protective order scam

The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
perspective and personal belief structure. What you may believe to be the
"truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact.

Hi, Ron!

What you find to be not a fact has nothing whatsoever to do with how a judge
weighs the facts and applies the law in a libel action, which is what we
were talking about. In law, truth has a very specific meaning. And the law
says, "truth is an absolute defense to libel."

Its the
reason there are two different words and two different definitions.
"Truth" is a product of an individuals belief structure and may or may not
be based on the available facts.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel.

"Truth" is a leap of faith, the belief that what
you hold as being the truth may or may not be supported by what is.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel. A statement that is true is
not libel.

"Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It
can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still
remains as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is
what changes, not the fact itself.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in libel litigation, truth is an absolute
defense.

Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS NOT.
Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

....Truth is also an absolute defense to libel, which is what Michael said.

I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept.

I appreciate your time and effort explaining your simple yet complex
concept. Nonetheless, your concept simply has nothing to do with libel
litigation.

Even if you are not capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not
consider it a waste of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as
well, and they may be able to understand what you fail to.

My guess is that readers understood Michael's post from the beginning --
that truth is an absolute defense to libel.

2. You may indeed have that little
light bulb inside your head flash on with the comprehension of a difficult
concept and thereby have realized one of the basic constants of the
universe.

The foundational concept behind libel law is that a statement of the truth
cannot be libel.
Therefore, as Michael said, truth is an absolute defense to libel.

3. Even if you cannot find it in yourself to expand your understanding of
the universe, its been kind of fun poking holes in your belief structure,
even if just for a second.

Michael was not sharing his beliefs, but the facts about libel law --
principal among them that truth is an absolute defense.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Hi, Ron!

Interesting concept. Nonetheless, outside of the newsgroup, in matters of
law, truth is an absolute defense to libel actions. A libel is, by legal
defination, a false statement. So, if the statement is true, regardless
of whether the truth is inflamatory or defames the subject of the
statement, the statement is not libel.

British law -- and to some degree Canadian law -- holds that a statement
that is true but damages the subject of the statement is libelous. This
led our Founding Fathers to reject the obvious danger to freedom of
speech/press in this doctrine, since, in theory, the greater the truth the
greater the damage done to the subject. In the United States of America,
truth is an absolute defense to any libel action.

You also miss the point Doug. Truth and True are NOT the same thing. True
is a fact. Truth is a perception.

True IS an "absolute defense to libel actions." Truth may or may not be,
depending on if that persons perceptions are an accurate representation of
the facts. We both know that witness's are the weakest part of any case,
but they can also be the deciding factor.

As it should be.

Because of our country's tradition of freedom of speech and of the press,
libel laws even protect false statements under certain circumstances. For
instance, members of this newsgroup may be, arguably, public figures in
that they have thrust themselves into the public eye by nature of their
contributions to the forum. It's a gray area. If they were to be ruled
public figures, then a FALSE statement, would still not result in a
judgement of libel if the defendant could prove a lack of malice in making
the false statement. (In libel law, malice is defined as a statement
written "with reckless disregard for the truth.")

For libel to occur, the statement:

1) Must be false.
2) Must be done with malice (in the case of public figures, only)
3) Must be directed toward someone who is identified (an anonymous poster
would not have the recourse of libel action because they are not
identifable)
4) Must cause damage to reputation or other damages....professionals or
others who depend on their reputation would be more likely to prevail.

The requirement for a showing of malice exists partially because of the US
Supreme Court's recognition of deadline pressure experienced by newspaper
reporters. They often escape a libel judgment because their FALSE
statement was made under deadline pressure, where they claimed they did
not have the time to verify the truth. A monthly magazine, however, would
not have the same defense.

For instance, Kane's retraction in another thread in this newsgroup would
only mitigate charges of malice in a libel lawsuit. It presupposes that
the one bringing the libel lawsuit would be ruled a public figure and
therefore required to prove malice. If the trial court ruled the target
of the libel to be a private citizen, then the retraction would have no
legal weight. A retraction does not eliminate the libel, it can only be
weighed when considering malice.

