This one should be interesting to follow.

Since gregg appears unwilling to comment on his own post I'll do it.

I have to agree with the state on this one, the wording of the bill is
far to broad to meet the requirements that it will need when challenged
in an apeals court.

""inappropriate or excessively harsh discipline" that
reasonably results in physical injuries, like sprains,
broken bones or welts, as well as mental injury,
which is left undefined."

Thats just a tad weak. It is also a known and not unusual tactic of
those who wish to ban something without actually coming out and stating
their intent openly. "Mental injury" can be applied to any situation
with enough effort, as does the term "inappororiate". What is and is
not appropriate is usually defined by the individual making the call on
the sceene, and has no place in a legal proceeding which is where a
violation of this proposed law would end up.

""She said the bill was perfect.""

This statement alone tells me that the vagueness of the bill was
intentional and that there was an unspoken agenda associated with it.
The next thing we should be asking ourselves, ALL OF US, is what
historically has been the agenda of the individual that proposed this
bill. Is she an anti-spanking zealot? If so then her record in her
state should be easy to find. Or was this an attempt to influence the
voting public, knowing that this was a bill that would never pass
muster, but would show her consitutancy (sp) that she has a "strong"
stance on an issue and that they should reelect her to her office
because of this one bill? After all, this is an election year in most
states, and everything that a politician does is suspect.

Overall it sounds like her fellow state assembly members know sloppy
work when they see it, and also know how to deal with it. My
congratulations to Florida's assembly for a wise decision.

Ron

noticed you dodged the questions asking for clarification of your
question, girlie man............any secondary document can be easily
forged and uploaded in the digital age............I noticed there was
no link along with the posting claim.........that's sort of strange for
a link-rich bitch poster isn't it............what's it with
you..............peace was your profession and war mongering is just a
hobby, baby killer...............did you get your jollies out of
bombing women and children back into the stone age............

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about her dog tags being
posted.............

From: Ron Sun, May 7 2006 10:32 pm

Since [Greg] appears unwilling to comment on his own post I'll do it.

It was a new media article, not something I wrote.
All of the rest of this post by Ron I agree with completely.

I have to agree with the state on this one, the wording
of the bill is far to broad to meet the requirements that
it will need when challenged in an [appeals] court.

""inappropriate or excessively harsh discipline" that
reasonably results in physical injuries, like sprains,
broken bones or welts, as well as mental injury,
which is left undefined."

Thats just a tad weak. It is also a known
and not unusual tactic of those who wish
to ban something without actually coming
out and stating their intent openly.
"Mental injury" can be applied to any situation
with enough effort, as does the term
"inappororiate". What is and is not
appropriate is usually defined by the
individual making the call on the
[scene], and has no place in a legal
proceeding which is where a
violation of this proposed law would end up.

""She said the bill was perfect.""

This statement alone tells me that
the vagueness of the bill was
intentional and that there was an
unspoken agenda associated with it.
The next thing we should be asking
ourselves, ALL OF US, is what
historically has been the agenda of
the individual that proposed this
bill. Is she an anti-spanking zealot?
If so then her record in her state
should be easy to find. Or was this
an attempt to influence the voting
public, knowing that this was a bill
that would never pass muster, but
would show her [constituancy] that
she has a "strong" stance on an
issue and that they should reelect
her to her office because of this one
bill? After all, this is an election year
in most states, and everything that
a politician does is suspect.

Overall it sounds like her fellow state
assembly members know sloppy work
when they see it, and also know how
to deal with it. My congratulations to
Florida's assembly for a wise decision.

Ron

Greegor wrote:
From: Ron Sun, May 7 2006 10:32 pm

Since [Greg] appears unwilling to comment on his own post I'll do it.

It was a new media article, not something I wrote.

"comment" wasn't a claim YOU wrote the article, just that I had asked
you to comment and you didn't, as yet, when Ron wrote what he did above.

Try to keep up.

All of the rest of this post by Ron I agree with completely.

Okay, let's see, shall we?

