Greg Hanson says "Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most slowly kill the patient."

Greegor wrote:
Why are people surprised that psychotropics actually shorten life
expectancy?

What people? How did they express "surprise?"

Dan of all people, having had a Bipolar Manic Depressive wife once,
should have known this.

Why would it be an issue?

All medications have some side effects, unwanted effects, stupid. That's
why so many require doctor supervised use.

Too busy griping about Greg Hanson, or diverting from
actual issues?

R R R R ... nice twist, weasel.

No Greg, the issue here IS Greg Hanson and his vicious attack on parents
and relatives that have won but refuse to buy his stupidity and
malicious advice.

The issue is you having systematically gone after parents who came here
for help, given them advice that in fact endangers them and their
children by way of subverting good sensible tactics in winning against CPS.

The issue for me is you having systematically attacked and lied about
Dan Sullivan (let alone myself) for four or more years, Greg and
attempted to discredit Dan who is the ONLY person to have the steady
rate of success over the years in defeating CPS.

YOU are the issue, Greg. And you are one sick little puppy.

0:-

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greegor wrote:
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
You have as yet to prove he did so.

This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.

The arena should be somewhere he didn't make the claim?

Interesting new trolling method.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?
Hotmail was broken into?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
They were broken into?

No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
https remark.

You cannot "break into" a public website. That site invites the public.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Show how this is so.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.
You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
had.

Provide proof please.

Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.

Oh, sure. Let's wait, while the goober makes more and more accusations
that are flat out lies, and will not provide support for his claim.

Let's forget what this is about...his trying to avoid owning up to
having given extremely dangerous legal advice to a women to use evidence
illegally obtained to openly challenge the pertinent laws in a court
where she is at risk of losing her children.

This is the kind of stupid advice that has costed others their children
in the past.

I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
poster there. Think about it.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
imagination.

Sounds like a plausable defense.

Good luck with that. lol.

It wouldn't even go to court. No judge would accept a filing other than
a civil court setting. There is no criminal actions taking place.

There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Is there?

Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.

No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.

If you wish it to be, then request it.

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.
None occurred.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.
Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.

It's a FELONY.
You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
wrong.

Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
times now.

There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.


Provide the statute.

Hop to it, kid.

Chop chop.

Pronto.

No delay.

GO!

Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
recordings.

You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
judgement, Greg.

It's just that simple.

And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
actually exist.

Grow up, child. Grow up.

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?

I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
(which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
without an actual working IP number).

Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
someone else to do it for him.

Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."

Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.

Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.

0:-

Ron wrote:
"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.
Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

Ron
But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!



A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
authored them.

Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers.

Ron

It is obvious that all this cut and paste, if done properly and it has
been done by Dan, fails under the "fair use" copyright guidelines.

One can even FULLY quote (Dan did not) and still be making fair use of
the document.

Copyright violation is the TAKING of someone's work product and using it
either as falsely claiming it is your own, or failing to use it
according to fair use guidelines.

I've posted considerable recently on this.

It's obvious that the news media could not exist in its present form
without "fair use." Nor could critics, or satirists (and other
comedians), nor those evaluating others works in any capacity.

The rules are clear. Dan stayed inside those rules.

It had been established in the thread WHO the author was. What the
source was. Dan even linked a time or two to the website.

Dan reposted the material precisely to critique it's content. THAT IS
FAIR USE.


A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
makes that very clear.

This is a bogus claim. DMCA makes NO such distinction and expressly
defers to the US Copyright guidelines and similar offices in foreign
countries.

Their ONLY mention of "copyright infringement" goes to fair use as
defined by other source.

The DMCA concerns revolved around METHODS OF copying and overcoming copy
protection methods.

It's NOT about "copyright infringement" though of course the methods
would presume such MIGHT be happening.

Damn bunch of know it all know nothings.

As you pointed out, Ron, "You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers."

But here we have a lot of dimwit losers that think they know it all.

Hell, I'm still waiting for those statutes on "felony cut and paste,"
from Greegor.

Think I'll get them? R R R R R R RR RR


0:-



--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the
password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?
Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.
No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime until
he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

Nor did they then, but if you are right, Boy! am I going to go after a
lot of reporters and journalists. R R R R R R

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury would
buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

Because they'd be so busy laughing their asses off at Greg for even
going to court.

Everyone KNOWS you are talking out your ass, troll.

You make a public statement, stupid, and it's fair game.

And you cannot harass someone on line in most instances, and certainly
not this one. If so, Greg would be up the creek. He's "harassed,"
laughingly, Dan here for years. And done so with with lies, failing to
fully quote Dan in context often, and just flat out falsehoods as well.

You are speaking about the wrong person, Troll.

0:-


Ron

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"J.D.Wentworth" wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
user ID and the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?
Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
HTTPS page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.
No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.
Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.

Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
Amendment free speech rights. They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

Bogus argument. Illogical, and thinking error flawed.

We have not tried to do the impossible. One cannot deprive someone of
their 1st amendment rights here unless they attempted to wrongly
suppress by legal action or threat the statements of others in this medium.

I cannot be so accused if I simply disagree and expose that persons
logic as faulty, and facts as false, and give my opinion that their
speech is dangerous.

Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

Goody. Post them.

