Meth: Hype Vs. Reality.

Opinions wrote:

Regardless of chronological age, when dealing with child welfare
workers, always think of them as childless, clueless, and brainwashed
as a Unificationist (a Moonie).

Gosh, golly and gee (no profanity here). In my metropolitan area, only
3% of CPS workers are not raising children. Debunks your argument in my
area, and makes me realize that you are an "opinions" person. Uninformed
opinions (grin).

Not long ago, I had a long and informative conversation with a former
"baby snatcher" for a child welfare agency in what would be considered
a nominally conservative state. Retired from military service, the man
was no stranger to bureaucracy. He said that the people running the
agency were actually a bigger problem than all but the most abusive
parents. They would go out of their way to create problems where none
existed and then use the resulting accumulated conflicts to justify
having more power and a larger budget. He left the agency when he
realized they were doing more harm than good.

Yes, there is an opinion. Good for you. You are the uninformed opinions.

LaVonne

Dragon's Girl wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...

Greegor wrote:

Why didn't Kane answer Doug in the
same thread? Why did Kane start an
entirely new thread to answer Doug?

Kane and Dan were trying to accuse me of
inappropriateness and we got into discussions
about sharing a family bathroom and
Father and son showering before entering
a public swimming pool.

Kane admitted that he had showered with
his kids, where they could plainly see his dangly parts.

MY kids. No one else's.

And it's not uncommon and certainly wasn't 40 years ago in the sixties for
parents to bathe with their children.

As far as I know it still is.

DFS Lake County Illinois caseworker told me in 1992 that if I did NOT take
my kids, then 5, 4, 3, and newborn, with me into the bathroom when I bathed
or toileted, that I was guilty of not providing appropriate supervision.

I said 'My bathroom is so small that we only have a shower and toilet and
small sink in there, where do you suggest I put four kids? And don't you
think that at least the 5 year old is too old to go into the bathroom with
me, considering he's a boy"'

She told me no, and that she WOULD file on the supervision issue if I did
not take all the kids in the bathroom with me and left them in the other
room unattended for ANY amount of time and got caught.

SHE suggested that if lack of space was an issue maybe I should utilize that
time to bathe the children WITH me.

I, personally, didn't like the idea of taking my five year old in the john
with me for any reason. Just thought he was much too old, and too curious,
and expressed that with questions about the time he turned four.

Apparently DFS didn't have a problem with it though.

We weren't discussing YOUR kids, but the child of another you had daytime
access to.

And she was SIX YEARS OLD.

You'll note that as soon as my children expressed interest in male and
female anatomy, at about 2, the mixed bathing stopped.

The comment I made was to point up that you ARE INAPPROPRIATE in the
context of what you did.

6 years old is far to old for a non-related male to be routinely trotting
into the bathroom with the little girl, more especially when the child
isn't his.

Do you wish to allow Dennis to be the cause of revisiting this all again?

No, I really shouldn't bother to ask. It's obvious you are that stupid.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I only hope you don't have children. This is such a disgusting post.

I actually cried when I read this. What has the ng become and how can
anyone hate little children enough to post as you do?

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:

Whatever Kane wrote, she's probably trying to put as much distance
between herself and Maggie's posts as she can right now. It would
appear that Maggie put a curse on Kane for advocating preemptive
warfare that kills children while professing to love children. Maggie
may have exposed Kane's duplicity in a way that no one else could.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't bet Kane and anything between her legs to dangle
in a kid's face.

Greegor wrote:

Why didn't Kane answer Doug in the
same thread? Why did Kane start an
entirely new thread to answer Doug?

Kane and Dan were trying to accuse me of
inappropriateness and we got into discussions
about sharing a family bathroom and
Father and son showering before entering
a public swimming pool.

Kane admitted that he had showered with
his kids, where they could plainly see his dangly parts.

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
I only hope you don't have children. This is such a disgusting post.

I actually cried when I read this. What has the ng become and how can
anyone hate little children enough to post as you do?

