| Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine

LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer
medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication.
If there is no person designated

But there was.

to administer medications or if the medication is
considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma
inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her
person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are
away from the classroom.

Are you contradicting yourself? Your quote (top) used
a conditional IF. Then further down you seem to refute your
own logical IF by allowing for rescue medication in a lock box.

How does your logic let you have it both ways?
IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that.

All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Defend it to the hilt.

Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
to defend.

It was stupid and that's why the criminal charges were DROPPED.

About 8 years ago I drove taxicab. People brough in
babies with no child seats, and NEVER buckled up.

I worried about the regulations, knowing that the
fines and record marks could be quite a problem.
But even though they should, police don't enforce
those regulations perhaps viewing it as like on
a city bus where such things are not required.

The letter of the law says one thing, enforcement says
another thing, common sense does not always apply.

A woman with twin infants and no child seats kept
getting me dispatched. I expressed concern.
I told her that next time she will need child seats.
Then I got sent to pick her up again.
A small riot almost ensued, I was cussed out by her
and the cab company put me on a forced time out for
the rest of the day. One persons attempt to do
the right thing is viewed as the wrong thing by
others.

Which was right?
Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person designated to administer
medications, that is the individual who keeps the medication.
If there is no person designated

But there was.

Oh boy, the hookah hacker is back at it again. Unable to follow the
conversation? L wasn't claiming there was no nurse. And in the point
being argued, and the refutation of your nonsense it has zero to do
with anything that the school had a nurse in that particular incident.


to administer medications or if the medication is
considered a rescue medication, (which can hold true for asthma
inhalers), the teacher keeps it in a locked container or desk, or on her
person when the child is very young or when the children and teacher are
away from the classroom.

Are you contradicting yourself? Your quote (top) used
a conditional IF. Then further down you seem to refute your
own logical IF by allowing for rescue medication in a lock box.

How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?

Shows how much you know about school. Schools don't have school nurses
any more Greegor, unless they are some huge magnet school. School
districts have nurses, or schools have part time nurses if they are
small isolated schools. School districts haven't had the money for
years to have full time nurses, or other services personnel. They
cover districts.

And believe it or not even if they had ONE "rescue" medication means
administer it right ****in' NOW you little **** head. You don't really
think they are supposed to wait for the nurse if it's a rescue
situation, do you?


How does your logic let you have it both ways?
IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

How many pulls on your hookah does it take before your logic
deteriorts completely?


For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that.

Yes, quite. I noticed that too.

I noticed that you will do just about anything, even appear the
village idiot, to divert others, and I think even yourself, from the
truth of what you have done to that little girl and her mother.

But we aren't going to forget.

Hell, how can we? You are still here.


All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy I'd invite you to run up to
the next person you see down on the street and start doing some rescue
meds adminstration. Given them some asprin too while you are at it.

In fact had there been no inhalator maybe asprin might have
helped..right?

Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Well considering the issues of infectious diseases, using a health
appliance that administers who know what because no one but the kids
would know what's in it and not even then if some other kids played
around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's obviously a Zombie.

Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose walk down the street
and ask someone for the use of the nasal sprayer.

Defend it to the hilt.

Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues are extremely well
thought out and often introduced from medical associations to stop
fools like you from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.

When I was much younger I drove a school bus as a community service.
In time I moved on, but the very next year the person that took over
my route tried to cross a dangerous unguarded train crossing, and
forgot the rules because the kids were a little distracting. The rule:
"Stop, open the passenger door, LISTEN..because the train always
sounded it horn on the short approach from a curve."

Took the bus out with about 30 kids on it. Kids everywhere. Badly
injured, most I knew. Locals in the little town heard the crash and
came roaring up in their cars and pickups and started loading kids
into the for a run to the hospital.

The emt's that got there were practically having fist fights to stop
them. The ER docs estmated that half the injured children died because
of rescue trauma inflicted by little assholes like you. The other half
were all emt stabilized before transport. In other words, every child
moved by a non-emt died. Not one died that had the proper treatment
died.

Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
to defend.

Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to? There was non in
that case you are talking about. The girl is alive. The ineptitude was
the evidenced in the girl and the parent's failure to convince her to
carry her meds and or keep a supply at school with her teachers.

It's easy to do the latter. Teachers and the school do NOT want
children dying on campus or anywhere else.

It was stupid and that's why the criminal charges were DROPPED.

No, the players were stupid and they got a huge break cut for them.
Lucky. Apparently someone thought they might have learned their
lesson. Often the point of laws.