There are also absolute privledges in libel statutes -- again, because of
our country's dedication to freedom of speech and of the press. For
instance, if a FALSE statement about someone is made in a courtroom that
untrue statement can be published without the subject of the false
inflamatory statement having recourse for libel.

Libel law is very complex and often changes through case by case
decisions. However, some elements remain fundamental and absolute.
However. the requirement that the statement be false -- thereby
establishing truth as an absolute defense -- remains fixed and absolute.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Not in libel lawsuits. The USSC chose the word "truth" in defining the
absolute defense to libel. The word, "absolute" itself, like "truth," has
specific meaning in law.

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

No, Ron, truth is an absolute defense to libel lawsuits.

I cannot agree. Fact will beat the "truth" in a court every single time,
specially if they are at odds. Truth is a perception, accurate or not.
Fact is. Therefore truth cannot be an absolute anything since it is
variable. Fact is not variable, it is an absolute.

Ron

How many times has a Judge held a "fact finding hearing" and gotten the
"facts" wrong?

It's not ZERO!!!

They'd be lucky if it was substantially less than half.

0:- wrote:

You continue to obfuscate the fact that "true," and "truth" are not the
same thing in all instances.

You are doing just FINE!!!!


Sometimes "the truth," which is subjective, is 'fact' which is totally
objective.

yessirree it is, for those who like this sort of thing, there is plenty
of it!


A fact cannot change.

It really is very lovely. but inaccurate

The truth can.

I do not think I would have learned as much about the truth if I
weren't here. One of my best friends, a total loon who loves the
truth, and all sciences including physics, was my stalwart companion in
all things truthful. He is part of my poetry scene.


Scientific research is a wonderful example.

Do they ever find the "truth."


Finding what is "true" and a "fact" is much much harder, and the
business of science with the goal NEVER MET.

It is found. Truth is fact.

Declaring it to be so isn't making it so, Michael.

Truth is that effort of ours to convince each other we have the
facts..what is true.

We call it "truth" so as to give it weight.

Truth is not true. It is
the interpretation of what we wish would hold still and be immutable,
but never does. No atom holds still, just as no element of argument
does.

We do not know if atoms remain motionless at absolute zero because it is
impossible experimentally to reach that condition yet.

Yes, I know. You are about to prove my postulate.

You're stating that no atom holds still is not true, truthful or a fact.

Until we have the facts my "truth" about it is a good as anyones,
Michael

No atom has to this point been proven to hold still and that is the
"fact."

I look at that and postulate my truth from it. Until you or others can
provide the proof you just mentioned is being sought, I have the truth.



You ignored the example I gave to Ronaldo.

I did? How is it I am commenting on it?

You commented somewhere on the example of names at a party? Sorry I missed
your comment on it.

Now I'm stumped. Must be tired. I was dragging a three hundred pound
former "institutional" barb wire topped cyclone fence gate around the
garden this morning to close the last gap in the elk and deer fence.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...256e514?hl=en&


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: marika
Date: 25 Nov 2006 08:42:14 -0800
Subject: art deco's finest achievement How The Neo-Fascist Plan
To Revive The US 'Economy' After They Collapse The Dollar
To:

www.infowars.com wrote:

Pick your prison, decklehead.


so I see this chain link fence and to it is tied orange mosquito
netting which undulates slowly in the breeze, lifting up and off the
fence and back down, xs against xs meshing langorously, kiss on kiss

mk5000

"You likes it raw, I likes it on top/I got something for that
lollipop,"--kelis, blindfold me



You'd be amazed where I picked that up, Michael.

It was a long haul.

I might remember what you are referring to with prompting though. 0:-

Was it
to complicated for you to comprehend

I comprehend you are now being an ass, when in fact you were offered a
chance to debate.

Well, since you think my given name is Asshole. . .

Given name?

Goodness, that would have been rude and even cowardly of me. I
apologize. No call for such.

Was there?

or did it just hurt your head to
think?

See above.

I love this as an example that "True," and "Truth" are not the same
thing.