LaVonne

Opinions IS maggie, LaVonne. They post through the same ISP. It would be
rather rare that two people would have reason to go after me at the same
time that posted from a single out of the way IS Provider in Tempe AZ.

The ONLY difference between them is that they are two accounts.


68.142.70.12
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

"Opinions"
68.142.70.56
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

The last two digits after the last period or decimal point indicate
either two accounts or a single account with spoofed addy but two
separate dial-up connects.

That gives you some idea of the honesty of this troll. And the moral
corruption that fills his soul, or mind, according to your belief system
about such things.

He's a very sick boy.

But that should have been evident long ago when he was here as observer.

Kane



Opinions wrote:

Whatever Kane wrote, she's probably trying to put as much distance
between herself and Maggie's posts as she can right now. It would
appear that Maggie put a curse on Kane for advocating preemptive
warfare that kills children while professing to love children. Maggie
may have exposed Kane's duplicity in a way that no one else could.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't bet Kane and anything between her legs to dangle
in a kid's face.

Greegor wrote:

Why didn't Kane answer Doug in the
same thread? Why did Kane start an
entirely new thread to answer Doug?

Kane and Dan were trying to accuse me of
inappropriateness and we got into discussions
about sharing a family bathroom and
Father and son showering before entering
a public swimming pool.

Kane admitted that he had showered with
his kids, where they could plainly see his dangly parts.





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

beccafromlalaland wrote:
I'm wondering what is so evil about showering with babies? So long as
it is stopped when either the parent or the child begins to be
uncomfortable with the act there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
I bathed with both of my boys until they were a little over a year old.
Nothing wrong with it at all. Some people are just sticks in the mud
about nudity. They watch dirty movies in the closet but then cringe at
Normal innocent nudity. *Shrug*

Interestingly enough, but not surprising, is the information shared by
greegor that he is overly modest hence he couldn't be a threat to the
little girl by being her towel boy/shampoo girl.

0:-




0:- Wrote:
Dennis wrote:
"0:-" yawned: You posted that you swung your
dick
(however tiny) in your kids faces when you took them into the shower
with
you when they were only toddlers. Do you think this is why they turned
to
drugs and turned their backs on you? Would you like we re-post the
thread
that you state you showered naked with your toddlers?

Yep, do it, and be sure an include the part where I ended showering
with
them when they became aware.

The "thread" consisted of a single mention, relating to adult nudity
and
children, and now to handle their growing awareness.

Gosh I wonder how many parents have bathed, showered, or gone skinny
dipping with their toddlers, Dennis. You have a freaky thing about
nudity, do you?

It's an easy thing.

You are, that's for sure.

Of course, all the good boldpeople/bold need to do is Google on
you...

Yep. I welcome it. And google on you as well.

In fact, now that you mention the thread I'll point out you, in your
sickness, tried this before about showering with my children. You got
caught at by Dan, again, as he so often nailed your silly ass.

Here's his clarification and direct quote of MY post on this subject:


http://tinyurl.com/kcbdq

a
child abuser...

Oh? Proof please. Here's a quote from the post linked above that shows
YOU are a liar and a little scumbag fool:

.... " Now Dennis is attempting to make Kane appear to (be) more of a
pervert than Greg by claiming that Kane "publicly admits... he
actually
put babies in a shower and then dangled his penis in front of their
faces."

When this is what Kane actually said, "I know I stopped taking showers
with both my kids on the day either of them said, pointing, "What's
that
daddy."

Seems a good indicator. They were under two years old, and the first
awareness of "differences" were showing up."

Kane simply said he stopped showering with his OWN children (both less
than two years old) when they started to notice "differences."

The "dangled his penis in front of their faces," is total fiction on
the
part of Dennis Deakin, the State Director of Illinois CPSWatch, Inc.

So when you write to Dennis, "I'm clearly at as loss of words for both
you and Greg as I'm usually taken to task for what I write," know who
and what your supporters really are. " ...

Gosh, DENNIS, seems you set a trap for me, and who got caught? R R R R
R

The only thing I find incorrect in Dan's post was not at the time. You
are no longer "the State Director of Illinois CPSWatch, Inc."