About 8 years ago I drove taxicab. People brough in
babies with no child seats, and NEVER buckled up.

Have any wrecks?

I worried about the regulations, knowing that the
fines and record marks could be quite a problem.
But even though they should, police don't enforce
those regulations perhaps viewing it as like on
a city bus where such things are not required.

The letter of the law says one thing, enforcement says
another thing, common sense does not always apply.

A woman with twin infants and no child seats kept
getting me dispatched. I expressed concern.
I told her that next time she will need child seats.
Then I got sent to pick her up again.
A small riot almost ensued, I was cussed out by her
and the cab company put me on a forced time out for
the rest of the day. One persons attempt to do
the right thing is viewed as the wrong thing by
others.

At the beginning of this post you tried your best to create a question
about LaVonne and a perceived by you lack of consistency.

You just got through defending "common sense" then claim you tried to
do the right thing and got in gigged for it, yet you want others to do
the right thing and get away with it...hmmm...interesting isn't it?

Which was right?
Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

Well, so far you've just presented yet another bungled attempt to get
people to forget what you are.

Kane

LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person
designated to administer medications,
that is the individual who keeps the
medication.
If there is no person designated snip

Greg wrote
But there was.

Kane wrote
it has zero to do with anything that the school
had a nurse in that particular incident.

How could somebody's expression "If there is a school nurse"
have nothing to do with whether or not there is a school nurse?

Kane wrote
How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?

When a person says IF x THEN y, but assumes the resultant
condition y EITHER way, that's Pretzel logic.

Kane wrote
Shows how much you know about school.
Schools don't have school nurses any more Greegor,

The ordinary elementary we worked with here had a nurse.
(Generalizations are easy to refute)
But more importantly, the school IN THE INHALER STORY
definately had a nurse. Did you lose track of that?

unless they are some huge magnet school.

Nope. None involved.

School districts have nurses, or schools have part
time nurses if they are small isolated schools.

Nope. Full time.

School districts haven't had the money for
years to have full time nurses, or other services
personnel. They cover districts.

Nope. Not in my limited experience, which is all
it takes to puncture your generalization.

But there WAS a nurse in the case in question,
and so by LaVonne's own logic, THAT person is in
charge of locking up the inhaler, not the teacher
with some inhaler in a drawer.

And believe it or not even if they had ONE
"rescue" medication means administer it right
[e.d.]NOW you little [e.d.]head. You don't really
think they are supposed to wait for the nurse
if it's a rescue situation, do you?

Thank you, Kane. You just argued MY stated point.
LaVonne and some others are trying to justify the
bureaucratic delays that leave the girl in the
story choking on her way to the school nurse.
The bureaucrats seem to have little care for urgency.
They care more about "the letter of the law" and
proper bureaucratic chain of command than urgency.
In a conflict between instant emergency care and
officialdom, they side with delay and officialdom.

How does your logic let you have it both ways?
IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

How many pulls on your hookah does it take
before your logic deteriorts completely?

I don't smoke anything, and don't own any sort
of water pipe, Turkish or otherwise.

Lavonne wrote
For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

Greg wrote
And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that.

Kane wrote
Yes, quite. I noticed that too.

The things you see often aren't there.
Maybe you should TRY a Hookah, it might help you.

I noticed that you will do just about anything,
even appear the village idiot,

Remember, it takes a village idiot to raise a child.

to divert others, and I think even yourself,
from the truth

More like your OBSESSION than the truth.

of what you have done to that little girl
and her mother. But we aren't going to forget.

You know, Kane, even if the twisted assertions
you and Dan have pushed for so long were true,
the DHS fabrication of a ""Sexual Abuse History""
by caseworkers is a problem so severe that I would
say that anybody who is in favor of Child Protection
such as yourself would see such CPS corruption
as WORSE than even the child abuse you imagine.

To fictionalize and fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History""
and then when it's disproved, REFUSE to correct
such a known falsehood, is a pretty severe violation.

If CPS has to resort to perjury and frame ups to get
child abusers, then they are culpable.

To blame me for their falsehoods about me is nonsense.

In fact, the attitudes you and Dan display your
cynical paranoid fertive imaginations about evil
are partly indirect reflections of the big lie.
Your concept of the truth is very similar to this lie.
Fertive imagination presuming evil deeds that were not.

Hell, how can we? You are still here.

