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm Email: (Greg Hanson) Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) Are there standards for malnourishment? Does a vegetarian diet conform? " You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head injury, that then went untreated. So much for your honesty. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. Greg wrote You think that I advised the Christine family? Kane wrote I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling around with those that did the advice giving, stupid. Yer a mental case! Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed? I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny! Kane wrote And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this newsgroup knows it. Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again! It was hysterical! Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN! All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe, simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent. Kane wrote That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less. Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology. Greg wrote And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? Kane wrote You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you not? You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise. NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her? Having it BOTH ways??? Kane wrote And who said she had a drug relapse? Who would tell you such a thing? I can't recall if it was herself or Dan... But it was definately referred to by Dan. I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use such a BAD example as a reference. Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids? How did you MISS that, Kane? Kane wrote You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out. You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun? How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology! Kane wrote They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are. Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer! Greg wrote That's the best ya got? Kane wrote Answer my questions and we'll decide. we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again? This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre trial. Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly attributed to me? My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow! Aren't they USUALLY? From: Greg Hanson - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm Email: (Greg Hanson) Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) Are there standards for malnourishment? Does a vegetarian diet conform? " Who wrote this part below? You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head injury, that then went untreated. So much for your honesty. For not making my OPPONENTS case for them? My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel? Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
"Greegor" wrote in message ups.com... Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. Greg wrote You think that I advised the Christine family? Kane wrote I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling around with those that did the advice giving, stupid. Yer a mental case! Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed? I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny! Funny? It's one of your favorite angles. Kane wrote And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this newsgroup knows it. Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again! It was hysterical! Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN! All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe, simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent. Kane wrote That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less. Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology. Greg wrote And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? Kane wrote You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you not? You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise. NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her? Having it BOTH ways??? Kane wrote And who said she had a drug relapse? Who would tell you such a thing? I can't recall if it was herself or Dan... But it was definately referred to by Dan. I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use such a BAD example as a reference. Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids? How did you MISS that, Kane? Kane wrote You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out. You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun? How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology! Kane wrote They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are. Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer! Greg wrote That's the best ya got? Kane wrote Answer my questions and we'll decide. we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again? This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre trial. Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly attributed to me? My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow! Aren't they USUALLY? From: Greg Hanson - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm Email: (Greg Hanson) Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) Are there standards for malnourishment? Does a vegetarian diet conform? " Who wrote this part below? You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head injury, that then went untreated. So much for your honesty. For not making my OPPONENTS case for them? My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel? Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
You are many yet I have you surrounded.
dragonsgirl wrote: "Greegor" wrote in message ups.com... Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. Greg wrote You think that I advised the Christine family? Kane wrote I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling around with those that did the advice giving, stupid. Yer a mental case! Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed? I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny! Funny? It's one of your favorite angles. Kane wrote And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this newsgroup knows it. Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again! It was hysterical! Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN! All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe, simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent. Kane wrote That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less. Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology. Greg wrote And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? Kane wrote You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you not? You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise. NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her? Having it BOTH ways??? Kane wrote And who said she had a drug relapse? Who would tell you such a thing? I can't recall if it was herself or Dan... But it was definately referred to by Dan. I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use such a BAD example as a reference. Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids? How did you MISS that, Kane? Kane wrote You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out. You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun? How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology! Kane wrote They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are. Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer! Greg wrote That's the best ya got? Kane wrote Answer my questions and we'll decide. we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again? This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre trial. Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly attributed to me? My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow! Aren't they USUALLY? From: Greg Hanson - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm Email: (Greg Hanson) Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) Are there standards for malnourishment? Does a vegetarian diet conform? " Who wrote this part below? You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head injury, that then went untreated. So much for your honesty. For not making my OPPONENTS case for them? My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel? Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. Greg wrote REALLY? Citations please! Kane wrote Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple. Greg wrote You think that I advised the Christine family? Kane wrote I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling around with those that did the advice giving, stupid. Yer a mental case! Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed? I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny! Kane wrote And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this newsgroup knows it. Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again! It was hysterical! Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN! All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe, simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent. Kane wrote That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less. Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology. Greg wrote And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story" was somehow my fault?? Kane wrote You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you not? You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise. NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her? Having it BOTH ways??? Kane wrote And who said she had a drug relapse? Who would tell you such a thing? I can't recall if it was herself or Dan... But it was definately referred to by Dan. I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use such a BAD example as a reference. Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids? How did you MISS that, Kane? Kane wrote You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out. You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun? How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology! Kane wrote They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are. Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer! Greg wrote That's the best ya got? Kane wrote Answer my questions and we'll decide. we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again? This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre trial. Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly attributed to me? My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow! Aren't they USUALLY? From: Greg Hanson - view profile Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm Email: (Greg Hanson) Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) Are there standards for malnourishment? Does a vegetarian diet conform? " Who wrote this part below? I did. Can't you see the quotes at the end of your little q and a? The end YOUR part, and whatever comes after isn't yours any more, stupid. You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head injury, that then went untreated. So much for your honesty. For not making my OPPONENTS case for them? My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel? Well, let's see exactly what you were doing. This case was well along, these issues had been discussed previously, and the media had cover all such questions already. Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE! Let's take another look at your questions and let people decide who is the mental case here. Either the media had covered these or the answers have long been known, stupid. "" means it's YOUR comment, stupid, and [[ ]] means it's mine. Is there a definition of when a child is too thin? [[ How could you ask such a stupid question? It was noted very plainly by professional health workers these children were far beyond "thin." They were malnourished, severely. ]] Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS. [[ You and others seem to presume that vegetarianism produces thinness by default. It does not. I lived for about 6 years on a vegetarian diet and had trouble keeping my weight down, even with heavy outdoor labor almost constantly. I ran up to 230, fat for me at about 6'1" ]] Do vegetarian parents have the right to have vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy? [[ One of your usual insinuating rhetorically formatted questions. There is NO "longer life expectancy" other than rumor for vegetarianism. It's total caloric intake over time, stupid, that tends to lengthen life. On the other hand, periods of long term starvation do NOT do that...and it is especially dangerous in children, as they may not have the nutrients for building essential body components, like brain, and internal organ tissue. They aren't made from air. ]] Kids were released from hospital in 3 days. Does that fit "emaciated" kids? [[ Another totally stupid innuendo. What would keep them in the hospital longer? If they are being fed properly it can be done in home with period outpatient checkups. I suspect that is exactly what happened. There is no reason to keep someone that is malnourished in hospital for any particular length of time unless they have suffered some system failure...even the child with the UNTREATED fractured skull and the UNTREATED suppurating infected head wound could have been released in that time on and outpatient status. ]] Did they have distended bellies? (As in REAL starvation?) [[ Another lie. Distended bellies aren't necessarily a part of "REAL" starvation as opposed to something "unreal," Greg. Your choice of "REAL" indicates you were trying to sway people to the concept they were not starving. A flat out lie, liar. One can be severely malnourished and have no such condition. ]] Are there standards for malnourishment? [[ Obviously there are, stupid. ]] Does a vegetarian diet conform? " [[ Another stupid rhetorical question trying to portray the parents as innocent, rather than stupid...which I believe they actually were. I could see NO malice by them purposefully. Just stupidity and a ranting political agenda they subjected their children to. -- Diet as politics was going heavy duty in the 70's with lots of it continuing to the present. ]] And one wouldn't ask if vegetarianism conformed to standards for malnourishment. (actually that is made up word, it should be "undernourishment") It does not, if it is done correctly. I was certainly not malnourished when I stuck to a strict vegetarian diet. But I refused to put my children on such a diet. It is far too complicated, there systems are not fully functional and being built, and people vary in their ability to adequately metabolize some foods. You can't tell until you are an adult what that is for a person. It's far to risky to put children on such diets. My understanding was that they might have been in fact applying a "Macrobiotic" diet to their children. This is well known to have risks even to adults. Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the stupidity of Brian and Ruth. Nothing more. They didn't get a chance to grow up and be responsible parents. ****ant vultures like you got hold of them and kept them from getting their children back by using Brian and Ruth as their political lab rats. You and they welcomed the terrible loss THEY SUFFERED because YOU wanted to do your "Gee ain't CPS just awful" blood dance. Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to challenge the court and child protection system. You are sick little ****ants, Greg. You need to get that through your head. And your sickness endangers people like Ruth and Brian who might make mistakes but CAN recover from it and walk away wiser but WITH THEIR CHILDREN and not locked up in jail. You stupid little chicken****. 0:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sodomy 101 | Greegor | Spanking | 48 | August 23rd 06 12:10 AM |
Arizona CPS Stealing Children for Profit: Angry parents Drop political equivalent of nuclear weapon at school board meeting.... | Greegor | Spanking | 0 | August 22nd 06 11:42 PM |
We don need no steenkin' CPS. | 0:-> | Spanking | 223 | July 19th 06 07:32 AM |
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..?? | Dusty | Child Support | 267 | June 10th 06 04:36 PM |
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ... | Pohaku Kane | Foster Parents | 4 | November 27th 05 10:47 PM |