Gosh, just have to wonder why considering your dignified and
thoughtful
posts to these newsgroups.

that is the real reason you are a crusader, isn't it?

I'm not a crusader. What gave you that idea?

But I do lobby, write, even lecture and teach on the subject of
parental
discipline of children. If that is what you mean by crusader, yes, I
would be one. But the reason has to do with working for so many years
with mentally ill children, not a single one of them who was NOT
spanked
by their parents.

(Like your family hasn't called us.)

About?

You lying about me? Figgers.

Happy trails; "kaner." LOLZ.
free ...
.....is too high a price considering the value received.



Lots of Love to you to, Ziggy.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I'm wondering what is so evil about showering with babies? So long as it is stopped when either the parent or the child begins to be uncomfortable with the act there is nothing inherently wrong with it. I bathed with both of my boys until they were a little over a year old. Nothing wrong with it at all. Some people are just sticks in the mud about nudity. They watch dirty movies in the closet but then cringe at Normal innocent nudity. *Shrug*

Originally Posted by 0:-

Dennis wrote:
"0:-" yawned: You posted that you swung your dick
(however tiny) in your kids faces when you took them into the shower with
you when they were only toddlers. Do you think this is why they turned to
drugs and turned their backs on you? Would you like we re-post the thread
that you state you showered naked with your toddlers?

Yep, do it, and be sure an include the part where I ended showering with
them when they became aware.

The "thread" consisted of a single mention, relating to adult nudity and
children, and now to handle their growing awareness.

Gosh I wonder how many parents have bathed, showered, or gone skinny
dipping with their toddlers, Dennis. You have a freaky thing about
nudity, do you?

It's an easy thing.

You are, that's for sure.

Of course, all the good boldpeople/bold need to do is Google on you...

Yep. I welcome it. And google on you as well.

In fact, now that you mention the thread I'll point out you, in your
sickness, tried this before about showering with my children. You got
caught at by Dan, again, as he so often nailed your silly ass.

Here's his clarification and direct quote of MY post on this subject:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f6189ce6dd43d2

a
child abuser...

Oh? Proof please. Here's a quote from the post linked above that shows
YOU are a liar and a little scumbag fool:

.... " Now Dennis is attempting to make Kane appear to (be) more of a
pervert than Greg by claiming that Kane "publicly admits... he actually
put babies in a shower and then dangled his penis in front of their faces."

When this is what Kane actually said, "I know I stopped taking showers
with both my kids on the day either of them said, pointing, "What's that
daddy."

Seems a good indicator. They were under two years old, and the first
awareness of "differences" were showing up."

Kane simply said he stopped showering with his OWN children (both less
than two years old) when they started to notice "differences."

The "dangled his penis in front of their faces," is total fiction on the
part of Dennis Deakin, the State Director of Illinois CPSWatch, Inc.

So when you write to Dennis, "I'm clearly at as loss of words for both
you and Greg as I'm usually taken to task for what I write," know who
and what your supporters really are. " ...

Gosh, DENNIS, seems you set a trap for me, and who got caught? R R R R R

The only thing I find incorrect in Dan's post was not at the time. You
are no longer "the State Director of Illinois CPSWatch, Inc."

Gosh, just have to wonder why considering your dignified and thoughtful
posts to these newsgroups.

that is the real reason you are a crusader, isn't it?

I'm not a crusader. What gave you that idea?

But I do lobby, write, even lecture and teach on the subject of parental
discipline of children. If that is what you mean by crusader, yes, I
would be one. But the reason has to do with working for so many years
with mentally ill children, not a single one of them who was NOT spanked
by their parents.

(Like your family hasn't called us.)

About?

You lying about me? Figgers.

Happy trails; "kaner." LOLZ.
free ...
.....is too high a price considering the value received.



Lots of Love to you to, Ziggy.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

0:- wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:

I only hope you don't have children. This is such a disgusting post.

I actually cried when I read this. What has the ng become and how can
anyone hate little children enough to post as you do?

