protective order scam

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What's "ethicality" by the way?

Chuckle Isn't in your dictionary is it?

Can you give me the reference to yours with that entry. I'm curious
what it means.

Or are you just going all Dennis on us now?

Greg wrote
I think he is a creature of extreme contradiction.

Kane wrote How would you know?

See below!

Greg wrote
Much of what he says is fairly obvious as
attempts to compensate for real weakness.

Kane wrote Such as? Obvious how?

See below!

Greg wrote His talk about his strength, fortress, firearms, etc..

Kane wrote
As for myself, I note that Michael© made quite a point about being a
sworn LEO at one time, and keeping special dogs that were Police Academy
"trained to kill." Didn't you make fun one time of a police officer that
carries a gun objecting to a citizen doing so?

Can we compare what I actually said to your characterization of it?

Feel free.

But so far I've made no "characterization" of anything, and certainly
not "it."

Kane wrote
Michael©'s more likely to have the problem you think I do. What with his
various connotations of "bring it on." Isn't that just the silliest
macho exclamation though?

That you would think so is ...interesting.

Yes, you do have a severe case of Dennisitis. How sad.

Kane wrote
Of course for anyone other than me, such comments
don't indicate any compensation "for real weakness." RR R R R R

Has Michael posted profuse and gratuitous profanity for over a year?

Oh, he's managed a bit. Do you rate someone's rationality and honest by
the volume?

Has Michael called a grandma a [c-word] over and over?

I never did that. I address a plant who was unable to establish gender,
and continuously attacked others and defended parents and others
convicted of beating children.

Has Michael insulted families in a weakened/vulnerable state?

Oh my, you have to ASK?

Has Michael bragged on himself at great length?

What has the "length" got to do with it.

Has he ever earned the nickname "McBrag" for that?

Nope. So what?

He's certainly been called on his bull**** and that's what's got him so
hot.

Do you recall his wishes for me, or was it Don Fisher...you know, cut
off our head and **** down our neck wishes, and strangle us with the
guts of a fellow 'case worker?'

Guess you missed those.

Ever heard me use such graphic violent language?

I have a couple of times toward foster or adoptive parents that killed
their children, remember?

But never to a fellow poster, no matter what lying thugs they were.
I've never "wished" them dead, murdered. Or did you miss that and do
you hope Michaels remarks have passed into google purgatory?

Most newsreaders archive those. Mine does.

Kane wrote
Why do you think I chose this name as a false trail, boys .. Greg?

So you're not Don, just some other person who deliberately
left a false trail to an innocent Don?

Since there easily a thousand or so Donald L. Fishers if you hunt long
enough, no, I was not deliberately leading to the Donald L. Fisher that
works for CPS and posted about the website he maintained many years ago
for CPS to recruit families for children of color.

How DO you get so confused, Greg?


That sure was a nice thing for you to do! (sic)


No, actually because of the coincidences involved I felt it one of my
most clumsy of mistakes, to be frank with you.

Don, the one you want me to be, takes it with considerable humor and
has even posted here to taunt me.

I understand he is pretty handy with anonymous posting software, but
then he did run a website. Shouldn't surprize me he's knowledgeable.

I don't buy it, Don, you weasel.

Sorry, you spelled Doug wrong.

And I'm not here to sell you a thing, Greg.

So save your money.

I'll post to you on this subject, soon, like probably right after this
post. Watch for it.

The thread is:
" Greg, it's a 'must read.' Gloating or Ill Wishes vs Threats of
violence"

Enjoy, 5 watts.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

The Oregon adoption website you posted Don's notice about was taken
down long ago. The children are now referred to a Pacific Northwest
....five states as I recall...service that lists them. Some are the kin
of people I help, and thus I know about it in considerable detail.

And I've been successful in getting those children removed from that
list, back when Fisher was the web manager for that site. And I got
those children back to their extended family members.

But, ....

Let us now visit the Don Fishers of the world, in fact the Donald L.
Fishers and see if I am any of them.

http://www.healthgrades.com/director...D-88DFBEAE.cfm
Well, interestingly I look like this guy, or he like me.

I wonder?

