protective order scam

Dan:
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.

Greegor wrote:
Dan:
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.

Wouldn't matter, Greg.

Our opinion of you, while of course hardly complimentary, is nothing
compared to how important it is to make any newcomers aware of what a
dangerous source you are if they want help with fighting CPS.

You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

You have never helped a single person coming here to succeed in
regaining their children, or oveturning CPS foundings, yet you attempt
to discredit the ONLY person here that ever had succeeded, and done so
repeatedly, even wiht cases where the parent was guilty as charged. dan
STILL won, and you can't even win in a case you claim the perp is
innocent...your OWN case.

6 years you've taken advantage of a single mother.

Where is it going to end, Greg?

How many more times are you going to try for another victim here?

How many more times are you going to insult people that have prevailed
against CPS with Dan's or my help, just because they don't buy into
your mindless, dangerous, and even illegal crap "advice?"

It's really simple, Greg.

You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant.

There are lots of such people in the world. They just don't come by
here in all that great a number. But each one presents a terrible
threat to parents here for help.

Buy some rope. Be of some use.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Dan:
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.

Wouldn't matter, Greg.

Our opinion of you,snip

You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum?


Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

REALLY? Citations please!

You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant.

And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! g

Kane wrote
snip!
Buy some rope. Be of some use.

Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see!

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Dan:
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.

Wouldn't matter, Greg.

Our opinion of you,snip

You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum?

Notice the snip? Your brain still not attached?



Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

REALLY? Citations please!

Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous ****ant.

And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! g

Yep. And typical narcissistic response, Greg.

The only attention you can get is as a dangerous trouble maker. Notice?


Kane wrote
snip!
Buy some rope. Be of some use.

Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see!

It wasn't mean as a charity to you, but to others.

5/8ths Sisal is cheap, like you, and will easily hold your weight.

0:-

Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

You think that I advised the Christine family?

And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

That's the best ya got?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

You think that I advised the Christine family?

I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.

And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.

That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.

And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not? And who said she had a drug relapse?

Who would tell you such a thing?

Could it have been that wonderful supporter, Chuckles The Clown?

You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.

They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.

That's the best ya got?

Answer my questions and we'll decide.

This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.


"
From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services


Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "


You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.

So much for your honesty.

Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

Greg wrote
You think that I advised the Christine family?

Kane wrote
I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.

Yer a mental case!
Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!

Kane wrote
And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.

Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
It was hysterical!

Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!

All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.

Kane wrote
That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.

Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.

Greg wrote
And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

Kane wrote
You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not?

You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise.
NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
Having it BOTH ways???

Kane wrote
And who said she had a drug relapse?
Who would tell you such a thing?

I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
But it was definately referred to by Dan.

I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
such a BAD example as a reference.

Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
How did you MISS that, Kane?

Kane wrote
You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.

You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!

Kane wrote
They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.

Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!

Greg wrote
That's the best ya got?

Kane wrote
Answer my questions and we'll decide.

we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?

This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.

Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
attributed to me?

My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
Aren't they USUALLY?


From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services


Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

Who wrote this part below?

You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.

So much for your honesty.

For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?

My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

Greg wrote
You think that I advised the Christine family?

Kane wrote
I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.

Yer a mental case!
Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!

Funny? It's one of your favorite angles.


Kane wrote
And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.

Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
It was hysterical!

Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!

All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.

Kane wrote
That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.

Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.

Greg wrote
And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

Kane wrote
You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not?

You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise.
NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
Having it BOTH ways???

Kane wrote
And who said she had a drug relapse?
Who would tell you such a thing?

I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
But it was definately referred to by Dan.

I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
such a BAD example as a reference.

Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
How did you MISS that, Kane?

Kane wrote
You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.

You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!

Kane wrote
They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.

Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!

Greg wrote
That's the best ya got?

Kane wrote
Answer my questions and we'll decide.

we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?

This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.

Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
attributed to me?

My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
Aren't they USUALLY?


From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services


Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

Who wrote this part below?

You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.

So much for your honesty.

For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?

My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!

You are many yet I have you surrounded.

dragonsgirl wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

Greg wrote
You think that I advised the Christine family?

Kane wrote
I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.

Yer a mental case!
Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!

Funny? It's one of your favorite angles.


Kane wrote
And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.

Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
It was hysterical!

Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!

All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.

Kane wrote
That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.

Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.

Greg wrote
And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

Kane wrote
You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not?

You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise.
NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
Having it BOTH ways???

Kane wrote
And who said she had a drug relapse?
Who would tell you such a thing?

I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
But it was definately referred to by Dan.

I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
such a BAD example as a reference.

Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
How did you MISS that, Kane?

Kane wrote
You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.

You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!

Kane wrote
They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.

Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!

Greg wrote
That's the best ya got?

Kane wrote
Answer my questions and we'll decide.

we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?