LaVonne


Opinions IS maggie, LaVonne. They post through the same ISP. It would be
rather rare that two people would have reason to go after me at the same
time that posted from a single out of the way IS Provider in Tempe AZ.

The ONLY difference between them is that they are two accounts.

I know that now, but it's still a disgusting and painful post, whether
or not it was written by one individual with various identities. I
still hope the individual has no children and wonder why this individual
would hate little children enough to write this post.

LaVonne


68.142.70.12
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

"Opinions"
68.142.70.56
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

The last two digits after the last period or decimal point indicate
either two accounts or a single account with spoofed addy but two
separate dial-up connects.

That gives you some idea of the honesty of this troll. And the moral
corruption that fills his soul, or mind, according to your belief system
about such things.

He's a very sick boy.

But that should have been evident long ago when he was here as observer.

Kane



Opinions wrote:

Whatever Kane wrote, she's probably trying to put as much distance
between herself and Maggie's posts as she can right now. It would
appear that Maggie put a curse on Kane for advocating preemptive
warfare that kills children while professing to love children. Maggie
may have exposed Kane's duplicity in a way that no one else could.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't bet Kane and anything between her legs to dangle
in a kid's face.

Greegor wrote:

Why didn't Kane answer Doug in the
same thread? Why did Kane start an
entirely new thread to answer Doug?

Kane and Dan were trying to accuse me of
inappropriateness and we got into discussions
about sharing a family bathroom and
Father and son showering before entering
a public swimming pool.

Kane admitted that he had showered with
his kids, where they could plainly see his dangly parts.

oooh, how warm and yummy............there are always the pedophile
princesses who prefer child molesters in the classroom, even if they
love children a little too much..............they want to treat
children like little adults.........maybe they'd be happy if salutatory
rape laws were wiped off the books...........that would make it so much
easier to love children...........it's a lot like individuals who want
to save children from a spanking so they can maim and horribly burn
them in war...........these individuals should never be allowed to be
around children...........may all the children hurt by teachers and in
war haunt their dreams every night for as long as they
live............may their nights be a christmas carol from
hell..............

under the Opinion sock nym...

wrote:


oooh, how warm and yummy............there are always the pedophile
princesses who prefer child molesters in the classroom, even if they
love children a little too much..............they want to treat
children like little adults.........maybe they'd be happy if salutatory
rape laws were wiped off the books...........that would make it so much
easier to love children...........it's a lot like individuals who want
to save children from a spanking so they can maim and horribly burn
them in war...........these individuals should never be allowed to be
around children...........may all the children hurt by teachers and in
war haunt their dreams every night for as long as they
live............may their nights be a christmas carol from
hell..............

Obsessive, don't you think you are carrying this just a bit far?

I mean after all everyone knows it's you. Or have you finally lost all
touch with reality?



68.142.70.12
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

"Opinions"
68.142.70.56
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Opinions wrote:
There is conclusive proof that "umn.edu" isn't very large. After all,
there is only one poster here using "umn.edu." What is it? A diploma
mill?

I guess you'd have to ask at the University of Minnesota.

http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/01_about.php

maggie, it's been around a couple of years, I've been told.

Actually, this episode says more about Kanevonnie than anyone else.
Assume Kanevonnie is right. Opinions and Maggie are the same.

We know.

It
becomes rather obvious that, when presented with two sides of human
behavior, Kanevonnie would rather think of the darker side as being
authentic.

No, both sides, opinions and maggie, are dark. What's to chose?

It's not surprising. No-spanks are nothing special.

Yup, just ordinary people. And that's what bugs you so.

There is no
optimistic ray of bright and shining hope bursting forth from them.

Really? An end to assaulting children under the false banner of "love,"
"spanking," and "it will make good people out of them?"

They really don't know anymore than anyone else about children.

Now that is where you are very wrong.

They
just have a hang-up that most people don't have and think that should
be the gold standard for human behavior.

Our "hangup" is that we know from many decades of study of learning
theory, and human beings, that pain is a poor teacher with seriously
side effects that are anti-social. Meaning, bad for society.