You just told us your "Truth," but people in the real world know that
how a "true fact" is presented by another through his own filter system
may not (and usually DOE not) precisely describe the "true fact" to an
exactitude.

If it is not exact and provable, it is not a fact nor the truth, just an
opinion, a theory.

Then the point I made about the atom stands as the truth. Not yet
"true," but not disprove.

The atomic weight of Helium is 4.0026.

The periodic table is not a product of nature. The name and number is a
product of man.

That is the truth, a fact and
true.

That we agreed to call "something" by a name and number makes it true
for the universe we live in?

What would God call it?

If someone believes differently because of their perspective, their
education or however, that does not make their version true, the truth or
a fact.

They would be foolish to disagree in such a petty way to a perfectly
workable CONSTRUCT we have worked out to try and measure and
differentiate.


No, your example now in how you present shows this.

The ignoring of the similarity, but the essential difference of "true,"
"truths" is perfect.

Here is the logic to consider. Is it true that it hurts me head to
think? If not why did you ask rhetorically?

It was nothing but sarcasm, and you know full well.

That was not apparent to me, and I am telling you the "truth" about my
thoughts at the time.

How am I to tell when you are being sarcastic or mean it, and when did
sarcasm escape from the boundaries of defining 'truth," true," and the
"facts?"

You meant to say I couldn't think.

That you put is sarcastically makes NO difference to you meaning an
intent.

Unless of course I am wrong and that was NOT your intent.

Tell me the TRUTH, Michael.

Did you intend your sarcasm to mean that I am less capable of thinking
than you?

Was it a lie, or is this your "truth," according to how you see me?

It was sarcasm.

I didn't miss that.

Sarcasm usually doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is pointedly used to make
a point. To make a claim.

Did you or did you not with to convey that I am diminished in my
thinking capacity?

What is the truth of your meaning and intent?

You KNOW the answer. That is "truth."

What is "true" about my head and thinking about complex issues, is that
on the contrary if I have a headache a sure fire way to ignore it or
make it go away is to work on difficult mental problems.

Now that is MY truth, but it is not YOUR true. To me it is "true," and
to you, NOT "true."

By the very nature of it not working for me as it does for you, shows that
it is not fact. It just may work for you but, your headache is not
something tangible. That is philosophical.

I have two gold caps. You have none (metaphorically speaking). Does
your not having them make mine no longer true, truth, a fact?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...5276ba1?hl=en&

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: whistler
Date: 26 Nov 2006 07:47:56 -0800
Subject: Torture Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive
Orders
To:

You need a Shovel, are ya deef.
whistler wrote:
Grillz are those shiney gold teeth --all across not just one,
A friend told me that some of the cheaper ones are sold at flea
markets,

I'm hopeing that they're all across not just
one, Flea Market's cheap,
graveyard's even cheaper. Got your own shovel ?


marika wrote:
whistler wrote:
Diamonds on my neck, di-diamonds on my grill"--kelis, bossy

Is that a B.B.Q. grill , I bet they hold the heat evenly. Maybe on
the pricey side though.

LOL
Naw

These grillz are a bit even more expensive
don't know about the heat retention

Grillz are those shiney gold teeth --all across not just one,
sometimes as in this song with gemstones for extra bling. Gangsta
rappa style.

Cos of how they make you look like the front of a car with headlights
flashin

A friend told me that some of the cheaper ones are sold at flea
markets,
GROSSSSSS

mk5000

"Notorious
Notorious
Ladies and gentlemen
Let's go "--NastyGirl, Notorious BIG



And no, my headache is perfectly tangible. It can be measured. I can
give it a number...0:- and in time get others to accept that I measure
headache in this way. My periodic headache table has about three kinds
of headaches. I call one SUPERDUPER 007, another I call, DAMNED
ANNOYING DISTRACTION AND WHY DON'T I JUST GET A GOOD ONE AND TAKE A
DAMNED PILL AND MAKE IT GO AWAY number DOG.

Yes, that's a number as far as I'm concerned. I just have to get others
to agree to a number being a measure for my periodic table.

