Wal-Mart..the scene of child negelct.

Kane wrote
actual meaning.

That's the territory you seem to know nothing about.

Kane wrote
If she was severely bipolar why is this doctor NOT
signing an order to have her committed?

Because she was kept on her meds ...by guess who!?

Kane spewed
YOU are attempting to change the meaning
of "order" to justify in your shriveled little
mind, your threat to force her.

Not a jury in the land would convict me.
I don't need to justify my correct actions
from 1994/1995 now in 2006.

Greg wrote
Betty and Kane:
The "forceable medication" threat you refered to
did NOT result in a DV charge, not a ticket, and
not even a verbal warning to me from "Sarge".
It did result in "Sarge" chewing out my bipolar
then wife for playing her manipulative little game.

Kane wrote
I asked you to explain. Thank you for following through, for once.

Kane wrote
You didn't WIN anything. You simply withheld information in a
conversation focused around your DV conviction. YOU lead us astray
deliberately, Greg, as usual.

You made up a fairy tale, a "half truth".
Then you complain that I "withheld information"??
How did I "lead you astray", exactly?

Kane wrote
You are a manipulative little sneak. Nothing more.

I did not force you to try this half truth stuff.
Not now and not any of the previous times.

You reap what you sow.

Kane wrote
I even mentioned in a prior post just a few back on this very thread
that MY memory of your DV conviction had to do with your claim you
"grabbed" her or something equally inconsequential.

You're quite a humanitarian.

Kane wrote
The next question would have to be, did you, like
Betty do so to defend yourself?

Yes, technically, but you should know that
self defense is not a valid defense on a DV charge anyway.

Greg wrote
] Where's the quote

Kane wrote
There is no "quote" nor was one claimed. Stop reframing the challenge
into something that doesn't exist, with the "aha, you are mistaken"
[expletive deleted] taught to you by Doan and Greg.

I guess I am self taught. -Greg
I am not in any way in contact with Doan.
I don't think I've gotten 4 emails from him EVER and
absolutely NONE in the last year.
(I am of course depriving myself of great joy
by telling you this, since it is so hilarious
watching you "tilt at windmills" Don Quixote!)

Kane wrote
"Hairsplitting," it's called. It's a way to lie
using the facts in a new and wonderful way. 0:-

Teach me oh MASTER!

You were told why I made the claim you
were on the side of the man and against
Betty and other people that would intervene.

Is that what that faint buzzing noise was?

Greg wrote
where I condoned the man who left his kids in the car?

Kane wrote
I already posted to you the reason for the charge and accusation that
you "condoned" (what a weird choice of words in the sentence as
written), that is defended that man and parents in general that do these
things, and did so by criticizing Betty's interference.

Did I have it wrong that criticized Betty for her interaction with the man?

You mean Bette Midler?

Just how long do you wish, narcissist, to demand
we engage you to get a story straight?

Where did I "demand" that?

Kane wrote
I've given you the answer ONCE, and you have
NOT responded to it, instead pretending I have
not and asking the SAME [@#$%] QUESTION AGAIN.

I am glad I could bring you such joy!

Kane wrote
Here is the entire body of a post of yours in this thread that I asked
you to respond to....YOU HAVE NOT. It explains and give answer to your
bull**** question above:
-------------------------------------------
Betty Wirsen wrote
Someone could have gotten into this
car and even killed those children
while you were in that store shopping.

Greg wrote
This part's downright nutty but the rest is
fairly on target.
------------------------------------------
Kane wrote
And like before I'll respond again, presuming,
naively, that you WILL answer this time.

How is nutty to suppose that very small children left alone could have
gotten into this car and even killed those children? Is this something
that does not happen?

Not often enough to be LIKELY or PROBABLE.
Are you worried about very small children getting
into a car and killing children?

Kane wrote
Are children NOT kidnapped and murdered. People like Wesley Allan Dodd
are all over the damn place like that. I check the sex offender registry
for my county about once a month. Sick ****s. I want to make sure they
have NO chance of escalating. So I would speak up just has Betty did,
and have on one occasion and damn near got run over for my trouble. That
lady left TWO small children in the car, windows open, engine running,
and ran into the store for just a minute ... I stood there 7 minutes
guarding before she came back out. She was angry that I spoke to her
about what she had done. And the risks to her children.

Do you look like ""Bette Midler""?

Checking the sex offender registry every month?
When your kids are grown? No psychological issues there!
When was the last time you read "Catcher In the Rye" ?

Kane wrote
Had she NOT been a mother with two children I would
have called the police (I had witnesses) and had her
busted for assault and battery. She deliberately
aimed her car at me and accelerated.

Kane you make friends wherever you go.
Maybe she thought you were a perve?
You haven't a clue why, do you?

Kane wrote
I had to jump out of the way. I regret now that I didn't, considering
that if her judgment was that poor, to do TWO possible crimes in one
setting, she might do anything in the future.
You and your kind are sick little [#@$%!], Greg.

Don't hold back!

Kane wrote
Now answer my questions above, [#$%@^].

Again?

Kane wrote
And stop asking us to prove the proven. Just go back
and read the thread, and have someone read it to
you that isn't as lame brained as you are.

That's exactly why that lady tried to run you over.
You're such a friendly guy, just like "Bette Midler".

Kane wrote
You stuck up for this man.

Betty's opinion upheld in part and denied in part.
Upheld in regard to it being wrong.
Denied in regard to the reason being roving murderers.

Kane wrote
Here's a few more choice quotes from you, stupid.

"There is no such thing as being too careful?
Like the OCD person who locks their door over and over?

At what point is "being careful" actually paranoia in action?"

Kane wrote
With children's lives?
Typical of you, Greg.

Typical of you, crusader rabbit!

Nothing Betty suggested was 'too careful.'
Just take your kids with you when you shop.
Millions of people have done that for a long long time now.

Agree, but not with marauding murderers as the reason.
It sounds like you're having some mental abberations.

Keep an eye on your children.
There are still hungry predators around.
If you don't believe it read.

TABLOIDS? Paranoia?

Kane wrote
Then instead of responding to the issue under
discussion you came up with your usual lying
[#$@%] rhetorical question:

"Which is more likely?
A kidnapping from a stranger?
Or a kidnapping from a stranger who works at a CPS agency?"

The answer to which is of course, Kidnapping from a stranger.
CPS does not kidnap.

Sure they do! They get caught at child removal
without court orders or exigent circumstances all the time!
My own family in 2001, those in that recent
investigation of the Georgia agency!

Just because the system won't prosecute their
own bureaucrats doesn't make it not kidnapping.
A prosecutors ""descretion"" does not eliminate
the criminality of an act.

Read the law.

Do you mean the Lindbergh law?

Liberal scum.

I am a conservative, I value the Constitutional Republic.

You, on the other hand, are a Fascist, disguised as a conservative.
You fail to see the problem of violating the constitution
when it is done to your political opponents.
You justify CORRUPT MEANS if they serve YOUR ENDS.
That's why you are a Fascist.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
actual meaning.

That's the territory you seem to know nothing about.

Do you not see that it's unethical to chop someone's comments and use
them without the original meaning?

No, I don't suppose you do.


Kane wrote
If she was severely bipolar why is this doctor NOT
signing an order to have her committed?

Because she was kept on her meds ...by guess who!?

You just told us that you wanted her committed. Is there not a bit of
conflict in your story now?

How'd you do it by the way, aversive cold showers?

Kane spewed

Still behaving like a child I see.

YOU are attempting to change the meaning
of "order" to justify in your shriveled little
mind, your threat to force her.

Not a jury in the land would convict me.
I don't need to justify my correct actions
from 1994/1995 now in 2006.

You were convicted of DV for some actions. Is that not correct.

Greg wrote
Betty and Kane:
The "forceable medication" threat you refered to
did NOT result in a DV charge, not a ticket, and
not even a verbal warning to me from "Sarge".
It did result in "Sarge" chewing out my bipolar
then wife for playing her manipulative little game.

Kane wrote
I asked you to explain. Thank you for following through, for once.