0:-



Ron

Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:39:31 GMT (Zulu), "0:-"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

Michael© wrote:
.....' I'm the guy that "copyrights" my name with a symbol that is not
in universal use known to actually indicate copyright. I'm also the guy
that doesn't even know you don't "copyrigth" names, you register them.
'

In other words, to be technically correct one would write their name,
if they wished to register it, as "Michael®"

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
... Titles, NAMES, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or
designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents ...
(emphasis mine on NAMES).

You could register "Michael®" as a trademark, or business name, if you
wished. But copyrighting a single word is simply not done.

Now as to this bull**** of yours about two things. My use of news
articles.

One, you may use such articles if you are going to comment, criticize
or otherwise use it for literary use including satire.

What you may NOT do is use the work in a form that makes it appear as
YOUR product.

That would be plagiarism, not copyright infringement!

Explain to the nice readers how plagiarism is not copyright infringement.

In fact, Dan did exactly as I've said above. He identified the source
clearly. He made various comments and observations about the
content...as have I.

One of the best minds I know on this issue is Brad Templeton, at:

You mean the guy who is a publisher of an online newspaper and is biased,
as he states he is! Best mind alright! LMAO!

Do you think he would try to lie about copyright?

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

His clarification is as follows, and note that I ATTRIBUTE THIS TO HIM
AND LINK TO IT, 0:-

One of the best sources would be the LAW as found at the copyright
website.

Of course, that's why I referred to and linked to it as well...which,
YOU did not. Interesting, eh?

What you will find is that Fair Use is not that simple a concept:

...The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to
allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to
express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other
people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New
York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of
the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own
story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York
Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably
aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.

Exactly. A short excerpt. Not the whole damn post, idiot.

No, one can print and entire document if they stick to fair use
standards. Think about the word "use," and possibly it will come to you.

(One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in
the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another
reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously,
copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a
magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very
newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he
pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for
commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original
posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair
use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to
comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case.
There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above,
but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair
use. ...

If Dan had NOT identified source and author and why would he do THAT,
for **** sake, given the stupidity of the material content, he would be
in violation of copyright. He posted it explicitly to critique the
content and source, just as if it had been printed in the NY Times.

You once again manage to step on your dick.

I have avoided ever going this far into this issue as in another
newsgroup there was a wonder running ongoing exchange over this very
issue, and I had delighted in watching the idiots there make it up as
they go.

But now I'm willing to end their suffering. One of them did indeed
attempt to prints someone else's material as their own product, with no
clear identification of the author. SHE had to intervene with the twit,
as he had done it twice and was insisting it wasn't enfringement,
though had NOT met any of the criteria mentioned by Templeton above, in
one of them, and obscured the author's name by posting it below a blank
page under the original posting of her work. Very sly. Few of us think
to bring up anything past a blank page.

Talk about deliberate deception.

Yes, you are being deliberately deceptive.

Nope.

You cite Templeton as being
some god-like source on something and yet you cherry pick only what you
want people to see.

Well, I presume you read on but were too lazy to come back and remove
the above bull****.

Something from your own source you posted:
All the E-mail you write is copyrighted.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One
should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
commentary.)

Which would include the entire work if it is needed to make the point in
"use." Such as critique of the content.

What did Dan do?

"If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

Are you quoting me? I rarely use that phrase, as I know better. Must
have slipped or you produced it yourself. Do you have copyright on it then?

Notice I had to re-quote it to comment on and critique it? That's a
perfect example of fair use, in miniature.

False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless
the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*)

Who are you quoting in "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public
domain?"

These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written,
and no copyright notice is required.

Yep. And subject to the laws under copyright including Fair Use.

Look it up.

Without fair use the media could not exist. No commentator could take
another's words and use them to comment upon.

It could not be reported that someone claimed to have seen a robbery, as
that person's words would be "copyright" protected.

Speak up, I can't hear you.

0:-

Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:43:01 GMT (Zulu), "dragonsgirl"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

....

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.
Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit
the original author.

I'll remember that when I'm ready to make unauthorized copies of the Harry
Potter books and sell them. I'll be sure to give credit to JK Rowling so
my ass is covered! LMAO!

She forgot the Fair Use of those publications. If you critique every
paragraph you might actually prevail in court. But of course, no one has
said you can SELL what you quote, stupid.

You could sell your literary critique though.

But who would buy? They can always buy the book and read it without what
would surely be asinine remarks from you.

R R R R R

You seem to get dumber every time you post here. Is that possible?

0:-



Ron
But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!



A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

"J.D.Wentworth" wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
user ID and the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
HTTPS page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.

Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
Amendment free speech rights.

Greg can write whatever he wants.

I'm not depriving him of that.

They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

When did I do that?

Citations, please.

Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

Then post the statutes that you're referring to..

Dan Sullivan wrote:
J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"J.D.Wentworth" wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
user ID and the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?
Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
HTTPS page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.
No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.
Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.
Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
Amendment free speech rights.

Greg can write whatever he wants.

I'm not depriving him of that.

They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

When did I do that?

Citations, please.

Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

Then post the statutes that you're referring to..

Odd this fellow fails to note the actual barring of people from support
group websites would better fit his definition of 'denial of 1st
Amendment Rights,' eh?

And that we have taken no action to bar access to this ng and cannot.

Well, I suppose we could try. Then I'd have me arrested, and charged
with Felony Anti-Gregorianism.

R R R R R R R

Kane wrote
He's "harassed," laughingly, Dan here for years.
And done so with with lies, failing to fully quote
Dan in context often, and just flat out falsehoods as well.

Where's the criminal statute about incomplete quoting?? ROFL!