Your age for example, is (x) years. That is a fact. It can result in a
different number depending on what means you use to measure (variable and
perspective), but you have seen (x) numbers of sunrises (cycles that are
fixed as a fact).

Yes, x years. Wrong. I've lived underground for a time, and many times
lived where the sun did not rise for up to six weeks.

Sorry. That's MY truth.

Did it shorten or lengthen my life?


Are you getting this now?

What I think I'm getting from you and Ron is a more simplistic version of
thought on this matter.

I will discuss this little bit of arrogance and hubris in a mo,
Michael. And with it a little lesson.

You need to go deeper. You spent so many years
with children that you attempt to function on their level when dealing
with difficult matters.

Not so. I wish there had been more time with them to learn better how
to think more clearly than adults normally do. They are uncluttered.
Direct. Plain and clean.

Actually I spent far more hours with adults. Children have only so much
attention they should be giving adults, and they need learning time on
their own, with only the required level of safe supervision.

Otherwise they can be stunted or sidetracked into weird thinking and
behavior.

On average, any give day I would spend about 10 hours in sleep and my
personal toilet. shower, dressing etc.

I'd do about 3 hours commuting, and at least three hours in writing for
publication.

Then at most three hours with children.

The rest would be taken up in professional assessment of observations,
review of mental health records and updating them from the latest
interactions with the children.

A great many adult activities there, Michael.

Now as to your attempt to make Ron and myself out as simple.

Time and again I learned this lesson the hard way.

One's value, capacity to produce, ability to discover important things
in life are not confined to the "educated." Not even those that test
high on designed tests.

No, I've had some wonderfully embarrassing moments when I discovered
someone that was quieter than I, less educated had deeper insights into
something I thought I knew well.

If anyone is shallow and simple minded here, Michael you are for trying
the ploy with Ron or I.

Truth is an abstraction...a construct. "True" is an immutable fact.

Truth can have many faces, but only one factual one. When that one is
found, the others become opinions.

Your second phrase is incongruent to the first one. Fact is not Truth.

And it cannot be because what you know to be fact today, can be found
to have been mistaken tomorrow and that happens all to frequently to
those with too much assurance they have the fact, in an immutable
sense.

Name a couple of immutable facts.

I. See the above for the atomic weight of Helium.

Those are agreed upon.

II. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is pi.

Pi is a name for something. What is pi, but a number.

Do numbers exist in nature, or did we dream them up as a tool to
measure by agreement?

III. The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

What's a meter?

The speed of light is also 23 clomensiases.

We just have to agree on that, and use other numbers to provide
fractions to work with to make it a perfectly fine fact we can use in
the study and application of physics.

You mistake the truth for true.

The best we can do with your example is to hope we are right that light
travels at all.

That's a construct of OUR nervous system, not a universal truth.

It could be that "light" holds still, and everything else moves in
relation to it.


Then explore them in the literature, and see who agrees and doesn't, and
you have your answer about "truth," and "true."

The above truths, facts and truisms I made are agreed to by everyone.

Thank you for proof that "truth" is agreed upon. Now what is a fact?

What is 'true?"

They only become truth WHEN WE AGREE. What if we don't.

Your truth would have a bushman and his family rolling on the ground
with laughter. They know damn well the only really true thing is that
when jackals call a certain way it will rain within the next 24 hours,
and they are more often right than WE are.

Now care to show me how that which you requested is different by a
perspective?

See all the above.

Truth is an agreed upon concept as is what is "true."

If your argument is that it's true when WE agree, then what does that
suggest to you, if we don't?

Kane

PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.

You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?

More of your ignorance to the fact that others are educated far beyond
what you ever were?

I don't believe you. Nothing in your posts have ever suggested you have
either a classical education, or are very well self educated.

Are you using the psychic hotline now?

I said IN your posts. That's all I can go on.


I see. You don't understand or can't comprehend something so it must
not be true, or others couldn't possibly comprehend them because you
can't.
...snip **** you Michael ... snip

LMAO, no thanks.

Sorry I meant **** yourself and I mean that most kindly and sincerely.