Of course.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy
I'd invite you to run up to the next person
you see down on the street and start doing
some rescue meds adminstration. Given them
some asprin too while you are at it.
In fact had there been no inhalator maybe
asprin might have helped..right?

If I HAD a hookah, I'd give it to you at this point.

Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Well considering the issues of infectious
diseases,

The boy and girl were a COUPLE, Kane.
Did you ever even read the story?

using a health appliance that
administers who know what because no one
but the kids would know what's in it

Both mothers, the nurse and the teacher would
have all KNOWN that the two inhalers were identical
medication and dosage.

All of your "who knows what" was in fact known.

and not even then if some other kids played
around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's
obviously a Zombie.

Just in time to look for THE GREAT PUMPKIN, right Kane?

Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose
walk down the street and ask someone for the
use of the nasal sprayer.

I am my own variety of lunatic, I don't need to be you.

Defend it to the hilt.

Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues
are extremely well thought out and often introduced
from medical associations to stop fools like you
from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.

Why do you mock Rescue Annie?
The rescue dummy saved more lives than you can dream of.
She was called Resusci-Annie when I practiced the kiss of life.


The emt's that got there were practically having fist
fights to stop them. The ER docs estmated that half
the injured children died because of rescue trauma
inflicted by little [e.d] like you. The other half
were all emt stabilized before transport. In other
words, every child moved by a non-emt died. Not one
died that had the proper treatment died.

Interesting story. A train obliterates a school bus
and you blame all of the deaths onto the non-emt's?
How long did it take for the EMT's to get there?
What is the average time for EMT's to arrive on
accident scenes?
How many died before the EMT's even arrived?
Sure, I believe that untrained improper first aid can
make things worse or kill people, but your story
reminds me a bit of your demogoguery in other areas.

Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
to defend.

Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to?
There was non in that case you are talking about.
The girl is alive.

How does that prove there was no bureaucratic ineptitude?

Have any wrecks?

One where damage indicated it was more like fast deer hit me.
Was a big one moving faster than I was out of a dark lot.
No passengers.

At the beginning of this post you tried your
best to create a question about LaVonne and
a perceived by you lack of consistency.

You just got through defending "common sense"
then claim you tried to do the right thing
and got in gigged for it,

Yes, the right thing is generally NOT adhering
to "the letter of the law".

I should point out that somebody ELSE in this thread
began using the expression "letter of the law" as if
prickly technicality is the way to go.

The story was to illustrate that in the gritty real
world, "letter of the law" is a pathetic joke, even
to police officers.

It's the stuff that makes Barney Fife so hilarious.

yet you want others to do the right thing
and get away with it.

Put that way, I can't disagree.

..hmmm...interesting isn't it?

Yes, fascinating.

Which was right?
Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

Well, so far you've just presented yet
another bungled attempt to get
people to forget what you are.

WHAT I am? Objectifying me? Dehumanizing tactic? Hmm..
Is your goal to be remembered, Kane?
Does that explain all of your scatological references?

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message
. com...
LaVonne wrote
If there is a school nurse or person
designated to administer medications,
that is the individual who keeps the
medication.
If there is no person designated snip

Greg wrote
But there was.

Kane wrote
it has zero to do with anything that the school
had a nurse in that particular incident.

How could somebody's expression "If there is a school nurse"
have nothing to do with whether or not there is a school nurse?

The conversation had moved on to the general discussion of teachers
carrying
meds in lieu of nurses, dummy, as in:
I realize it's a stretch for you to keep up with the progress of a
discussion,
given your focusing on punishing children for wetting themselves by
forcing
them to take cold showers, but now the girl is gone for good why not
give it a
try?

In other words, don't be obtuse. Don't be a bore, whore.


Kane wrote
How is it a contradiction to point out both possibilities?

When a person says IF x THEN y, but assumes the resultant
condition y EITHER way, that's Pretzel logic.

You claimed it was a contradiction, not a Pretzel. The reason it
confused you
is that you apparently take a few posts to recognize the conversation
has
moved on or to another level. Obtuse goose.


Kane wrote
Shows how much you know about school.
Schools don't have school nurses any more Greegor,

The ordinary elementary we worked with here had a nurse.

That's nice. Full time was she? For how many students. You and Dung
seem to be
very good at reducing the argument to your own by slicing of the
content of
others posts. You don't really think anyone misses that, now do you?

(Generalizations are easy to refute)

Only if they are untrue.

But more importantly, the school IN THE INHALER STORY
definately had a nurse. Did you lose track of that?

