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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Greegor wrote:
You are many yet I have you surrounded. You mean you discount all those that have posted in your support? ****, you not only attack your imagined "enemies" but your buddies as well? R R R RR ... Well, that's consistent with your treatment of your girlfriend. So go figger, eh? 0:- 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! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
protective order scam
Kane wrote
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup. vs. Kane wrote Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the stupidity of Brian and Ruth. Nothing more. I asked questions. Kane wrote] Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to challenge the court and child protection system. Oh! We CAN'T HAVE THAT! They must NOT challenge the Child Protection INDUSTRY and their courts... sarcasm I cannot take the credit for that! You flatterer you! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Exhibit A. Direct question
Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Kane asked a direct question, and when given a direct and complete answer he didn't want, attempted to switch context of his own question. Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint, so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint. Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Greegor wrote: Exhibit A. Direct question Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Absolutely. This IS the issue. Would you have told her, for instance, NOT to commit the crime, if you would later tell her to use that crime as a tactical effort in a court case? You are weaseling. Kane asked a direct question, and when given a direct and complete answer he didn't want, attempted to switch context of his own question. No, you did NOT give me a direct and complete answer. You knew perfectly well that you did in fact tell her to use that crime in court to challenge the law, when in fact she was not FIGHTING that law, she was fighting to get her children back and that law on recording had ZERO to do with her case. Is that not correct, Greg? Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint, so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint. I conceded that that was the case, as you stated it, that she had already committed the crime. YOU seem to not wish to pursue anything other than that, Greg. Why would that be, eh? Did you not advise her to try and use her crime to get herself arrested in court to challenge that law when that law had nothing to do with her case? Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral? Nope. I mistated the issue, and corrected it, when you pointed out she had, as you said correctly, already committed the crime. I asked the next obvious question in the series of events. Your advice to USE that crime as a tactic to get her children back by challenging the recording laws in her state....totally irrelevant to her case, as the judge would have told her right after ordering the bailiff to arrest her and hold her for charges on her self confessed law breaking. Now move on to the question at hand, Greg. The one that has underlaid this discussion, not some ****assed 'you accused me falsely' bull****. I already conceeded I had mistated. That does NOT get you off the hook for what you did after she broke the law. Answer the question asked. Did you not advise her to, after breaking the law, try to use that in court to get herself arrested? 0:- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Exhibit A. Direct question
Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.) Absolutely. This IS the issue. Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A? How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue" between Exhibit A and Exhibit D? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Greegor wrote: Exhibit A. Direct question Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.) Absolutely. This IS the issue. Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A? How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue" between Exhibit A and Exhibit D? Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court. The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact. Just a suggestion, but the next time you jump into a dumpster for the bottles and cans... do the world a favor and stay there. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Greegor wrote:
Exhibit A. Direct question Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.) Absolutely. This IS the issue. Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A? How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue" between Exhibit A and Exhibit D? Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court. The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact. Just a suggestion, but the next time you jump into a dumpster for the bottles and cans... do the world a favor and stay there. Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem. Short on dazzling logic? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem. Short on dazzling logic? Not at all. You must have overlooked this the first time. Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court. The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Dan Sullivan wrote:
Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem. Greg wrote Short on dazzling logic? Dan wrote Not at all. You must have overlooked this the first time. Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court. The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact. Please try to rescue Kane from this one! Show us your masterful logic! Kane got caught between Exhibit A, Exhibit D and comments about Exhibiut D. Can you argue without ad hom (arguing to the man)? Show us how you dazzle those caseworkers with logic, Dan! Greegor wrote: Exhibit A. Direct question Kane wrote You advised someone to commit a crime? No? Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer Greg wrote No. It already existed when she asked for help. Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B. Kane wrote You are dodging. That is not the issue...when? Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is Kane wrote The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case. Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.) Absolutely. This IS the issue. Greg wrote Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A? How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue" between Exhibit A and Exhibit D? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Kane CAUGHT at false accusation and deception
Greegor wrote: Dan Sullivan wrote: Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem. Greg wrote Short on dazzling logic? Dan wrote Not at all. You must have overlooked this the first time. Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court. The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact. Please try to rescue Kane from this one! Rescue Kane? From what? From you? That'd be like rescuing a polar bear from a fish dinner. Stay in the dumpster, Greg. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sodomy 101 | Greegor | Spanking | 48 | August 23rd 06 12:10 AM |
Arizona CPS Stealing Children for Profit: Angry parents Drop political equivalent of nuclear weapon at school board meeting.... | Greegor | Spanking | 0 | August 22nd 06 11:42 PM |
We don need no steenkin' CPS. | 0:-> | Spanking | 223 | July 19th 06 07:32 AM |
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..?? | Dusty | Child Support | 267 | June 10th 06 04:36 PM |
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ... | Pohaku Kane | Foster Parents | 4 | November 27th 05 11:47 PM |