Kane wrote
You didn't WIN anything. You simply withheld information in a
conversation focused around your DV conviction. YOU lead us astray
deliberately, Greg, as usual.

You made up a fairy tale, a "half truth".

No, YOU created the impression this was the event that resulted in your
DV conviction. That was the subject.

Then you complain that I "withheld information"??
How did I "lead you astray", exactly?

By withholding the information this was not the DV involved behavior you
were convicted on.

Kane wrote
You are a manipulative little sneak. Nothing more.

I did not force you to try this half truth stuff.
Not now and not any of the previous times.

No, you don't have to, but I'd have to not read your post to escape it,
would I not?

You reap what you sow.

I sowed nothing. You did.



Kane wrote
I even mentioned in a prior post just a few back on this very thread
that MY memory of your DV conviction had to do with your claim you
"grabbed" her or something equally inconsequential.

You're quite a humanitarian.

In other words, I did not SOW anything I tried to find the facts. You
continued to discuss the problem with meds. Thus ignoring my attempt to
stop your sneakiness and you continued anyway.

Kane wrote
The next question would have to be, did you, like
Betty do so to defend yourself?

Yes, technically,

How does one "technically" defend themselves?

but you should know that
self defense is not a valid defense on a DV charge anyway.

Oh, you have the statute for that, do you? Never?


Greg wrote
] Where's the quote

Kane wrote
There is no "quote" nor was one claimed. Stop reframing the challenge
into something that doesn't exist, with the "aha, you are mistaken"
[expletive deleted] taught to you by Doan and Greg.

I guess I am self taught. -Greg

Not really. You have sunk much deeper into this garbage over the years.

I am not in any way in contact with Doan.

You don't read his posts then. What a shame. They are such good examples
of clever lying.

I don't think I've gotten 4 emails from him EVER and
absolutely NONE in the last year.

You've gotten none from Ernest Hemingway either, but you can learn
certain ways of writing by reading his works.

(I am of course depriving myself of great joy
by telling you this, since it is so hilarious
watching you "tilt at windmills" Don Quixote!)

Non sequitur.

You are depriving yourself of nothing by telling me.

Kane wrote
"Hairsplitting," it's called. It's a way to lie
using the facts in a new and wonderful way. 0:-

Teach me oh MASTER!

Read my posts where I continually drag you and those similar to you back
to the facts and rub your noses in it.

You were told why I made the claim you
were on the side of the man and against
Betty and other people that would intervene.

Is that what that faint buzzing noise was?

In other words, you maintain your ignorance deliberately by not reading
and considering the poster's responses to you. Brilliant dishonesty.

Greg wrote
where I condoned the man who left his kids in the car?

Kane wrote
I already posted to you the reason for the charge and accusation that
you "condoned" (what a weird choice of words in the sentence as
written), that is defended that man and parents in general that do these
things, and did so by criticizing Betty's interference.

Did I have it wrong that criticized Betty for her interaction with the man?

You mean Bette Midler?

In other words, you can't deal with facts.

Just how long do you wish, narcissist, to demand
we engage you to get a story straight?

Where did I "demand" that?

" Greg wrote
where I condoned the man who left his kids in the car?"

Kane wrote
I've given you the answer ONCE, and you have
NOT responded to it, instead pretending I have
not and asking the SAME [@#$%] QUESTION AGAIN.

I am glad I could bring you such joy!

In other words you aren't about debate, argument, looking for facts. You
are prototypical lying propagandist. A lousy one, but one nonetheless.

Kane wrote
Here is the entire body of a post of yours in this thread that I asked
you to respond to....YOU HAVE NOT. It explains and give answer to your
bull**** question above:
-------------------------------------------
Betty Wirsen wrote
Someone could have gotten into this
car and even killed those children
while you were in that store shopping.

Greg wrote
This part's downright nutty but the rest is
fairly on target.
------------------------------------------
Kane wrote
And like before I'll respond again, presuming,
naively, that you WILL answer this time.

How is nutty to suppose that very small children left alone could have
gotten into this car and even killed those children? Is this something
that does not happen?