Of course, since the rest of us were no longer confining ourselves to
the
particulars of that incident but had generalized...so you have nothing
to
refute but your foot. You may take it out of your mouth now and wipe
it off. I
recommend a shower as well.

It didn't say if the nurse was full time. But then we weren't talking
about THAT school anymore..or hadn't you noticed.


unless they are some huge magnet school.

Nope. None involved.


School districts have nurses, or schools have part
time nurses if they are small isolated schools.

Nope. Full time.

Tell me the name and location of the school. I don't believe you. And
the
point was, even if on hand one cannot guarantee he or she will be
available
for every emergency that comes up.

School districts haven't had the money for
years to have full time nurses, or other services
personnel. They cover districts.

Nope. Not in my limited experience, which is all
it takes to puncture your generalization.

You must have exceedingly limited experience. And nothing was
punctured by
your ballon head.

But there WAS a nurse in the case in question,
and so by LaVonne's own logic, THAT person is in
charge of locking up the inhaler, not the teacher
with some inhaler in a drawer.

I'm sorry, but what is it about LaVonne's post you are replying to,
the one
you quoted with attributions at the head of this post, that says she
was
confining herself to discussing just this singular instance? No,
actually
even in schools with nurses, part time or otherwise, rescue meds are
kept by
the teacher if the parent so requests. You keep trying to pretend you
were a
parent but your knowledge suggests you were little more than a gigolo
and
towelboy.

And believe it or not even if they had ONE
"rescue" medication means administer it right
[e.d.]NOW you little [e.d.]head. You don't really
think they are supposed to wait for the nurse
if it's a rescue situation, do you?

Thank you, Kane. You just argued MY stated point.

Sorry. You were NOT making that point. You were too busy making
LaVonne wrong
and tripped over your shampoo bottle.

LaVonne and some others are trying to justify the
bureaucratic delays that leave the girl in the
story choking on her way to the school nurse.

They are? How might that be...by suggesting there is more than one
alternative
that was NOT used. It might be possible the parents were remiss in not
thinking about having a spare inhaler with the nurse and another with
the
girls homeroom or PE instructors, or that they trusted her too much to
remember her meds.

And, if you look real closely you'll see there were no bureaucratic
delays.
They were legal ones...and in fact no delay happened. The boy gave her
a shot
of his inhaler, thus circumventing the system, and the law. This
wasn't about
killing a girl, it was about breaking the law.

The bureaucrats seem to have little care for urgency.

On the contrary. Ambulances can break the speed limit and other
traffic
regulations under certain conditions. I can stop and help someone at
the
roadside and in most instances, unless I so malice, NOT be charged
with a
crime or even worry about a civil sut. On other hand if I have a
perscription
for a drug and administer it I may well be breaking the law.

They care more about "the letter of the law" and
proper bureaucratic chain of command than urgency.

On the contrary. No one minded in the least that they boy was willing
to risk
breaking a law. That doesn't change that he did, now does it? I once
broke a
law to save my life. I quite happily paid the fine. Don't you just
wish I
handn't?

In a conflict between instant emergency care and
officialdom, they side with delay and officialdom.

Wrong as usual. Instant emergency care wasn't the question. Use of
someone
else's medications was.

How does your logic let you have it both ways?
IF x THEN y but regardless, y either way?

How many pulls on your hookah does it take
before your logic deteriorts completely?

I don't smoke anything, and don't own any sort
of water pipe, Turkish or otherwise.

Now do you imbibe then, or do you just hold your breath demanding your
way
until you pass out?

Lavonne wrote
For some reason, Greg continues to make the same
mistaken claims, over and over again. Oh, well.

Greg wrote
And you proved me wrong so very well when you said that.

Kane wrote
Yes, quite. I noticed that too.

The things you see often aren't there.

I look at what is written. I comment directly on that. If you think
I'm
inferring something well that's your little problem, now isn't it?

Maybe you should TRY a Hookah, it might help you.

I'm an oxygen junky, striaght up just as the tree expire it around my
home.
You should try it.

I noticed that you will do just about anything,
even appear the village idiot,

Remember, it takes a village idiot to raise a child.

Oh? Now I understand your child rearing beliefs much better.

to divert others, and I think even yourself,
from the truth

More like your OBSESSION than the truth.

My only obsession now is hoping that child isn't unlucky enough to be
returned
to her mother with you still in the house.

