What IS the Connection?

Visiting the following website set me to ponderin'.....

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

..........as I browse through the many websites devoted to anti cps
rhetoric I am struck by my inability to find one that somewhere in its
"about us" pages isn't identified as "Christian."

Some are so extreme in their Rightist leanings as to excite my
interest in other right leaning Christian groups. And to the
furtherest right of all in the country, Christianity's "Al Queda,"
Christian Reconstructionism.

Oh, you best read up on CR. Do they have plans for the rest of us:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

and source material from the benevolent CR folks them very selves:

www.chalcedon.edu

www.ustaxpayers.org

Further wanderings in the Promised Land of Christian Rightism I come
across claims that an often cited organization that now has made
inroads into the powerful federal legislation involving families,
ASFA, has principals that are linked, by some, to this
Reconstructionism movement.

Is it possible, is there a connection, between these factions and
organizations that trace back to the CR folks, who plainly state their
long term goal is a Theopolitical solution to all human matters with
them at the helm, and our own lovely group of rabid anti CPS'rs?

Some folks seem to think so:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp...struction.html

"The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many links
to Reconstructionism. In his well-researched 1995 book, Home
Schooling: The Right Choice, HSLDA attorney Christopher Klicka
frequently quotes Reconstructionst writers, notably Rushdoony and
Barton. In addition to including Rushdoony's "The Difference Between
Christian Education and Humanistic Education", the book's forward was
written by D. James Kennedy and many of the ideals expressed seem
Reconstructionist, however, he does not state specifically that he is
a Reconstructionist"

"The relationship between President Michael Farris of HSLDA and Tim
and Beverly LaHaye goes back to the early 1980's when Michael Farris
was head of the legal department of Concerned Women for America. Tim
LaHaye was attempting to start a television ministry that failed. In
1983 he started the American Coalition for Traditional Values which
was similar to the now defunct Moral Majority, its goal being to
mobilize Christians to register and vote. Some accounts indicate
Michael Farris was deeply involved with ACTV while others do not
mention his involvement. ACTV closed down shortly after the 1986
elections. Tim LaHaye withdrew from his television ministry when it
was publicized that his church was funding an anti-Catholic group. In
1985 he further withdrew after it became known that CWA had accepted
'generous help' from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church
which teaches the divinity of the Rev. Moon in direct conflict with
Christian teachings. In 1987 Rev. LaHaye was forced to resign as
co-chair from Jack Kemp's presidential campaign because newspapers
printed divisive passages from his writings, which were anti-catholic
and anti-Semetic."

The organization popularized in this ng by Doug, who wouldn't discuss
it further with me when I first pointed out the dangers of HSLDA
involvement in federal legislation, other than to parrot the belief
that they are only trying to insure that families "constitutional
rights" would be more protected, is or is not closely linked to
Christian Reconstructionism.

Can I prove it, and will I be able to in the future?

Yah got me there as it is now quite clear that the CR folks are going
subrosa in the last few years as their Al Queda like approach to
solving mankinds problems came under fire from opposing forces...like
other Sane Christians who plainly see the dangers that more secular
folks might miss.

Is there a link?

Yah got me..

I'm just speculating at the incursions into federal goverment agencies
celebrated here so triumphantly by the anti-cps crowd.

Could this ng be a target for CR's that see it as a fertile ground for
planting their seeds of goverment takeover by preaching distrust?
Hmmmm....?

You women better get ready to walk three paces behind, everyone plan
on there being a lot of dead children that defied their parents and
were subjected to Old Testament Stoning, and babies scarred for life
by such instruments of "Christian Parenting" as The Rod, and other
fine solutions to national and global governance.

Best wishes for a Happy Holiday. 'For yah know it it'll be Christmas.

(And don't waste my time claiming I'm anti Christian as you folks have
by trying to claim I'm anti parent....I'm anti abusive parent and anti
CR..plainly)

Whatah yah think folks, might The Jig be up?

Kane

In addition to the implications for children, what I find sad and
frightening is the implication spread by the extremist organizations that
spanking and child abuse is somehow "Christian." Hurting children is no
more Christian than bombing the World Trade Center is representative of
Islam. Hundreds and thousands of fundamentalist Christians do not hit
and hurt their children. Hundreds and thousands of fundamentalist
Muslims do not blow up buildings and engage in suicide bombings. Yet
this is now how we think of Christians and Muslims.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

Visiting the following website set me to ponderin'.....

