If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
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! Doan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
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. 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. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
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! Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30 years!!! You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!! Doan 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DCDWTTANC .... Worried foster care parents in revolt over newrules
Doan wrote:
... his usual dodging crock of ****.... Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this point. Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak? R R R R R R R R DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 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? Hahaha! You didn't notice these entries in the chart??? 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 Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30 years!!! Yep. Hahaha! 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. Hihihi! You can't read but you sure can lie. Hahaha! The STUPID liar here is YOU! Doan 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DCDWTTANC .... Worried foster care parents in revolt overnew rules
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: .. his usual dodging crock of ****.... Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth! Doan Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this point. Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak? R R R R R R R R DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DCDWTTANC .... Worried foster care parents in revolt overnew rules
Doan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: .. his usual dodging crock of ****.... Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth! Doan As I said, ad hom hopper, "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak?" 0:-] Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this point. Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak? R R R R R R R R DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD. 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DCDWTTANC .... Worried foster care parents in revolt overnew rules
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: .. his usual dodging crock of ****.... Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth! Doan As I said, ad hom hopper, Hypocrite! ;-) "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak?" Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research? You said there are none, did you not? Doan 0:-] Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this point. Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak? R R R R R R R R DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DCDWTTANC .... Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules
Doan wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: .. his usual dodging crock of ****.... Hahaha! More "****" coming out of Kane's mouth! Doan As I said, ad hom hopper, Hypocrite! ;-) "Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak?" Are you showing us your EXTREME STUPIDITY again, Kane? What research? There isn't any. Didn't you read beyond this point before? You said there are none, did you not? Sure did. That's why I said you are unable to deal with the truth, as I stated it below. You stopped reading about here then? Brilliant. Leaves you able to lie your ass off and not bother your conscience. Doan Read further, and answer the challenge to research that I present below, or continue to play the dodging game and be laughed at, more than before. You are a joke, Doan. Not just to me. Your own parents would disown you, I suspect, if they saw the kinds of lies you construct, an misuse of your intelligence that they gave you by birth. What you can't handle, you run from with clever little weasel twists, and monkeyboy diversions. Tsk, Doan. Tsk tsk tsk. finger shaking in your face 0:- 0:-] Which I've answer in the prior post. Hence I snipped his lies here and what he had responded to an more tellingly, what he has NOT, up to this point. Now tell us Doan, how is it you are unable to deal with the truth below, though YOU are the one that challenged ME to come up with research? What's up with that, sneak? R R R R R R R R DOAN CAN'T DEAL WITH THE TRUTH AND NEVER COULD. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Worried foster care parents in revolt over new rules | Greegor | Spanking | 65 | November 18th 06 11:00 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | Foster Parents | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |