WDNNSCPS or, it ain't just Texas, fellahs.

You have to wonder what these guys were doing before the Internet.
Obviously they weren't bothering children back then...like maybe their
own, or family members, eh boys?

Maybe like Geoffrey Rantz, they worked as Child Protection Caseworkers!

The sting nailed:

1. an LEO guy working for Homeland Security,
2. psychologist,
3. surgeon,
4. DA,
5. school teacher, ...

People working INSIDE THE SYSTEM !

The overseas kiddie sex junket stings a few years back
caught more psychologists, JUDGES, etc..

MORE people working INSIDE THE SYSTEM!

Greegor wrote:
You have to wonder what these guys were doing before the Internet.
Obviously they weren't bothering children back then...like maybe their
own, or family members, eh boys?

Maybe like Geoffrey Rantz, they worked as Child Protection Caseworkers!

Let's see.

The sting nailed:

1. an LEO guy working for Homeland Security,
2. psychologist,
3. surgeon,
4. DA,
5. school teacher, ...

People working INSIDE THE SYSTEM !

What "system" Greg? Oh, you mean working for a living.

I see.

As for CPS caseworkers, see any?

The overseas kiddie sex junket stings a few years back
caught more psychologists, JUDGES, etc..

Yep, and you are making my point for me, though you are too stupid to
see it until I show you at the end of this reply to your post.

MORE people working INSIDE THE SYSTEM!

What system, Greg?

Why aren't YOU, you honest little crusader you, going for one of those
jobs so you can clean up, eh?

Or are you too busy trying to clean up by suing the state of Iowa?

Now for your education.

You miss my point, again, stupid.

I'll try once more, just for you:

"You have to wonder what these guys were doing before the Internet.
Obviously they weren't bothering children back then...like maybe their
own, or family members, eh boys?"

Once upon a time there was a propagandist or several on this very
newsgroup, and some of them are also posting to the festering sores
that some "Family Rights Support Groups and Websites," have become.

Their claim went something like this, and I paraphrase loosely and
invite any corrections, (come on Douggie): In answer to my claim that
there is a great deal more sexual abuse than CPS gets to see, or move
into the data pool they said: "But it's only about 10% of all abuse
reported."

A brilliant statement, given that I had not said a thing about
REPORTED, but in fact made the point that most of it doesn't get
reported.

Now YOU, stupid, agree by pointing out the people with power..the kind
of authorities you hate and fear because they can so something about
little ****ants like you, are among the perpetrators.

Now a logical, even moderately intelligent person would go,
"Hmmmmmmm....if they have power they can have access and it's much
harder to catch them, hence what Kane says makes sense, what were these
guys were doing before the Internet?"

You see, stupid. You help me out the harder to try and babble your
rant.

Thanks again. My point made by YOU.

R R R R R R R R.....

Kane

I have mixed feelings about the Perverted Justice/Dateline stings.

I think it's FABULOUS that they nail the real PERVS and make it public.
I do also worry that a crusading private vigilante group is doing it.

Kane should be able to give us some special insight into
private individuals setting up stings, and why LEO's
generally don't like this sort of thing..

Is what Perverted Justice does too much like
"entrapment" for the FBI or State Police to do??

Why don't State Police do this on a longer term basis?

Then again, Many years ago I watched three
""unmarked cars"" once that were so bland they stuck
out, and they had numbers out of a series (fleet obviously)
such that these ""unmarked"" cars were EXTREMELY visible.

Months ago in my neighborhood a similarly
"conspicuously bland" undercover car cruised
up and down the street in my neighborhood.
Coincidentally two black and white units shortly
appeared. I asked a uniform cop if they couldn't get
some undercover cops who don't need to be
quite so obvious!

Is that kind of stuff WHY such a sting has
to be done by crusading vigilante's?

Even testing the BARS in town to see if they sell
to minors is tested with a civilian teenage volunteer.







0:- wrote:
Charlie Chinaman wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:
Kane, You set the context yourself with the article...

Yep, that lots of people are sexually abusing children on the
Internet...and pointing out that they are very likely to have done so
without the Internet. Do you disagree?

None of these 'suspects' 'sexually abused' anyone. Duh.

The weren't busted for abusing anyone. They were busted for breaking
the law. It's illegal to make dates for sex with children.