If I knew your name I would not post it here regardless of who you are
what you do, or how much I disagree with you. You are a coward that
wants to excuse yourself endangering people for your being ****ed off at
me. Grow up.

My name is Michael.

That's not your full name.

And when you use a nym and attempt to out others that do what does that
say about you?

I'm in no way endangering anyone.

We've been over that. If someone says they want to kill you, which way
do you live, and I give them your address?

Cite facts if you wish to accuse me.

**** you, most kindly and sincerely, Michael.

Apparently the Oregon State Police didn't see any danger from me either or
they would have acted.

I didn't ask them to.

I asked them to look at it, it's now on record.

You try to pass yourself off as a chess player?

I asked you a question and you didn't answer. That told me you did not
understand the strategies of chess.

I asked if you knew what pawns were used for.

My post to OSP was a pawn. It clear the way is all.

And if I have calculated correctly I will never have to use the way I
cleared.

By the way, I'm not ****ed off at you or anyone here.

Sure. Read your FAQ on the group.

Unless there is a real definition for a kook and it isn't derogatory,
and you really think that cretin, once a TRUTH, since it was medically
defined, was a kindly and loving or even neutral label you are one very
simple soul.

And no one but you is fooled by that silly claim above.


You can't argue the issue.

I'm doing very well.

Actually you are not. You can't even understand how human constructs
agreed upon don't create "facts," just agreement.

You seem incapable of doing what you claim I'm
doing.

Is that your "truth" Michael?

Don't run and prove me correct, answer my question above about how
the facts and truths and what is true can change by someone's perspective.

I'm completely at sixes and sevens, as I don's see that's what you
asked.


You earned that report to the OSP and you know it.
I earned a false report from posting my opinion on this group?

I didn't report your opinion. I simply posted your post. Others can
decide if it's an opinion or not. Your opion about what others would
make of it is your opinion.

I
certainly don't think I did.

Of course not.

That was low even for you.

It was far less than you deserve for your comments about Don's wife,
and your callous disregard of her and of him.

You put Don Fisher's family at risk, stupid.

Kane is thoroughly hated here and you know it, and there have been
people here that threatened death, and you know that. You are trying to
link the two of us.

You want a pat on the back?

That's cowardly.

No matter how stupid and vile and how much of a jerk you have been I've
done NOTHING to put you in danger, or even hint at it.

Coward. Bringing innocent people in by NAME is **** spewing. And you
know it.

You should be ashamed. I doubt you are.

Some troll asshole came here and ran up a list of Greg's civil court
case..mostly just normal bull**** that many of us have had to deal
with.

I found that, despite my dislike of his nonsense I would NEVER do that
kind of cowardly thing.

Unless it referred directly to an argument between us that HE willingly
participated in I would have NOT business listing all his and Lisa's
legal hassles.

I told the ****ant troll off, and of course Greg comes back claim I'm
the troll. Hell, knowing his buddies it was more likely Dennis or some
other ****ant.

That was cowardly of whoever it was.

It was cowardly of YOU to name individuals here that are totally
uninvolved. I didn't put your mother's name up here, did I?

You ****ant.

In my position would have done exactly the same?

Absolutely not. I would have said **** you and left if I couldn't handle
the heat in the kitchen.

Bull****. You instead put Don Fisher's name up here and that of his
wife. You are a coward.
That's unacceptable here.

I have never mentioned his name or her name here. Other than to **** on
those that started that crap.

You are exhibiting the
morals of a Greg. Shame on you. And that is the truth. 0:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...C+pragmatic%2C
+c oherence+or+deflationary&btnG=Search

Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and
not attribute.

How does one paraphrase names of the philosophies of truth?

describe some central principle and use it for a label.

I'm required to write a paragraph to ask a question? That goes against
everything I was taught. Short and to the point.

Nope. One word can be descriptive. Do I have to teach you to
paraphrase?

Try a thesaurus for **** sakes. Somewhere along the way surely you
learned to use one.

I can't believe I have to tell a highly educated man how to paraphrase.

I can't believe you think someone should have to paraphrase a simple,
single question!