Not often enough to be LIKELY or PROBABLE.
Are you worried about very small children getting
into a car and killing children?

No, you know I made a typo and you know what the subject was from
earlier conversation. You are just evading again.

In fact, clarifying comment was in the very next sentence.

Kane wrote
HERE Are children NOT kidnapped and murdered. People like Wesley
Allan Dodd
are all over the damn place like that. I check the sex offender registry
for my county about once a month. Sick ****s. I want to make sure they
have NO chance of escalating. So I would speak up just has Betty did,
and have on one occasion and damn near got run over for my trouble. That
lady left TWO small children in the car, windows open, engine running,
and ran into the store for just a minute ... I stood there 7 minutes
guarding before she came back out. She was angry that I spoke to her
about what she had done. And the risks to her children.

Do you look like ""Bette Midler""?

Do you?

Checking the sex offender registry every month?

Yes.

When your kids are grown?

What has that to do with the register? It also lists offenders with
adult victims. And I do care about the children in my neighborhood,
apparently unlike you or you wouldn't ask such a question.

No psychological issues there!

Sure there is. What will the nuts that rape and kill do next.

When was the last time you read "Catcher In the Rye" ?

Never have. Found it boring at the first few pages and never went back
to it.


Kane wrote
Had she NOT been a mother with two children I would
have called the police (I had witnesses) and had her
busted for assault and battery. She deliberately
aimed her car at me and accelerated.

Kane you make friends wherever you go.

Yep.

Maybe she thought you were a perve?

With my business card in her hand?

You haven't a clue why, do you?

Irrelevant. The issue was not about making friends. It was about
endangering small children. One was in the passenger seat, unbelted, and
quite old enough to kick the gear shift. Toddler of about 2-3 I'd guess.

You are once again arguing in favor of the perp in this matter, Greg.

Do you honestly think that she should have been able to leave her
children in a running car, windows open fully for anyone to get in
without anyone intervening?

And don't ask me what business it was of mine. I was at that time
working for the state in CPS, 1981. Remember, student work-study. For a
year.

Kane wrote
I had to jump out of the way. I regret now that I didn't, considering
that if her judgment was that poor, to do TWO possible crimes in one
setting, she might do anything in the future.
You and your kind are sick little [#@$%!], Greg.

Don't hold back!

In other words you have no argument. Nothing but in favor of the person
that endangered her children in two ways, all at once. Brilliant.

Kane wrote
Now answer my questions above, [#$%@^].

Again?

No, for the first time.

Kane wrote
And stop asking us to prove the proven. Just go back
and read the thread, and have someone read it to
you that isn't as lame brained as you are.

That's exactly why that lady tried to run you over.
You're such a friendly guy, just like "Bette Midler".

Actually I was very polite to her. It was she who was violent.

What I said to here was this, "I am afraid for the safety of your
children left in an unlocked running car, with a child big enough to
engage the shift lever." Nothing more. She asked me what ****ing
business it was of mine and I handed her my CPS business card.

Kane wrote
You stuck up for this man.

Betty's opinion upheld in part and denied in part.
Upheld in regard to it being wrong.
Denied in regard to the reason being roving murderers.

Since they exist you were being as usual, studiedly ignorant for you own
purpose of argument. You can't MAKE an argument on facts. You LIVE on
propaganda and your own internally contrived bull****.

Kane wrote
Here's a few more choice quotes from you, stupid.

"There is no such thing as being too careful?
Like the OCD person who locks their door over and over?

At what point is "being careful" actually paranoia in action?"

Notice that you made NO response.

Nothing in Betty's rendition of events suggested any such OCD behavior.
And parents need to have SOME safety routines. They aren't OCD.

They are care.


Kane wrote
With children's lives?
Typical of you, Greg.

Typical of you, crusader rabbit!

Nope. You either care about children's lives, or you don't. You are the
little crusader for parents that don't care.

I, for those that do. My army is bigger than your army. 0:-

Nothing Betty suggested was 'too careful.'
Just take your kids with you when you shop.
Millions of people have done that for a long long time now.

Agree, but not with marauding murderers as the reason.