I have to agree with the state on this one, the wording
of the bill is far to broad to meet the requirements that
it will need when challenged in an [appeals] court.

""inappropriate or excessively harsh discipline" that
reasonably results in physical injuries, like sprains,
broken bones or welts, as well as mental injury,
which is left undefined."

Thats just a tad weak. It is also a known
and not unusual tactic of those who wish
to ban something without actually coming
out and stating their intent openly.
"Mental injury" can be applied to any situation
with enough effort, as does the term
"inappororiate". What is and is not
appropriate is usually defined by the
individual making the call on the
[scene], and has no place in a legal
proceeding which is where a
violation of this proposed law would end up.

""She said the bill was perfect.""

This statement alone tells me that
the vagueness of the bill was
intentional and that there was an
unspoken agenda associated with it.
The next thing we should be asking
ourselves, ALL OF US, is what
historically has been the agenda of
the individual that proposed this
bill. Is she an anti-spanking zealot?

Do you suppose Ron agrees with you that an "anti-spanking zealot" means
they are, like John Brown, prone to pick up a gun, gather a group and
start shooting opponents of their position?

My bet is that he knows perfectly well what zealot means and doesn't
mean in this context.

If so then her record in her state
should be easy to find. Or was this
an attempt to influence the voting
public, knowing that this was a bill
that would never pass muster, but
would show her [constituancy] that
she has a "strong" stance on an
issue and that they should reelect
her to her office because of this one
bill? After all, this is an election year
in most states, and everything that
a politician does is suspect.

I had a chuckle at that and wanted to reply to Ron, "like that's news?"
Or something similar.

Overall it sounds like her fellow state
assembly members know sloppy work
when they see it, and also know how
to deal with it. My congratulations to
Florida's assembly for a wise decision.

Ron

I agree with Ron and think his analysis is right on target. So does that
mean you and I are going steady now?

R R R RR

What Ron has established, honestly as opposed to you, is that this was a
Strawman bill. Easy to tear apart, but appears (usually falsely) to be
attacking a problem.

And it was for affect rather then for responsible legislative action.

What did YOU think it was for...go ahead, lie to us. We're so accustomed
to it.

All YOU had to do, and you had plenty of time, was to respond when I
asked YOU, and you'd be one up on me, wouldn't you, if you wrote what
Ron wrote?

Would you have?

Well, I've never seen you do a critical balanced analysis of anything
before in these newsgroups. Why would you suddenly grow up and start
now, eh?

But possibly you are learning. We'll see as time passes. Won't we?

Each day you make decisions about what to post here. You have to face
that you are a one sided, one dimensional little ****ant when it comes
to child protection and parenting issues.

Sooner or later it will occur to you to DEFEAT ME by examining and
commenting on both SIDES objectively. If you can do it.

Can you?

Notice that all of us here DO, except a small coterie of fools, you
among them. Some of whom are legally certifiable and under court order
to desist with the ranting they do on one of these ngs. Some YOU side with.

Ron, myself, and others post to both sides of the issues...but we notice
YOU rarely ever see that, and INSIST THAT WE ONLY DEFEND PRO POSITIONS
toward CPS and anti positions toward spanking.

Just how blind ARE you, hysterically speaking, that is?

0:-}

--
"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

Kane wrote
Do you suppose Ron agrees with you that an
"anti-spanking zealot" means they are, like
John Brown, prone to pick up a gun, gather
a group and start shooting opponents of
their position?
My bet is that he knows perfectly well what
zealot means and doesn't mean in this context.

You want me to join you in putting words
into Ron's mouth?

Ron said
After all, this is an election year
in most states, and everything that
a politician does is suspect.

Kane wrote
I had a chuckle at that and wanted to
reply to Ron, "like that's news?"
Or something similar.

What stopped you from such a reply?

Kane wrote
I agree with Ron and think his analysis is
right on target. So does that mean you
and I are going steady now?

I don't Bend that way.

Kane wrote
legally certifiable and under court order
to desist with the ranting they do on one
of these ngs.

