Ah, the Brian and Ruth Christine solution

Kane wrote
As I said, I'm not interested in debate on
the question until you state your position.
Not with you, or with bobber, or any other
interference running you might call to for help.

Greg writes:
You sir, are a liar, plain and simple.

You made an ASSERTION that I advocated gun violence.
Then when asked for proof the best you can do is say
"Can you see how I might draw the conclusion I did?"

This is the tactic of a weasel.

Look, dude, you already admitted that you
are full of it, when you said

"until you state your position".

Clearly and in no uncertain terms you
have already ADMITTED that your assertion
about me was false, but your giant EGO
apparently can't allow you to admit that
you LIED.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
As I said, I'm not interested in debate on
the question until you state your position.
Not with you, or with bobber, or any other
interference running you might call to for help.

Greg writes:
You sir, are a liar, plain and simple.

Nope.

You made an ASSERTION that I advocated gun violence.

Nope. I "asserted" that you had a conversation with an ex LEO wherein,
as HE argued against the use of guns in taking children from CPS, you
made fun of him for comparing the two.

Can we not presume from that you were defending the use of guns in both
instances?

Do you need for me to post your conversational exchange with the ex-LEO
again?

Then when asked for proof the best you can do is say
"Can you see how I might draw the conclusion I did?"

What "proof" did I ask for?

This is the tactic of a weasel.

Well, we don't know yet what "proof" I asked for, if any, so until you
produce proof of my asking you to prove something, it appears you are
lying...as in weaseling, yet again. Nice one Doug.....scuse, greegor.

Look, dude, you already admitted that you
are full of it, when you said

"until you state your position".

Well, it appears somewhat out of context. I do believe I was telling
someone I wasn't interesting in debating them on all matters under the
sun but this very one of the use of lethal force. I say again, I will
be happy to debate you on why you take the position you do, if you wish
to take you and defend it, and I'm not particularly interested in
debating it before you have stated a position.

Your only offering was to NOT answer the question as asked and instead
offer to answer one I had not asked. You state you would support, or
condone, the use of lethal force against someone that had ILLEGALLY
taken a child, kidnapped them.

I didn't ask that. But that's nice. I in fact can agree with you fully.
And I have never faulted the police, even when they blew it and shot
the victim unintentionally....as long as they put many large holes in
the perp. I have a thing about kidnapping children. I consider poor
misguided Brian to be a very lucky boy indeed. Or he got even better
coaching on how to surrender safely than he did on how to get his
children back.

Clearly and in no uncertain terms you
have already ADMITTED that your assertion
about me was false,

Neal's long gone. His tactics with him. I admitted nothing of the kind.


I said you were welcome to prove me wrong if you wished. And that is
the only thing I offered. I didn't even insist you proved any proof. I
included an escape clause for you, that you have not bothered to take.

I sense you are in something of a quandry. I believe it's called
"congnitive dissonance."

but your giant EGO

I have a healthy, properly sized ego, greegor. It's you that have the
ego problem. You can't admit you were wrong, or simply back out and not
answer. Either one would be far more indicative of a healthy "ego" than
what you are doing now, classic Douggie weaseling. With a little Neal
thrown in for the memories.

apparently can't allow you to admit that
you LIED.

I'd admit it if I did. I have admitted I could be wrong. All you have
to do is make me wrong and I'll admit it, quite opennly and genuinely
as having misjudged you.

Let me put the question another way.....possibly we can save your skin.


Do you believe that a child held legally by the state, even if the
state at some point is proven wrong in having removed that child, can
morally be taken from the state, by the use of lethal force?

Is that simple enough?

I'm anxiously awaiting your answer not couched in weasel language, but
just a simple direct yes or no answer. You've told me who could be shot
morally, but you've not said if you believe government agents could be
threatened with lethal force and or shot by parents to recover
children.

And bless you for admitting that kidnappers should be shot. You do
recall that the meth heads kidnapped children legally in the custody of
the state, I take it.

Can I safely presume, given your statement about shooting kidnappers,
that you then believe it would have been morally defensible for say
the foster mother to shoot them had she had the chance?

I'll tell you flat out my opinion. Absolutely yes.
I wouldn't like it, but it would be morally defensible given the
circumstances the media portrayed. Armed intruders. Many state's laws
agree with me.

I'm glad the foster mom wasn't armed, and that no one actually got
hurt, but the potential there for bad things to happen......shiver.

Not meaning to distract you from the question, of course.

Do you believe that a child held legally by the state, even if the
state at some point is proven wrong in having removed that child, can
morally be taken from the state, by the use of lethal force?

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
As I said, I'm not interested in debate on
the question until you state your position.
Not with you, or with bobber, or any other
interference running you might call to for help.

Greg writes:
You sir, are a liar, plain and simple.

You made an ASSERTION that I advocated gun violence.
Then when asked for proof the best you can do is say
"Can you see how I might draw the conclusion I did?"

This is the tactic of a weasel.

Look, dude, you already admitted that you
are full of it, when you said

"until you state your position".

Clearly and in no uncertain terms you
have already ADMITTED that your assertion
about me was false, but your giant EGO
apparently can't allow you to admit that
you LIED.

All lying by dodging weasel nonsense.

You haven't answered the question. You simply said who you thought
could be threatened or shot.

Putting aside the question of whether or not I "LIED," for another
debate, since it's another subject: "Do you believe that a child held
legally by the state, even if the state at some point is proven wrong
in having removed that child, can morally be taken from the state, by
the use of lethal force?
"

Douggie failed to protect you. And he always will when it doesn't serve
him. Don't you get tired of being used? Don't you get tired of not
being your own man?

Thanks for your attention to THIS question.

Kane

In seeing this from alt.parenting.spanking I see that
only fragments of the thread made it over here.

For the complete interaction see the same thread
from alt.support.child-protective-services.

Kane backpedals like the "stages of death"
refusing to admit he just plain LIED when he
asserted I advocated gun violence.

Greegor wrote:
In seeing this from alt.parenting.spanking I see that
only fragments of the thread made it over here.

You put it there by asking me a question that I responded to reminding
you you had not answered MINE. Notice I answered yours.

For the complete interaction see the same thread
from alt.support.child-protective-services.

Hokay, now we are on a roll.

Kane backpedals like the "stages of death"
refusing to admit he just plain LIED when he
asserted I advocated gun violence.

I can't admit to something I have not done. The line you quoted I
discussed in the reply to you in aps.

Here's how it works, greegor. I never asserted you advocated gun
violence. In fact I never used that more offensive and emotionally
laden phrase, "gun violence." It's entirely your construct.


A search in the archive of MY postings, and that goes back to as long
as I've used this current address produces only two recent appearances
of the phrase, "gun violence" and in both instances it comes from YOUR
attributed remarks in MY post...in other words only YOU said them.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...Q76SLnMRgR9a0A
http://tinyurl.com/6fe6s

And in both instances that phrase shows as YOU having said it, I am
denying I ever said it.

But you are free to find my "lie" greegor, if you can.

I can only say that google and greegor don't agree, despite their
similarities: both will say whatever.

You have promoted yourself from "dancer" to "liar" quite nicely,
greegor.

Care to go for a third, and tell us if you advocate for the use of
lethal force by parents to take their children from CPS custody? Or do
you disapprove of this act?

In fact do you disapprove of the Christine's doing it?

Or do you approve?

And will we have time to buy iceskates to come visit you when your time
comes?

So tell us, do you have ANY brain cells left from the 70's?
Or is that a "lie?"

Kane