Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules

Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???

Yes, I recall that.

One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.

Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.

0:-


Doan

Kane



On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!

Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???

Yes, I recall that.

One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.

The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?

Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.

Hihihi! So what did you published?

Doan

0:-


Doan

Kane



On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!

Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan

Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???

Yes, I recall that.

One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.

The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?

Nope. You showed that what I said was true. That at the time I got the
study from him, and I have told you this many times and you lyingly
ignore it, that IS what Dennis Embry told ME.

Or are you contended we both lied?

Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.

Hihihi! So what did you published?

Words.

And you?

In these newsgroups, lies, right Doan?

R R R R R


Doan

0:-


Doan

Kane



On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!

Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan

My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag




0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hihihi! Oh, what a tangled web we weaved... Remember the claim that your
shelves and file cabinets are full of research studies you collected over
the years???

Yes, I recall that.

One of my favorites on child abuse issues is the Embry study.

The one where you claimed is only available through Embry himself???
Didn't I show to everyone here that claim is also a lie?

Nope. You showed that what I said was true. That at the time I got the
study from him, and I have told you this many times and you lyingly
ignore it, that IS what Dennis Embry told ME.

Or are you contended we both lied?

Though not all my research materials are necessarily human relations
issues.

Hihihi! So what did you published?

Words.

And you?

In these newsgroups, lies, right Doan?

R R R R R


Doan

0:-


Doan

Kane



On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!

Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!

Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan

You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan

Greegor wrote:
My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag

My Wet Dreams In The Bathroom With A Naked Seven Year Old Girl by Greg
Hanson

My Feelings Of Superiority By Forcing A Little Girl To Take Cold
Showers by Greg Hanson

Greegor wrote:
My Days In The Boer War by Commander McBrag

Wrong war.

I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.

0 : - ]

Donald L. Fisher AKA Kane wrote
I also missed The Naked Little Girl in The Shower Pervs Campaigns.

Weren't you in on the PA or TX fiascos where the caseworkers
went into a public school and had the girls line up for gyno exams
right in the school for sexual abuse?

How did Geoffrey Rantz miss those ?