I'm also just a tiny bit obsessed with trying to figure out how a real
mother
can take a boyfriend over her own child, but I'm sure you won't let
your
"fiance" visit this ng and discuss it so I guess I'll just have to
bear the
awful burden of never knowing. r r r r

of what you have done to that little girl
and her mother. But we aren't going to forget.

You know, Kane, even if the twisted assertions
you and Dan have pushed for so long were true,

They are nothing more than direct responses to what you reveal...and
it gets
better all the time. You never going to cut your losses, are you?

the DHS fabrication of a ""Sexual Abuse History""
by caseworkers is a problem so severe that I would
say that anybody who is in favor of Child Protection
such as yourself would see such CPS corruption
as WORSE than even the child abuse you imagine.

To fictionalize and fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History""
and then when it's disproved, REFUSE to correct
such a known falsehood, is a pretty severe violation.

If CPS has to resort to perjury and frame ups to get
child abusers, then they are culpable.

Okay, I give up. Even a low life like you deserves some information,
at least
on the off chance it will help a real parent who really hasn't done
any abuse
or neglect.

Here yah go folks. How to correct erroneous information in a case file
with
child welfare (and you don't even bother to ask if they've take it
out....they
rarely do AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO:

You write a letter, inluding any materials from other sources relevant
to the
correction. You relate the truth (not something we can expect from my
correspondant, but hey, some of you are honest) and then you take that
document to the post office, where you mail it by any of the means
that
insures you get a receipt.

There now isn't that easy? And if you have to show up in court again
for some
reason, or you do decide to sue and the correction is relevant, you
have a
return receipt that someone actually got that note.

In addition, and this if for the technologically less challenged, you
send a
fax, and you send and e-mail.

And finally, if you want to pound that stake completely through the
Count's
heart, you CC everyone you think is relevant: supervisor, branch
manager, any
kind of regional adminstrator, and the director of the agency for the
state,
with any ombudspersons, and all stakeholders, family court judge
involved and
GALs, CASAs, CRBs, and every attorney on all sides in the case, and
last but
not least, the local DA if they are the one's likely to decide on
whether or
not to pursue a TPR.

Your ass is thus covered, and it's only paper, and a bit of time and
proves
you really DO want the child back rather than try to trap the state
into doing
something you can sue for....unless they are too dumb to notice what
you just
did.

How NOT to handle the problem?

By spending your days sitting on your ass out of work by choice,
feeding off
the largess of a lady who can't sort what is and isn't imporant in
life and
WHINING WHINING WHINING even after you have grabbed the brass ring of
gigolo
champions.

To blame me for their falsehoods about me is nonsense.

You mean to tell us that you have been lying about what you did to the
little
girl and her mother?

You DO have a job?

You did what the court and CPS asked and the child has been returned?

There was no wetting incident, no wetting of pants, no cold shower
punishment,
no Greegor the Whore shampoo girl-towelboy stuff going on at all?

That "Motion" you posted here was all just a joke on Dan and Kane and
other's
that can't stand the righteous little weasel stink of you?

Well, doggone it boy, yah got one over on us. Are we ever blushing...

In fact, the attitudes you and Dan display your
cynical paranoid fertive imaginations about evil
are partly indirect reflections of the big lie.

The "big lie" being?

Your concept of the truth is very similar to this lie.
Fertive imagination presuming evil deeds that were not.

My imagination is not the least bit "fertive." I put it right out
there was
images your giving a naked six year old girl you aren't related to
punishment
showers and shampooing assists, hands on, and standing by with towels.

Hell, how can we? You are still here.

Of course.

Gag-Retch


Who is this "we" you are talking about?


The folks reading this post. Who did you think? One of your
hallucinations
that insists 6 year old girls that wet themselves are best punished,
and best
punished by getting naked in front of you and taking cold showers?

All of this to defend stupid bureaucratic mindlessness
and inability to think and reason regarding medical care.

Yah know if you had anything to lose dummy
I'd invite you to run up to the next person
you see down on the street and start doing
some rescue meds adminstration. Given them
some asprin too while you are at it.
In fact had there been no inhalator maybe
asprin might have helped..right?

If I HAD a hookah, I'd give it to you at this point.

What would I do with that? I don't collect hookays, cans, or bottles.
I've
better things to do with my time.

Zombie like blind following of "the letter of the law"?

Well considering the issues of infectious
diseases,

The boy and girl were a COUPLE, Kane.

The first girl I got a crush in in junior hi I only held her hand and
walked
about the campus. You don't know intimate they were or not. And you
don't know
if he had his own inhaler or not. Asthma is common these days and I
pointed
out in another post that kids into dope have put other things in
inhalers.