This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.

Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
attributed to me?

My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
Aren't they USUALLY?


From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services


Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

Who wrote this part below?

You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.

So much for your honesty.

For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?

My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.

Greg wrote
REALLY? Citations please!

Kane wrote
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.

Greg wrote
You think that I advised the Christine family?

Kane wrote
I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.

Yer a mental case!
Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!

Kane wrote
And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.

Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
It was hysterical!

Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!

All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.

Kane wrote
That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little ****ant, Greg. Nothing less.

Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.

Greg wrote
And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??

Kane wrote
You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not?

You have been claiming Jen as a reference Dan's expertise.
NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
Having it BOTH ways???

Kane wrote
And who said she had a drug relapse?
Who would tell you such a thing?

I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
But it was definately referred to by Dan.

I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
such a BAD example as a reference.

Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
How did you MISS that, Kane?

Kane wrote
You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.

You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!

Kane wrote
They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.

Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!

Greg wrote
That's the best ya got?

Kane wrote
Answer my questions and we'll decide.

we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?

This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.

Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
attributed to me?

My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
Aren't they USUALLY?


From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services


Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

Who wrote this part below?

I did. Can't you see the quotes at the end of your little q and a?

The end YOUR part, and whatever comes after isn't yours any more, stupid.

You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.

So much for your honesty.

For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?

My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?

Well, let's see exactly what you were doing. This case was well along,
these issues had been discussed previously, and the media had cover all
such questions already.

Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!

Let's take another look at your questions and let people decide who is
the mental case here. Either the media had covered these or the answers
have long been known, stupid.

"" means it's YOUR comment, stupid, and [[ ]] means it's mine.

Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?

[[ How could you ask such a stupid question? It was noted very plainly
by professional health workers these children were far beyond "thin."
They were malnourished, severely. ]]

Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.

[[ You and others seem to presume that vegetarianism produces thinness
by default. It does not. I lived for about 6 years on a vegetarian diet
and had trouble keeping my weight down, even with heavy outdoor labor
almost constantly. I ran up to 230, fat for me at about 6'1" ]]


Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?

[[ One of your usual insinuating rhetorically formatted questions. There
is NO "longer life expectancy" other than rumor for vegetarianism. It's
total caloric intake over time, stupid, that tends to lengthen life. On
the other hand, periods of long term starvation do NOT do that...and it
is especially dangerous in children, as they may not have the nutrients
for building essential body components, like brain, and internal organ
tissue. They aren't made from air. ]]


Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?

[[ Another totally stupid innuendo. What would keep them in the hospital
longer? If they are being fed properly it can be done in home with
period outpatient checkups. I suspect that is exactly what happened.
There is no reason to keep someone that is malnourished in hospital for
any particular length of time unless they have suffered some system
failure...even the child with the UNTREATED fractured skull and the
UNTREATED suppurating infected head wound could have been released in
that time on and outpatient status. ]]


Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)

[[ Another lie. Distended bellies aren't necessarily a part of "REAL"
starvation as opposed to something "unreal," Greg. Your choice of "REAL"
indicates you were trying to sway people to the concept they were not
starving. A flat out lie, liar. One can be severely malnourished and
have no such condition. ]]


Are there standards for malnourishment?

[[ Obviously there are, stupid. ]]

Does a vegetarian diet conform? "

[[ Another stupid rhetorical question trying to portray the parents as
innocent, rather than stupid...which I believe they actually were. I
could see NO malice by them purposefully. Just stupidity and a ranting
political agenda they subjected their children to. -- Diet as politics
was going heavy duty in the 70's with lots of it continuing to the
present. ]]

And one wouldn't ask if vegetarianism conformed to standards for
malnourishment. (actually that is made up word, it should be
"undernourishment") It does not, if it is done correctly. I was
certainly not malnourished when I stuck to a strict vegetarian diet. But
I refused to put my children on such a diet.

It is far too complicated, there systems are not fully functional and
being built, and people vary in their ability to adequately metabolize
some foods. You can't tell until you are an adult what that is for a
person. It's far to risky to put children on such diets.

My understanding was that they might have been in fact applying a
"Macrobiotic" diet to their children. This is well known to have risks
even to adults.

Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the stupidity of
Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.

They didn't get a chance to grow up and be responsible parents. ****ant
vultures like you got hold of them and kept them from getting their
children back by using Brian and Ruth as their political lab rats.

You and they welcomed the terrible loss THEY SUFFERED because YOU wanted
to do your "Gee ain't CPS just awful" blood dance.

Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
challenge the court and child protection system.

You are sick little ****ants, Greg. You need to get that through your
head. And your sickness endangers people like Ruth and Brian who might
make mistakes but CAN recover from it and walk away wiser but WITH THEIR
CHILDREN and not locked up in jail.

You stupid little chicken****.

0:-