| Domestic Violence

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Greg cut the post to which he was responding along with all attributes.
How specific can Greg be, and why does he post in this manner?

LaVonne

Greg is practicing being evasive.

Dan Sullivan wrote:

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...

You think a contract LISW would write
such recommendations up in her report as a funny?

Which recommendations?

In what kind of report?

In the CPS caserecord?

Try to be specific, Greg.

Dan

"sully's neighbor's dog" wrote in message
...

bark-bark-bark
http://tinyurl.com/teg0

Cool hat Dan, or is it your brain? All over here it became very clear and
the night turned day and everybody to say waffles in the sand turned into
the sea eventually.

bark-bark-bark bark bark! bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark
bark! bark-bark-bark-bark-bark!

http://tinyurl.com/teg0

LaVonne wrote
Greg cut the post to which he was responding
along with all attributes. How specific can
Greg be, and why does he post in this manner?

LaVonne:
I'm right here. Why are you using third person?

You asked this before, and I answered it then.
I snip attributes for readability and size.

I am not the only person who does NOT like the
rampant over quoting that goes on, where one
of Dan's one-liners is tagged onto two pages
of quoted text. Nor do I much appreciate
back and forth exchanges that involve 9 pages
of 4 level deep quotation, when somebody only
added 4 lines of text. It all seems a bit
bureaucratic to me. Who is using a newsreader
SO BAD that they can't look one or two
messages back in the thread, to get the context?

Dan is pretending that I am not revealing the
most private documents because I am a liar or
dishonest. His hostile intent is obvious and
has been for quite some time.

In another thread he tries to pretend that he
intends to demonstrate his tactic to correct
false information, but somehow he is posturing
that he needs all 11 pages of a report on my
family in order to demonstrate?

Why would he need ALL 11 pages to show how
he refutes bogus information in a report?

He can't even show how he would make water
flow uphill enough to correct the one biggie,
the completely fabricated ""Sex Abuse History"".

That is the biggest, most terrible lie in our
case, cast suspicion over other things, and
I have paper proof that it is not true, old
documents from the very same Child Protection
agency.

Why would Dan need more than that to demonstrate
his tactic to get false info corrected?

We all know very well that Dan does not
need protected information to demonstrate
his tactic.

Also, for some strange reason Dan wants my
family's private records but he is unwilling
to provide his own private information.

Isn't that amazing, LaVonne?

PS - Even if I sat down and typed in all 11
pages of some social workers gibberish, why
would dubious Dan believe it was accurate?
There is a generic problem like this with
proof of anything specific and personal
on the internet. Knowing this, what is
Dan risking? He can deny whatever I post
anyway! Very convenient for him.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
LaVonne wrote
Greg cut the post to which he was responding
along with all attributes. How specific can
Greg be, and why does he post in this manner?

LaVonne:
I'm right here. Why are you using third person?

You asked this before, and I answered it then.
I snip attributes for readability and size.

I am not the only person who does NOT like the
rampant over quoting that goes on, where one
of Dan's one-liners is tagged onto two pages
of quoted text.

You mean so people can read what's being discussed?

Nor do I much appreciate
back and forth exchanges that involve 9 pages
of 4 level deep quotation, when somebody only
added 4 lines of text. It all seems a bit
bureaucratic to me. Who is using a newsreader
SO BAD that they can't look one or two
messages back in the thread, to get the context?

Greg, when you post some part of your "story" into a thread that has nothing
to do with your case how can ya expect anyone who isn't stoned to the
rafters (like yourself) to figure out the connection?

Dan is pretending that I am not revealing the
most private documents because I am a liar or
dishonest. His hostile intent is obvious and
has been for quite some time.

In another thread he tries to pretend that he
intends to demonstrate his tactic to correct
false information, but somehow he is posturing
that he needs all 11 pages of a report on my
family in order to demonstrate?

Because that's what you asked for.

"How do you answer 11 pages of written caseworker LIES and exaggeration?"

Why would he need ALL 11 pages to show how
he refutes bogus information in a report?

What's the problem if they're all, "LIES and exaggerations?"

He can't even show how he would make water
flow uphill enough to correct the one biggie,
the completely fabricated ""Sex Abuse History"".

I have never seen the "sex abuse history" or your supposed proof that it's
fabricated.

How can I make water flow uphill if I haven't seen the hill and you won't
give me the water?

That is the biggest, most terrible lie in our
case, cast suspicion over other things, and
I have paper proof that it is not true, old
documents from the very same Child Protection
agency.

Why would Dan need more than that to demonstrate
his tactic to get false info corrected?

See above.

We all know very well that Dan does not
need protected information to demonstrate
his tactic.

Why are you protecting the info if it's lies and exaggerations?

Also, for some strange reason Dan wants my
family's private records but he is unwilling
to provide his own private information.

I didn't ask for your help, Greg.

You asked for mine.

Isn't that amazing, LaVonne?

PS - Even if I sat down and typed in all 11
pages of some social workers gibberish, why
would dubious Dan believe it was accurate?

You've not even posted what these 11 pages are about.

Visitation notes?

The first 11 pages of the CPS caserecord?

What are they?

There is a generic problem like this with
proof of anything specific and personal
on the internet. Knowing this, what is
Dan risking? He can deny whatever I post
anyway! Very convenient for him.

Then you shouldn't have bothered to ask, Greg.

Dan