What we don't know from the story is just how familiar with the boy
and girl
the nurse was or wasn't. She had better not be jumping to conclusions
just
because a teener tells her something. They have been known to slip a
cog or
two on stories before.

Did you ever even read the story?

Avidly and closely.

using a health appliance that
administers who know what because no one
but the kids would know what's in it

Both mothers, the nurse and the teacher would
have all KNOWN that the two inhalers were identical
medication and dosage.

The media can say assume any damn thing they want. I've been badly
misquoted
in news articles. One made what I said into the opposite of my
meaning. Once I
spent 5 minutes, as the admin of a webpage on adoption, explaining to
a cute
little reporer chickie, you know the type, that," No it isn't possible
for on
line perverts to connect with these children, as all families are,
just as in
real live, screened out virtually through a number of means."

You'd believe how they edited it make it turn out that it appeared I
said,
"Yes, the folks that contracted my web design services are pedophiles
selling
children over the interent."

About the same level of Dung talk we get here so often.

All of your "who knows what" was in fact known.

You have some insider priveleged information the rest of us lack then?
You
believe, Plantlike, that the media always gets it right and the
stories you
read aren't slanted...mmmmhhhhhmmmmm, yessir you betcha.

and not even then if some other kids played
around with it, I'd say it's YOU that's
obviously a Zombie.

Just in time to look for THE GREAT PUMPKIN, right Kane?

I do believe your little shower attendant has taken up the dressmaking
trade
and is giving us a demonstration of how to make a dress from
wholecloth.

Trading insults with you is like a grown man forcing a little six year
old
girl to strip naked and get into the cold shower...it's waaaay too
easy.

I almost feel guilty.


Tell you what. Next time you have a stuffy nose
walk down the street and ask someone for the
use of the nasal sprayer.

I am my own variety of lunatic, I don't need to be you.

We are officially sorry for you. Now go get a job. Even folks with
developmental disabilities can and do work. They don't sit around
whining
about how badly they are mistreated.

Defend it to the hilt.

Absolutely. Most laws pertaining to health issues
are extremely well thought out and often introduced
from medical associations to stop fools like you
from being little rescue Annie's that kill people.

Why do you mock Rescue Annie?
The rescue dummy

Yeeeeeessssssss?

saved more lives than you can dream of.

The two I hauled around and conducted classes with, one adult sized
and one
infant, never recued a soul, not one.

She was called Resusci-Annie when I practiced the kiss of life.

I sure hope you were not in one of my CPR classes. And don't get
carried away
with your rescue fantasies. It's exactly the problem I pointed out
above. Did
you get any training in when NOT to use CPR, and can you remember
them?

We had a lot of fun with the ones we used with my company. I'm
reminded of the
post...well, I'll let you read it yourself..

http://www.playgroundlaw.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl?sid=594



The emt's that got there were practically having fist
fights to stop them. The ER docs estmated that half
the injured children died because of rescue trauma
inflicted by little [e.d] like you. The other half
were all emt stabilized before transport. In other
words, every child moved by a non-emt died. Not one
died that had the proper treatment died.

Interesting story. A train obliterates a school bus
and you blame all of the deaths onto the non-emt's?

Yes. Every single damn one.

How long did it take for the EMT's to get there?

About 8 minutes. Just stopping bleeding would have been sufficient.

It's been a long time, about 25 years or so, and I sold my timber
holdings in
Oregon and moved on many years ago. I looked up the article for you.
Three
died, all moved by non-emt's. The emt's managed to stop the rest of
the rescue
fantasy folks and there were many injured, but all lived that had emt
help,
none that didn't.

Train-School Bus Collision: Lafayette, Oregon
Time and Date: 8:10 a.m., Sept. 8, 1976
Weather conditions: Clear.
Event: School bus driver, having failed to see approaching train,
pulled
slowly onto the tracks in time to be hit by the on-coming train.
Injuries: Three school bus passengers die, 16 students and driver
injured.
Accident report: McMinnville School District #40 files

Description of collisions: The accident occurred on the second day of
school
in the city of Lafayette, Oregon. The bus had stopped at the grade
crossing
and was hit in the right front as it pulled out in the path of the
approaching
Southern Pacific train. As a result of the collision, three children
(ages 8,
8, & 16) were killed and approximately 38 children were injured in
various
degrees.
The driver of the bus, Rudolph Baker, age 54, had been employed by the
McMinnville School District #40 for approximately three years and had
attended
all training sessions. He was cleared of any criminal negligence by
the the
District Attorney's Office. It is believed the driver was blinded by
the
unusually bright sunshine on that day. He would have looked directly
into the
sun in checking the tracks to his right.
Not long after the accident, crossing gates were installed.
These are the only fatalities to children inside a school bus in
Oregon.