Are you presuming that everyone that does that is caught in a sting and
never gets to the child raping stage, stupid?

They have been busted showing bad judgement.

Yeah, I'd say. You'd prefer they got all the way so they'd fit the
"sexual molester" profile more closely?

You want to bet none of them had ever done this before, or nailed kids
by other means?

Using a gaggle of citizen koo-koo's to circumvent laws against entrapment is
rather sick.

Nope. It catched potential molestors, who amoung them would have a
great many prior victims stupid. These people can have up to 400
victims easily.

Before Dateline paid PJ $100,000 to entrap folks in chat rooms, how many
internet pedophile convictions were there?? 3 or 4 in the past 15 years.

You like they were harder to catch?

Destroying folks lives AND the lives of their FAMILIES for tv sweeps is
kinda dark, dontcha think Butch?

Nope. Dateline did not destroy a single life. The perps did.

Maybe George Carlin's 'Suicide Channel' isn't that far off after all.

Go. Join up.

I'll help you soon enough, -- when I've tired of using you to get my
own commentary out.

I've done this to trolls for years. Keep on dry humpin' stupid. You
simple ****s produce nothing but opportunity for others to use your ego
loaded futile empty behavior.

It makes you good for something other than fertilizer...which will come
soon enough.

0:-



Then you try for a context that has NOTHING to
do with the article! Losing your marbles again?

What context did I set?

Did I not remark that these were likely to be parents? That's the
context I set.

Only YOU could possibly fail to see the significance, Greg. The cat
trainer.

So, am I to claim that you, when you draw a supposition or build an
argument from an article that does not simply mimic the article that
you have lost your marbles?

Child you can be counted on to, no matter what the premise being
discussed is, to warp it around to YOUR issues, related or not....often
not, Fern...opps, sorry, Greg.

Or are you trying to agree with me?

I'm trying to point out you are agreeing with me by supporting my
claims about the levels of child sexual abuse being far far higher than
the data for child protection shows.

I hate it when you do that.

Well, I do every thing I can to protect your delicate sensibilities,
Greg. But, yah can't win'm all I guess.

0:-]



Greg


On Nov 6, 9:26 pm, "0:-" wrote:
Greegor wrote:
You have to wonder what these guys were doing before the Internet.
Obviously they weren't bothering children back then...like maybe
their
own, or family members, eh boys?

Maybe like Geoffrey Rantz, they worked as Child Protection
Caseworkers!Let's see.

The sting nailed:

1. an LEO guy working for Homeland Security,
2. psychologist,
3. surgeon,
4. DA,
5. school teacher, ...

People working INSIDE THE SYSTEM !What "system" Greg? Oh, you mean
working for a living.

I see.

As for CPS caseworkers, see any?

The overseas kiddie sex junket stings a few years back
caught more psychologists, JUDGES, etc..Yep, and you are making my
point for me, though you are too stupid to
see it until I show you at the end of this reply to your post.

MORE people working INSIDE THE SYSTEM!What system, Greg?

Why aren't YOU, you honest little crusader you, going for one of those
jobs so you can clean up, eh?

Or are you too busy trying to clean up by suing the state of Iowa?

Now for your education.

You miss my point, again, stupid.

I'll try once more, just for you:

"You have to wonder what these guys were doing before the Internet.
Obviously they weren't bothering children back then...like maybe their
own, or family members, eh boys?"

Once upon a time there was a propagandist or several on this very
newsgroup, and some of them are also posting to the festering sores
that some "Family Rights Support Groups and Websites," have become.

Their claim went something like this, and I paraphrase loosely and
invite any corrections, (come on Douggie): In answer to my claim that
there is a great deal more sexual abuse than CPS gets to see, or move
into the data pool they said: "But it's only about 10% of all abuse
reported."

A brilliant statement, given that I had not said a thing about
REPORTED, but in fact made the point that most of it doesn't get
reported.

Now YOU, stupid, agree by pointing out the people with power..the kind
of authorities you hate and fear because they can so something about
little ****ants like you, are among the perpetrators.

Now a logical, even moderately intelligent person would go,
"Hmmmmmmm....if they have power they can have access and it's much
harder to catch them, hence what Kane says makes sense, what were these
guys were doing before the Internet?"

You see, stupid. You help me out the harder to try and babble your
rant.

Thanks again. My point made by YOU.

R R R R R R R R.....

Kane