That was but one item, Greg. See, that IS what you do. Isolate a
comment, take it from the full context, claim it's the sum and substance
of the other's argument and argue about IT alone.

It sounds like you're having some mental abberations.

No, but you are by isolating one comment and refusing to put it in
context. In fact, you are so stuck in this that you do it to protect
yourself when someone asks about a comment of yours, and INCLUDES THE
CONTEXT, and you try to isolate your own comment to AVOID the full context.

Keep an eye on your children.
There are still hungry predators around.
If you don't believe it read.

TABLOIDS? Paranoia?

Tabloids? Paranoia?

The only place YOU look?

How many nationwide Amber Alerts have you counted so far this year, stupid?

You aren't required to care, as I care, but you cannot deny the existence:

http://codeamber.org/stats.html
The following statistics reflect Amber Alerts carried on the Code
Amber Ticker since August, 2002. There have been several additional
Amber Alerts that were resolved before the Code Amber system was
activated. The alerts that are resolved quickly are the best case
scenario. We would like all future Amber Alerts to end quickly with the
child found safely and never have to activate the ticker again.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen anytime soon so we will be
here for a while. Details of each of the Amber Alerts we have published
are available on our Previous Amber Alerts page.

As of June 11, 2006:

Amber Alerts published by Code Amber: 359
Number of children involved: 424
Number of States issuing Alerts: 42
Number of Alerts resolved in a different state: 83
Percentage of Alerts resolved out of state: 23%
Number of Canadian Provinces: 3
Number of children still missing: 14
Number of children never coming home: 19

(you know what the above means, don't you stupid?)

Number of female children: 252
Number of male children: 172
Number of African American children: 82
Number of Asian children: 4
Number of Caucasian children: 223
Number of Hispanic children: 111
Number of Native American children: 5
....

Four hundred and forty two children, Greg, since 2002. Over one hundred
children a year.

Kane wrote
Then instead of responding to the issue under
discussion you came up with your usual lying
[#$@%] rhetorical question:

"Which is more likely?
A kidnapping from a stranger?
Or a kidnapping from a stranger who works at a CPS agency?"

The answer to which is of course, Kidnapping from a stranger.
CPS does not kidnap.

Sure they do!

Prove it.

They get caught at child removal
without court orders or exigent circumstances all the time!

Then why aren't they arrested, charged as kidnappers, and convicted and
sentenced?

My own family in 2001, those in that recent
investigation of the Georgia agency!

You are calling removals, that are perfectly legal, kidnappings.

Won't fly. Prove your case.

Just because the system won't prosecute their
own bureaucrats doesn't make it not kidnapping.

The system?

How is it that "the system," law enforcement, and the judicial do
exactly that for other infringements. And in fact have done so when
children WERE wrongly taken by CPS and LE?

YOU HAVE EVEN CITED THE CASES.

A prosecutors ""descretion"" does not eliminate
the criminality of an act.

Prove your case. Sloganeering is the propagandist argument and friend
used to avoid the facts.

Read the law.

Do you mean the Lindbergh law?

No, the one that would support your claim, and get back to us with it.

Liberal scum.

I am a conservative, I value the Constitutional Republic.

No you don't. You are typical of liberals that wish to rewrite the
Constitution to fit your notions and biases.

You, on the other hand, are a Fascist, disguised as a conservative.
You fail to see the problem of violating the constitution
when it is done to your political opponents.

Have you ever seen me defend a caseworker or LEO that in fact did
violate the Constitution and were so found in a court of law?

It's never happened, bunky.

But YOU try to make the Constitution mean things that are in your
imagination, not in the actual document.

You justify CORRUPT MEANS if they serve YOUR ENDS.

Nope. I do no such thing. You are fantacizing again.

That's why you are a Fascist.

Odd, not but a few weeks back you were calling me a liberal.

Kind of hard to be both.

And fascism is the extremism of Conservatism, stupid.

You have the brains of a rock.

0:- but you are funny.




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

oooooooooooooh, you mean the one that says that you had a make-work
gov'ment welfare job because you were too worthless to actually work
for a living..................

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about giving out a cps business
car...................