My comment: since I drove that bus I can tell you that at the crossing
point
the tracks ran east/west, and the sun, at 7:35am, the late summer sun
would
shine right down those tracks into a drivers eyes. It was usually cool
by
September in those parts, at least in the morning, and the windows of
the bus
would frost up quickly. The protocol was to stop, as school busses are
supposed to and open the door so one could not just see with out the
misted up
windows in the way, but be able to hear as well as the train always
sounded
it's horn before and all the way through that town...it had five
unmarked
crossings as it ran through.

I talked with one of the older children about a year after the
collision. She
remembers the drive NOT stopping, and most certainly not opening the
door.
Though cleared of criminal negligence he was fired, as well he should
have
been. There was NO excuse given the protocols in place that were not
followed.
The only slack I could cut him was the school hear had just started,
It
might have been the first or second day for that matter...September
after
all.....and he simply forgot.

The point here and what you can't find in any stories, though the
local paper
ran one and their morgue might still have old copies, was the idiots
that
figured they knew better than the emt's.

Do remember, there was a nurse present in the school case we are
referrencing.
So there was a qualified person there to assess the condition of the
girl (and
signs of dangerous levels of oxygen deprivation are not all that
difficult to
see and assess) and to make a medically significant call on what to do
next.
O2 will suffice for a time, more than enough for the emt's to get
there
usually.

And as someone pointed out, O2 is rather common in nurses digs at
schools.

What is the average time for EMT's to arrive on
accident scenes?

There is no average time. It is much more precisely known by local
emts how
long it takes to get to the local points of common calls, like
schools,
playgrounds, daycare enters. The precise time was likely known to
nurse and
emts and that's why there likely was no panic about getting the girl
help.

You twits make all kinds of bogus assumptions out of this kind of
thinking
common to this ng. Problems that are handled you pretend aren't and a
great
hooraw goes up and then EVERY DAMN THING POSSIBLE IS DONE INCORRECTLY
AND
OTHERS SUFFER FOR IT.

How many died before the EMT's even arrived?

One, as I recall being told about the train bus wreck, and two in the
ER
because of internal injuries exacerbated by being moved, or so the ER
docs
estimated. Of the rest some were very severly injured yet survived...I
guess
because little rescue annies like you didn't get to them yet or the
emt's
fought them off.

Everybody seems to think their "common sense" takes precident over the
professional training of others. I was like that too....when I was
young and
stupid. How old are you by the way, and don't you think it time you
grew up?

Sure, I believe that untrained improper first aid can
make things worse or kill people,

The boyfriend in the media story was a trained EMT? I didn't know
that.

but your story
reminds me a bit of your demogoguery in other areas.

Well, read it and weep, asshole. The reason you see ME as a demogogue
is that
you are so stupid you don't know the truth when you see it. You are
full of
self induced stupidity and cherished ignorance.

Bureaucratic ineptitude is indeed something good for you
to defend.

Which bureaucratic ineptitude are you referring to?
There was non in that case you are talking about.
The girl is alive.

How does that prove there was no bureaucratic ineptitude?

How does that answer my question? If there was YOU are obligated,
since YOU
made the claim, to show it, not start playing Dung games with words
demanding
I defend my position.

Have any wrecks?

One where damage indicated it was more like fast deer hit me.

Lucky the kids weren't in the taxi. My only experience with driving
taxi was
up and down Kalakaua avenue in Waikiki ferrying movie stars and other
celebraties in the day and evenings, and very expensive and very
attractive
young whores to their meetings in the high end hotels. I made plenty
of money
but the people all bored me, and I sold out and moved on.

Now do you want some article on that part of my life? I'm not sure I
could
prove a thing, though I'll bet you I can come up with a very close
date to
when James Arness got divorced and I ran into him by complete chance
and we
drank an afternoon away together. Don't drink any more, but can't
speak for
him.

Was a big one moving faster than I was out of a dark lot.
No passengers.

How I wish there had been non in the wreck you created in the life of
that
mother and child.

At the beginning of this post you tried your
best to create a question about LaVonne and
a perceived by you lack of consistency.