Though Kathleen presents a high noise to
signal ratio, she does post some real gems.
Such a court order would of course be
illegal and not enforceable anyway.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Do you suppose Ron agrees with you that an
"anti-spanking zealot" means they are, like
John Brown, prone to pick up a gun, gather
a group and start shooting opponents of
their position?
My bet is that he knows perfectly well what
zealot means and doesn't mean in this context.

You want me to join you in putting words
into Ron's mouth?

I would be trying to do that if I had not said, "I bet."

Why did you try to put the words in MY mouth that I was putting words in
Ron's?

Ron said
After all, this is an election year
in most states, and everything that
a politician does is suspect.

Kane wrote
I had a chuckle at that and wanted to
reply to Ron, "like that's news?"
Or something similar.

What stopped you from such a reply?

I had asked you to respond and was waiting.

Kane wrote
I agree with Ron and think his analysis is
right on target. So does that mean you
and I are going steady now?

I don't Bend that way.

Good for you.

Kane wrote
legally certifiable and under court order
to desist with the ranting they do on one
of these ngs.

Though Kathleen presents a high noise to
signal ratio, she does post some real gems.

I've seen crazier say or write even better. And much more factual.

Such a court order would of course be
illegal and not enforceable anyway.

You are wrong.

You don't understand some of the content of her rants.

And the legal issues involved.

Before you get too carried away, you should read a bit more of her
posts, and replies to her from people that know her better than you.

She has, for instance, likely legally violated the privacy of her
children...which are no longer in her legal custody. Others have the job
of enforcing that privacy now.

And that's just for starters.

Your kind?

Yes, I'd say so.

0:-






--
"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

Has Kathleen been TPR'd?

If not, then she is the one who has the right
to sign photo releases for her children etc.

Agency hacks and contractors of course do not.

Have you noticed all of those photos that
contractors use in their promo materials?

Do you think they got signed photo
releases from the parents of all the kids
in their foster care program or service?

Can you prove your assertion about the
basis for the gag order?

Timing seems wrong.

Wasn't it issued back before Rowland
and cronies all got taken down a few pegs?

Did ya like how the head of their "agency"
was boinking somebody, taking bribes
and steering contracts? And then she
got a job in their fraud unit!?

Now THAT's crazy!

Greegor wrote:
Has Kathleen been TPR'd?

I'm not Kathleen.

If not, then she is the one who has the right
to sign photo releases for her children etc.

Agency hacks and contractors of course do not.

They do if the child is in their legal custody.

And the father of the children has similar rights to release or not.

Have you noticed all of those photos that
contractors use in their promo materials?

Yep.

Do you think they got signed photo
releases from the parents of all the kids
in their foster care program or service?

Nope. The parents are TPR'd, or if not about a specific child models are
used...often the children (that you folks claim don't exist...R R RR )
of CPS employees.

If the parents don't have parental rights, who does after those rights
are removed? Think hard now.

Can you prove your assertion about the
basis for the gag order?

Don't know who you are addressing but what does it matter? You want to
judge the judge, do you?

Funny how the judge is right when you like the decision and wrong when
you don't. Every notice that, Greg?

Timing seems wrong.

Wasn't it issued back before Rowland
and cronies all got taken down a few pegs?

Did ya like how the head of their "agency"
was boinking somebody, taking bribes
and steering contracts? And then she
got a job in their fraud unit!?

Now THAT's crazy!

Probably you should think about your tendency toward insinuation,
innuendo and plain old lying, and know that there are others like you
out there.

0:-





--
"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

I didt say that you had written the article gregg, only that you posted
it and were unwilling to comment on it when asked. You were asked at
least twice that I can see. Given the frequency with which you post I
have to assume that you have seen the requests.

BTW, you still have not commented on the article as far as I can tell.
But I am slightly limited because of the fact that I am not at my
normal computer system, so if you have I'd like to get a link to your
comments please.

Ron

My only comments are that it was a bad bill,
and that I agreed with your assessment of
the bill and the suspect politician.

Is the funeral for a bad bill over yet?