Do you take seriously the ...

Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't
respect any club with standards so low that they would have him.

WHERE are these esteemed (esteamed) groups Kane?

Drop some names!

Let me guess, NACO!

Greegor wrote:
Paraphrased from memory: Groucho said that he couldn't
respect any club with standards so low that they would have him.

WHERE are these esteemed (esteamed) groups Kane?

Drop some names!

Let me guess, NACO!

NACO is not an academic organization.

And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid. If YOU can't find them
that's your problem.

0:-}

Kane wrote
And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
If YOU can't find them that's your problem.

Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
professionals and serious researchers
in an attempt to claim some credibility.

Clearly he KNOWS he has none.

Then he won't name them!

Classic David Koresh.
Cult of personality.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
If YOU can't find them that's your problem.

Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
professionals and serious researchers
in an attempt to claim some credibility.

Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
questions?

Clearly he KNOWS he has none.

What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.

Then he won't name them!

Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
sources.

Classic David Koresh.
Cult of personality.

Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.

0:-}

Kane wrote
And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
If YOU can't find them that's your problem.

Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
professionals and serious researchers
in an attempt to claim some credibility.

Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
questions?

Clearly he KNOWS he has none.

What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.

Commander McBrag....

Then he won't name them!

Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
sources.

That's why your so incredible!

Classic David Koresh.
Cult of personality.

Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.

By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that
don't have INTERNET LINKS?

No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic!

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
And no, I'll not tell you the names, stupid.
If YOU can't find them that's your problem.
Kane talked up how he rubs elbows with
professionals and serious researchers
in an attempt to claim some credibility.
Asking posters here to aquaint themselves with more sources of more
credibility is not talking up who I rub elbows with. I'm quite willing
to share. Did you miss that I encouraged Mikey to search on academic
sites and named one for him that I know has a forum regarding research
questions?

Clearly he KNOWS he has none.
What I know is that I have more than enough credibility, little boy.

Commander McBrag....

Then he won't name them!
Why would I name them on demand? I notice many of you refuse to name
sources.

That's why your so incredible!

Classic David Koresh.
Cult of personality.
Then you would be saying that you and others here have that problem.

By referring to academic research IN BOOKS that
don't have INTERNET LINKS?

You don't establish that at the time, Greg.

It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that,
and NOT clarifying that they were not on line.

No GOOGLE searchability? Kane cries foul! A true academic!

We are not in academia. If we were my arguments would be somewhat
different.

We'd meet face to face, and have our reference work at hand, if a
question of authenticity of fact came up.

Here when such questions of credibility come up we are at a dead end if
we and readers cannot access the information primary source HERE.

You and other liars like you not only take advantage of the absence of
access, but you hide it until it's forced out of you.

You are moral cheats.

But that's not news.

When you make a claim of information from others that is NOT available
here, say so.

If you make a claim that IS backed by access on the Internet, give the
Universal Resource Locater number (as converted into characters that we
see as a clickable link), and you might remove some of the stench of
your lies and other subterfuge.

0:-

It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and
NOT clarifying that they were not on line.

Hi, Kane,

I had posted the information and cited its sources for many years in this
newsgroup. The sources were cited in text APA style and listed at the end
of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the
information. For years.

Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited
researchers, but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their
findings. You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in
citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During
that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies --
something you have yet to do. Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of
the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue.

Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social
science, will involve material that is not available on the internet. Most
of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books
and is not available on the internet. In fact, the unpublished internet
report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources,
cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. g

It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature
available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information
and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have
a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works.

Doug wrote:
It took me over a year to get Doug to confess that he was doing that, and
NOT clarifying that they were not on line.

Hi, Kane,

I had posted the information and cited its sources for many years in this
newsgroup. The sources were cited in text APA style and listed at the end
of the message. Did it for years before you even commented upon the
information. For years.

When I wasn't reading here.

Toward the end of those years, you repeatedly cast doubt upon the cited
researchers,

Yep.

but were unable, as you continue to be, to challenge their
findings.

R R R R not hardly, podner.

You have not cited any evidence they adjusted for the obvious....that
fosters are captive and can be easily counted for abuse against
children, and bio parents are not.

Simple, but devestating to your claims.

You knew their names -- since I had provided them for years in
citations, showing the hardcopy sources that published the material. During
that time, I suggested that you take the time to read the studies --
something you have yet to do.

You are HOPEING I haven't. You don't know it for a fact.

You are sliding into Greg's habit of fanticizing about what someone
does or doesn't do.

Recently, you claimed to have "found" one of
the sources on the internet, but that claim was quickly exposed as untrue.

No, I said the source was cited. And I showed that the same people that
cited them (the same way you had, in bibliography, had also cited BY
QUOTE another reseacher that shows what bull**** you spread, for she
made the very same observiation I have that YOU are avoiding. Namely
that foster parents are under heavy scrutiny and bio parent are NOT.

Informed discussion about child protective issues, like most areas of social
science, will involve material that is not available on the internet.

So what? We aren't off the net.

Most
of the child welfare literature is published hardcopy in journals and books
and is not available on the internet.

So what? You have NOT answered even from those sources that we cannot
view here anything that would rebut my own, and the researcher quoted,
on the issue foster observability, Doug.

In fact, the unpublished internet
report you linked to in the guise of finding one of the original sources,
cited primarily sources that would not available on the internet. g

They were the same as YOU posted, but not the one I quoted from their
quote. g

Show an equally applicable quote that would rebut, from your sources,
the one I provided.

I'll wait...it's been three years so far. I'm obviously patient.

It is possible that if you availed yourself of some of the literature
available in the sources that publish accurate child protective information
and research, rather than restrict yourself to the internet, you would have
a greater understanding of how the child protective system really works.

On the contrary, as I have pointed out I have studied CPS for coming up
on 30 years, Doug, and most of the time not from the internet.

You, if you did not have that personal agenda you refuse to respond to
here when I ask you about it, and quietly and secretly snip my
question, would have to admit that your driving motivation is vengence,
no?

0:-

Kane wrote
and quietly and secretly snip my question

Is your Megalomania evolving into Paranoia Kane?

You constantly complain about perceived
improprieties in responses to you.

You're like somebody in a street fight
griping that somebody else is not following
the Marquis De Queensbury rules!

People MUST answer you or they are violating some rule?

You seem to insist (as if you have a right to) that
"snippage" only takes place as a violation of the ""rules"".

Snippage can be used to highlight what a person IS responding to.

I am NOT required to quote your text I am not responding to.
Your belief in excessive requoting is NOT universal.

Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts
are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge.

You argue to justify an industry that paid you.
Pat yourself on your back and put yourself up for sainthood.
Clearly your identity is wrapped around the CPS INDUSTRY.

I suspect that an unspoken implication of your
arguing here is about squelching your own self doubt
about CPS and your connection to it.

I also suspect you were a victim of child abuse
and that you have lied about it to this newsgroup
and perhaps even to yourself.

Perhaps you tell yourself it is a moral or ethical lie.

Perhaps you just thought it was tactically advantageous to you.

Greegor wrote:
Your huge number of posts and long wind bagging posts
are NOT a sign of intelligence or true knowledge.

At least Kane hasn't advised anyone to do something to get themselves
arrested in Faamily Court, as you did, Greg!

Is your advice to that woman a sign of intelligence?