You just got through defending "common sense"
then claim you tried to do the right thing
and got in gigged for it,

Yes, the right thing is generally NOT adhering
to "the letter of the law".

The perfect example of the criminal mind at work. Reforming a law is
one
thing, claiming the letter of the law needn't be followed is yet
another.

The point, pointy head, is that most laws, you'll note, don't require
a death
penalty if broken. One of the nice things that allows for is that if
one just
HAS to break the law, they'll survive it even if charged and
convicted. I do
so wish there were better laws to protect little girls whose mother's
have
taken in lazy louts that want to give the child cold showers.

I should point out that somebody ELSE in this thread
began using the expression "letter of the law" as if
prickly technicality is the way to go.

Not my problem. I'm not the one that claimed at any point the law
should be
broken, nor did I claim the boy did the wrong thing...only that he is
old
enough to experience the logical consequences of his action. He can
know he
saved his girl friend and took the heat on the law. Makes him a much
bigger
hero.

What you are asking for, but haven't noticed, is there to be a special
law for
kids that don't know each other as well as those two do or did, and
everyone
else.

Care to put one of those kinds of law together for us, "Motion"
writer? Should
be easy. We need the entertainment. We are bored with you.


The story was to illustrate that in the gritty real
world, "letter of the law" is a pathetic joke, even
to police officers.

No, not quite so. The letter of the law is always there. Breaking it
doesn't
prove the law was wrong or even needs changing, only that some
circumstances
might require you to take it in the neck for moral reasons. But I
understand
you don't get that point.

It's the stuff that makes Barney Fife so hilarious.

You certainly are. Though I doubt, despite his artful bumbling, Don
Knotts
wasn't all that stupid in real life, and Barney was a fictional
character. If
you were a bit funnier you could pass for the Fife character...but
your
bumbings seem to turn out so right for you...hmmmm.....



yet you want others to do the right thing
and get away with it.

Put that way, I can't disagree.

What that opens up is that those doing them for the wrong reasons need
only be
a bit artful in their creation of an excuse and they walk
free....kindah like
you.

..hmmm...interesting isn't it?

Yes, fascinating.

I know. I could watch you by the hour.


Which was right?
Letter of the law or spirit of law I presented?

Well, so far you've just presented yet
another bungled attempt to get
people to forget what you are.

WHAT I am?

No, no. It's supposed to be "What am I?"

And if you can't figure that out...oh well.

Objectifying me?

Not nearly as much as you did the little girl. I haven't applied a
single
punishment to you, other than point out what you are. No cold shower,
no
stripping naked ugh, no pushing your head under the shower to "help"
you get
the shampoo out.

And no writing of "Motions" that couldn't have worked any better than
if you'd
punched the judge in the face.

Dehumanizing tactic? Hmm..

One of the things noticed by myself, and others, is that you speak
about the
little girl and her loss hardly at all. In fact I can't one time. Help
me out
here. You must have had a conscience day once at least. It's all about
you,
now isn't it?

Is your goal to be remembered, Kane?

No. I don't need accolades. I'm quite happy with my knowing what I
work so
hard for. And it's not to take little girls away from their mothers so
I can
sit on my fat ass eating her food, taking up her space, and her
mother's love
and attention.

Does that explain all of your scatological references?

Couldn't say. If it works for you....r r r r

Kane

Does that explain all of your scatological references?

Just think, folks, this guy claims to be a higher up in
supervision of Child Protective Services.

Your tax dollars at work!

And you can guess from his rhetoric what a fine, just,
even-handed FAIR job Child Protection does.

Hey Kane, have you ever met "Curio" ? Napolis?

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...
Oh, and one more thing which hasn't been pointed out yet. Inhalers require
mouth contact, which means that by using another child's inhaler, the
child
is possibly being exposed to various infectious diseases. While in this
case
the two children had almost certainly had mouth-to-mouth contact, this is
another reason to restrict use of an inhaler to the person for which it
was
intended. I can't imagine passing an inhaler around is sanitary.

Bottom line-if your child needs medication, MAKE SURE they have the
medication. Period.

I repeat one more time.. what about shared soft drink bottles and cans, and
kissing. I can hardly imagine sharing an inhaler is less than sanitary.

Somehow selective memory kicks in when one is trying to have things their
way.. and not another.

Try delibration... consider the best and worse case... before jumping to
conclusions as our legislators do all too frequently.. unless they are
blinded by the color green or an imaginary vote .. then all bets are off.

bobb