Everyone else is out of step but the no-spanks.

That's kind of hard to do considering the number of us there are.

Not so many years ago,
they would be called eccentrics, if their family had a little money and
standing in the community, or just plain nuts if they didn't.

Oh, we've been called many things, by rarely eccentrics. And that would
put about 12 or so nations on your list. And a great many state
education districts.

Judgmental Jerks was an excellent thread title to describe them. They
prove the validity daily with their pomposities.

You seem to be the one posting with puffery, maggieOO.

According to their unconventional way of thinking, no-spank junk
"science" is good.

Nope. Just correct and accurate factually.

Anything opposing it is bad.

Nope. Just mistaken and factually flawed.

The new "straight and
narrow" is walking in the path of no-spank enlightenment. Like
classical religion, obedience to the no-spank precepts becomes a way of
life.

Nope. We aren't a religion, nor would we qualify.

The while no-spank movement is nothing more than a recast of a
quirky religious cult where no-spanks are "saved" and everyone else is
going to "hell."

Sounds like the reactionary ramblings of those devout spankers I've run
across on occasion. 0:-

No-spanks are the new 144,000. Not counting the enslaved populations
on whom no-spanks have impressed their will, there probably have been
about that many of them among the estimated 61 billion people born
since human life on earth began!

Don't you wish.

No-spank is about a scientific as Scientology!

And spanking is scientific? R R R R R R .

Like all religions, it
is very much faith-based.

Nope. Science and experience.

The fact that there is no external god in
their religion doesn't make it any less a religion than is esoteric
Eastern metaphysical philosophy. This isn't a hobby with these people,
it is a religion and they are the self-anointed high priests.

Aren't you the desperate lil 'o' though? 0:-





Carlson LaVonne wrote:
0:- wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:

I only hope you don't have children. This is such a disgusting post.

I actually cried when I read this. What has the ng become and how can
anyone hate little children enough to post as you do?

LaVonne

Opinions IS maggie, LaVonne. They post through the same ISP. It would be
rather rare that two people would have reason to go after me at the same
time that posted from a single out of the way IS Provider in Tempe AZ.

The ONLY difference between them is that they are two accounts.
I know that now, but it's still a disgusting and painful post, whether
or not it was written by one individual with various identities. I
still hope the individual has no children and wonder why this individual
would hate little children enough to write this post.

LaVonne

68.142.70.12
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

"Opinions"
68.142.70.56
OrgName: Limelight Networks, Inc.
OrgID: LLNW
Address: 2220 W. 14th Street
City: Tempe
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85281
Country: US

The last two digits after the last period or decimal point indicate
either two accounts or a single account with spoofed addy but two
separate dial-up connects.

That gives you some idea of the honesty of this troll. And the moral
corruption that fills his soul, or mind, according to your belief system
about such things.

He's a very sick boy.

But that should have been evident long ago when he was here as observer.

Kane


Opinions wrote:

Whatever Kane wrote, she's probably trying to put as much distance
between herself and Maggie's posts as she can right now. It would
appear that Maggie put a curse on Kane for advocating preemptive
warfare that kills children while professing to love children. Maggie
may have exposed Kane's duplicity in a way that no one else could.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't bet Kane and anything between her legs to dangle
in a kid's face.

Greegor wrote:

Why didn't Kane answer Doug in the
same thread? Why did Kane start an
entirely new thread to answer Doug?

Kane and Dan were trying to accuse me of
inappropriateness and we got into discussions
about sharing a family bathroom and
Father and son showering before entering
a public swimming pool.

Kane admitted that he had showered with
his kids, where they could plainly see his dangly parts.






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

hardcore feminists are largely atheist because the principal religions
are mainly patriarchal...........marxism and lesbianism are common
within feminist ranks..........both are frequently taught as part of
women's studies...........as practiced by feminists, the political
movement known as social science seeks to replace religion as the
dominate belief system..........equality is the ultimate
objective..........penis envy is the primary motivation............