Then there's Donald L Fisher (541) 383-3559 2520 NW Foley Ct,Bend, OR
97701
Who has no IP as far as I can tell. Whose going to call him, Greg, you?
Go ahead, with your wonderful bedside manner, but be sure you dial from
a phone with caller ID screened.

http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/hpl_personnel.htm has a department head,
Donald L. Fisher

Then there is: http://www.ecs.umass.edu/hpl/faculty2003.pdf

V. FACULTY AFFILIATES
Donald L. Fisher. Professor, Director of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Program, Director
of the Human Performance Laboratory, Area Coordinator for Industrial
Engineering and
Operations Research, Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering. Ph.D., 1982,
University of Michigan; Ed.M., Harvard University. Interests:
quantitative and computer models
of human performance, visual search, visualization, transportation
ergonomics, human-computer
interaction, learning and training, cumulative trauma disorders of the
upper extremities.
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/faculty/fisher.html

The one in Washinton is the one you twitterers listed here, and I'm not
going to endanger him by one again posting his vitals.

As I suspect he may be the Don Fisher that works for Oregon CPS. But if
he does he sure has a secret job of some kind.

He's not me. None of these are me.

Despite your wishes to the contrary.

If you have an email addy for him write him and ask.

There is a dentist in Olympia WA named Donald L. Fisher. Or was. Saw
his sign on a trip there some time back, and it made me chuckle. I hope
none of your buddies thinks he, or any other Don Fisher is Kane, who
you hate for a good reason...because Kane exposes you.

There's others all over the country. Are they in danger? Darned if I
know, but I such a concerted effort to link me to one of them.

http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=4071
Now there's a handsome lad. Looks like me in the 70's, beard and all. I
was a bit stouter though.

Do you know the founder and likely still the principle share holder and
the chair of his organization, The Gap, clothiers etc.

It's Donald L. Fisher

There's a published Donald L. Fisher or two..also. 0:-

http://www.questia.com/library/encyc...ty.jsp?l=B&p=8

Rather a lot of published works in fact.

Hester, Amy E., Donald L. Fisher, and John Collura. "Drivers Parking
Decisions:
Advanced Parking Management Systems." Journal of Transportation
Engineering 128, no. 1 (2002): 49-57.

I suspect it's the guy from http://www.ecs.umass.edu/index.pl?id=4071

Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?

Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
relations stuff.

And like me, he's published.

Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.

Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?

0:-

Greegor wrote:
I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.

The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
Isn't advertising wonderful?

My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
Your McBragging about running a business also.

No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.

Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
Homeschooling, you talked that up...

Yes, Don and I have that in common, as we have with many other people
in this nation.

What you have to hope for now is that nothing ever happens to Don or
his wife, that might bring attention shining it's little revealing
light on all those that tried to out him here, and succeeded in posting
his particulars and his connections to CPS.

The gate was opened. The gate cannot be closed. Remember that in the
future. And, just in case, start working on your many excuses for
being a thug, Greg.

Do you agree with Michael's wishes for "someone" to kill Don?

Would that extend to his wife as well?

0:-

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.

The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
Isn't advertising wonderful?

My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.

That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
Your McBragging about running a business also.

No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.

I think you're talking about a different sort of crock.

Posting all of the Don Fishers to confuse things?

They're gonna love you just like all of your neighbors
in your high security neighborhood are going to like
all of the attention you bring to them!

You made more claims that you USED Don
as a duck blind? If you weren't him that would
be really nasty of you to use him that way.

You're desperate to convince everybody you're not him.
And YET, you whined about somebody showing up
in YOUR neighborhood to be photographed!


Kane wrote
Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?

Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
relations stuff.

And like me, he's published.

Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.

Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?

Greegor wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
I don't see Don Fisher's wife's name in his postings.
The book site was in the signature on your old posts.
Isn't advertising wonderful?
My old posts? Which posts of Kane's had advertising for Don Fisher?

Ask your friend to tell you what a Honey Pot is.
That kind of comment long ago revealed you have a web site.
Your McBragging about running a business also.
No, a honeypot can exist without a website. Your sources are bsing you.
A honey pot is a concept that can be applied to more than website.

I think you're talking about a different sort of crock.

Given your seeming incapacity to respond to the replies I made, yes, I
must have been, though I didn't know it.

And it's yours.

You going to show me my old posts with advertising for Don Fisher someday?

So two people happen to run a business? Wow, now that is compromising.

And I do have a website, but you don't know where it is or what it is.

I'll give you a tiny hint. It's about a subset of the population, with
nothing to do with our discussions here, and I make a pot of money from it.

So Greg, why did you hide that you aborted this and failed to attribute it:

Facilitating adoptions, you bragged that up.
Homeschooling, you talked that up...

Your very own words, Greg. And I answered.

The dishonesty I see you in you folks is so petty, so arrogantly self
serving. Imagine, arguments and personal character so weak, so
compromised that you have to stoop to snipping out bits and pieces of
what confounds your bs.

Shame, I tells yah, a damn shame.

If you'll note, I've never discussed any special interest in the
adoption of children of color, but I have in Kinship adoptions.