I don't. I am glad you didn't, because it made clear that you copped it
from a website you looked up real quicklike to lend credibility to your
bull****ting arrogances.


And they were and are not listed only as proper nouns. Or did you miss
that in your google hits?

I didn't use Google. Haven't I told you Google is not my friend?

Nope. And it's your best friend when you want to dissemble.

I've watched you do it, then put the phrase to a search and found the
article you copped from and put that up here for you before.

You have such a Gregorian memory.


There are a number of ways to "label" them without naming them.

Same goes for chess.

That game you suck at?

How do you know? You have some special psychic line to the truth, do
you?

Perhaps the same one you use for me.

I don't have one. I based what I claim on what I believe I am seeing.
Nothing more.

I don't know for fact, I made an educated guess, an opinion based on your
not wiling to play a round here amongst our discussions.

Totally abstruse.


The truth 0:- is that you never played me at chess, Michael. Frankly I
doubt you have ever played the game or if you did you gave it up.

I have been playing for many years. I'm willing to put my money where my
mouth is. Play me, and if you win I will never call you Don again. If I
win you will admit I am accurate and truthful in referring to you as Don
Fisher.

You just bought a **** you, stupid.


A bit of concentration on facts, what is true, and the truth would serve
you well in your on line exchange using the tactics of chess with me.

Except for the fact that, I'm not playing a game with you. I'm just
stating my opinion on matters here, right or wrong.

No, you are not. You lie, and you put up what you won't.

You are full of ****.

Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

It would not matter.

If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

We also have an actual reall live arrested hacker here involved with
us as a friend and poet...so I learned a great deal from him too. But I
know it wasn't him


I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.

Did they get your at home computer email address?

I can buy IP dial
up from any damn place in the country that I want.

you betchA

mk5000

"the macaroni and cheese is good. MY FAVORITE IS THE curry chicken,
but you only get that on Thursdays"--Mya

Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

....
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

But the other address is in WA.
....
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.

Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Michael© wrote:
Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
doesn't like it that others know.

I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
He's probably crapping his drawers.

His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.

I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Greegor wrote:
....'I'm desperate for friends and supporters, reeeeal desperate.'....

Michael© wrote:

Don Fisher is playing the part of Kane and simply
doesn't like it that others know.

I'd say he more than doesn't like it.
He's probably crapping his drawers.

No, your dinner is not ready yet. 0:-

His hiding behind the duck blind of anonymity to
harass people takes a certain kind of sick individual.

bobb, KillCPS, DestoryCPS, Michael©, Fern5827, et al, and the many many
socks that come here, such as Dennis' recent family reunion.

Just the opposite of heroism, ethicality and morality.

Aren't I, using a nym, in good company?

What's "ethicality" by the way?

I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

How would you know?

Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Such as? Obvious how?

His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

I don't recall Don ever posting here. Except to tease me.

As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

Of course for anyone other than me, such comments don't indicate any
compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Boys you are a laugh riot. 0:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...& btnG=Search

Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

"Bill Smith" would have been a little too obvious, don't you think, and
Michael© is taken, don'tchakkknow -- by copyright.

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

....
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.

What business venture?

He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple.

Not the Don Fisher I knew.

Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

Post your proof.

How could the couple be "chum," or bait, if he was soliciting for
couples of mixed race? He wouldn't be putting up the name of the couple.

He was, according to you, looking for couples. Not peddling a couple.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

What was it, exactly? Could it have had a state suffix? I don't recall
him having a state business.

I do recall him maintaining a website for waiting children of color FOR
the state of Oregon for a time though. Seeking couples interested in
adopting.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

Then you'd be one of a plural, "****antS" stupid.


But the other address is in WA.

"Donald L. Fisher" has addresses all over the U.S.

In fact, quite a few in Iowa.

....
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.
Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Oh, and you have proof of this?

Don Fisher that maintained a state website for Oregon, claimed to have a
business, provided his phone number, and home address?

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

From your own posted information, Greg.

And neither I, nor Don ever posted his wife's name.

YOU posted Lisa's with your testimony to the HW&MC hearing.

And Don's wife's out of the blue.

Show where he posted her name here first.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

Whatsamatta Don?

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

Your truthful statements could be scribbled on a grain of rice.

...
If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

How could THAT be, Don? If the info is wrong?

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Donald Fisher posted his name and business venture in newsgroups.
He wanted to sell his services as an agent to facilitate adoption
for a mixed race couple. Ironically the couple seemed to be
a fake intended to "chum" or bait others to contact him.
The identical bait message and response message were posted
in another year.

His e-mail address prominently featured Don's middle initial L in 1997.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I said BEND.

But the other address is in WA.
...
I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am.

Did they get your at home computer email address?

He publicly posted his name and other details in 1997
as part of a sales pitch trying to sell his services
for multi-racial adoption.

Did you know him when he was d'geezer?

He has posted my SO's name dozens of times.

Interesting how many lies you can post in a single post to this ng,
Greg.

I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings. Not even the ones
you've featured in your bull**** before. YOU posted the following, with
attributions to a post by Don Fisher.

Can you explain to us where his wife's name is featured, where he sells
his services for his 'business" and where he has some fictitous couple
he is touting for?

This below is YOUR post of Jan 8, 2004 referring to a post of Fisher's
of Jan 98.

What do you make of it, lie wise? On your part?

Donald L Fisher
Greegor 31 December 2004 05:19:47
On January 8 1998,
in a thread called
Oregon waiting children announcement,
in a newsgroup called alt.adoption,

Don Fisher wrote:

Quotation:
There is a new web page just up for the state
of Oregon ACT program.
This is a new adoptive familiy recruiting
effort for waiting, free for adoption minority
children in the state of Oregon. They place
more and more of their waiting children out
of state. New practices of child welfare is
bringing about placement of younger children
than previously.
The state has over 500 waiting children at any time.
The ACT website has photos with narratives
and online inquiry forms.
take a look. df
http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
df - World Wide Web Site Development
http://www.teleport*.com/~dlfisher
http://adoptions.sc*f.hr.state.or.us/wel*come.htm
http://www.teleport*.com/~fpa
http://www.outofthe*boxpublishing.com/
fn: Don Fisher
n: Fisher;Don
org: DTI
email;internet: *om

Any thoughts, Greg?

As for "BEND" I suggest you write the gentleman there named Donald L.
Fisher and see if he is or was an Oregon CPS worker, Greg. And the one
in Washington too.

You and your crew are confused. You have, for instance, no such person
in Hood River but it's claimed I post out there..my IP traces to there.
This become curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?

I doubt anyone as far away as Bend is from Hood River would bother to
have a service provider in Hood River. And the same goes for the Fisher
in Washington.

HR wouldn't even be in the dialing code for either location. All trans
river calls, for instance, are Long Distance across the Columbia River
to my knowledge. A different phone company serves each side.

I had that problem when I did business in Portland. As soon as I
crossed the river, LD. Of course with cell service now I can call from
anywhere in the US with my service.

Did it ever occur to you that I might use this same service from just
about anywhere?

Neither you nor your dummy knows who I am, pal.

I'm not Don Fisher. But I do like the name.

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

0:-

Kane wrote
What's "ethicality" by the way?

Chuckle Isn't in your dictionary is it?


Greg wrote
I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Kane wrote How would you know?

See below!

Greg wrote
Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Kane wrote Such as? Obvious how?

See below!

Greg wrote His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Kane wrote
As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Can we compare what I actually said to your characterization of it?

Kane wrote
Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

That you would think so is ...interesting.

Kane wrote
Of course for anyone other than me, such comments
don't indicate any compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Has Michael posted profuse and gratuitous profanity for over a year?
Has Michael called a grandma a [c-word] over and over?
Has Michael insulted families in a weakened/vulnerable state?
Has Michael bragged on himself at great length?
Has he ever earned the nickname "McBrag" for that?

Kane wrote
Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

So you're not Don, just some other person who deliberately
left a false trail to an innocent Don?

That sure was a nice thing for you to do! (sic)

I don't buy it, Don, you weasel.