And Don's website, and the post your pasted? NO mention of kinship
adoption or foster, Greg.

Why is that?

As for homeschooling, there is an estimated 2 million homeschool
families at present...and who knows how many whose children are grown
and no longer homeschool. There are a great many of us, and besides,
this was no sudden revelation on your part.

Not only have I discussed homeschooling here, but argued about it as a
child protection agency issue and mentioned that I know Don and his wife
from my homeschooling interest and advocacy.

I know about 500 or so homeschool families, past and present...likely
more really...but that does not make me one of those, now does it?

Remember in the discussion of meth I mentioned that I know the number
two man in the substance abuse agency at the state level in some state?
I know him because he's a homeschooler. A rather spectacular one, as his
idea of homeschooling included taking his children on an Indian
sub-continent trek, and working building villages there.

A poet, author, musician, singer, actor, and a top administrator in his
state in the field of substance abuse. He's the one that told me that
abuse of prescription drugs are even bigger than all other substance
abuse including meth.

That doesn't make me him, now does it?

You take coincidence and try to build it into something when there isn't
enough of it to carry your water for you.

People have businesses, mine is not publishing, but I have written.
Others handled the publishing for me. 2 million or more people have a
strong interest in homeschooling. Many people have an interest in
adoption and all it's variations...such as foreign adoption, adoption of
special needs children, and adoption by relatives.

While I am interested in and care about the others, my interest has
always been relative, kinship, adoption. To the point I've lobbied and
actively supported kin to adopt and foster.

I can't see where Don indicate any interest in that beyond what he might
as a CPS employee.

Mine was an intense and singular interest.

Keep trying.

0:-

Greegor wrote:
Posting all of the Don Fishers to confuse things?

Nope, just to show how hapless you are. I had hoped it would reduce
confusion, but there you go, 5 watter.

They're gonna love you just like all of your neighbors
in your high security neighborhood are going to like
all of the attention you bring to them!

They are all publicly posted, are they not? Else I could not list them
and link to them.

You made more claims that you USED Don
as a duck blind? If you weren't him that would
be really nasty of you to use him that way.

No, it wouldn't be. Not if THE Don Fisher knew and thought it funny.

You're desperate to convince everybody you're not him.
And YET, you whined about somebody showing up
in YOUR neighborhood to be photographed!

I'm not desperate. You seem to be though.

Yep. Someone knows my real name and location, Greg. And they need to
think about how they got that information. 0:-

You want to blame me if he or his are in any way endangered, actively.

Sorry, won't fly. I did not try to "expose" a state worker, child.

I just had to try and pick up the pieces here of it being done by other
fools, with your help.

I don't think you can handle 5 watts, Greg. You are too stupid to spit.

0:-


Kane wrote
Why did I chose Don Fisher for my honeypot?

Well, because his name isn't so common that it would be obvious, and
yet there were plenty of him in many fields, even some close to human
relations stuff.

And like me, he's published.

Just couldn't resist, especially remember there was one in CPS.

Now how much better a screen to step behind, eh?

If you're not Don, why did you set him up to
catch feedback from your harassment of people?
Mighty nice of you!

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:


"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"Ron" wrote in
:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
complainant.

Hi, Kane,

Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
Absolute defense.

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
defamation
(libel and slander).

Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.

LMAO

=====================================
truth

+ noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

ORIGIN Old English.

Oxford University Press, 2006
=====================================

The truth is a fact.

Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.



Ron


Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
is accepted as true."

Ron

Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Ron wrote:


"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"Ron" wrote in
:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
complainant.

Hi, Kane,

Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
Absolute defense.

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
defamation
(libel and slander).

Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.

LMAO

=====================================
truth

+ noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

ORIGIN Old English.

Oxford University Press, 2006
=====================================

The truth is a fact.

Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.



Ron


Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief that
is accepted as true."

Ron

Fact and truth are synonymous, Ron.

Yours is a fundamentalist claim, Doan.

Humans aren't that simple. And after all, it's humans that make such
rules, not gods.

Doan

So, proof please.

Showing universal agreement with your claim, if you don't mind.


For instance, we see 'truth' mentioned in the definition of 'fact"
below:

fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a
fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known
to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts
given by the witness are highly questionable.

But in looking at a list of definitions of "truth" one finds departures
from your claim in fact.

truth /truθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trooth]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun, plural truths /truðz, truθs/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[troothz, trooths] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the
truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the
like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart
from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
—Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay
hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

See numbers 8 and 9 above?

And number 6?

While you can claim YOUR definition is one or more of those that agree
with you, you cannot escape the "fact," and the "truth," that others
obviously do not agree with you.

Enjoy.