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

.........as I browse through the many websites devoted to anti cps
rhetoric I am struck by my inability to find one that somewhere in its
"about us" pages isn't identified as "Christian."

Some are so extreme in their Rightist leanings as to excite my
interest in other right leaning Christian groups. And to the
furtherest right of all in the country, Christianity's "Al Queda,"
Christian Reconstructionism.

Oh, you best read up on CR. Do they have plans for the rest of us:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

and source material from the benevolent CR folks them very selves:

www.chalcedon.edu

www.ustaxpayers.org

Further wanderings in the Promised Land of Christian Rightism I come
across claims that an often cited organization that now has made
inroads into the powerful federal legislation involving families,
ASFA, has principals that are linked, by some, to this
Reconstructionism movement.

Is it possible, is there a connection, between these factions and
organizations that trace back to the CR folks, who plainly state their
long term goal is a Theopolitical solution to all human matters with
them at the helm, and our own lovely group of rabid anti CPS'rs?

Some folks seem to think so:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp...struction.html

"The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many links
to Reconstructionism. In his well-researched 1995 book, Home
Schooling: The Right Choice, HSLDA attorney Christopher Klicka
frequently quotes Reconstructionst writers, notably Rushdoony and
Barton. In addition to including Rushdoony's "The Difference Between
Christian Education and Humanistic Education", the book's forward was
written by D. James Kennedy and many of the ideals expressed seem
Reconstructionist, however, he does not state specifically that he is
a Reconstructionist"

"The relationship between President Michael Farris of HSLDA and Tim
and Beverly LaHaye goes back to the early 1980's when Michael Farris
was head of the legal department of Concerned Women for America. Tim
LaHaye was attempting to start a television ministry that failed. In
1983 he started the American Coalition for Traditional Values which
was similar to the now defunct Moral Majority, its goal being to
mobilize Christians to register and vote. Some accounts indicate
Michael Farris was deeply involved with ACTV while others do not
mention his involvement. ACTV closed down shortly after the 1986
elections. Tim LaHaye withdrew from his television ministry when it
was publicized that his church was funding an anti-Catholic group. In
1985 he further withdrew after it became known that CWA had accepted
'generous help' from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church
which teaches the divinity of the Rev. Moon in direct conflict with
Christian teachings. In 1987 Rev. LaHaye was forced to resign as
co-chair from Jack Kemp's presidential campaign because newspapers
printed divisive passages from his writings, which were anti-catholic
and anti-Semetic."

The organization popularized in this ng by Doug, who wouldn't discuss
it further with me when I first pointed out the dangers of HSLDA
involvement in federal legislation, other than to parrot the belief
that they are only trying to insure that families "constitutional
rights" would be more protected, is or is not closely linked to
Christian Reconstructionism.

Can I prove it, and will I be able to in the future?

Yah got me there as it is now quite clear that the CR folks are going
subrosa in the last few years as their Al Queda like approach to
solving mankinds problems came under fire from opposing forces...like
other Sane Christians who plainly see the dangers that more secular
folks might miss.

Is there a link?

Yah got me..

I'm just speculating at the incursions into federal goverment agencies
celebrated here so triumphantly by the anti-cps crowd.

Could this ng be a target for CR's that see it as a fertile ground for
planting their seeds of goverment takeover by preaching distrust?
Hmmmm....?

You women better get ready to walk three paces behind, everyone plan
on there being a lot of dead children that defied their parents and
were subjected to Old Testament Stoning, and babies scarred for life
by such instruments of "Christian Parenting" as The Rod, and other
fine solutions to national and global governance.

Best wishes for a Happy Holiday. 'For yah know it it'll be Christmas.

(And don't waste my time claiming I'm anti Christian as you folks have
by trying to claim I'm anti parent....I'm anti abusive parent and anti
CR..plainly)

Whatah yah think folks, might The Jig be up?

Kane

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:20:33 -0500, in alt.parenting.spanking Lavonne
wrote:

In addition to the implications for children, what I find sad and
frightening is the implication spread by the extremist organizations
that
spanking and child abuse is somehow "Christian." Hurting children
is no
more Christian than bombing the World Trade Center is representative
of
Islam.

Point taken.

Hundreds and thousands of fundamentalist Christians do not hit
and hurt their children.

Actually I include all Christians, so for me it is MILLIONS that do
not.

Hundreds and thousands of fundamentalist
Muslims do not blow up buildings and engage in suicide bombings. Yet
this is now how we think of Christians and Muslims.

Again, I tend to include all Muslims and millions upon millions did
not approve of nor would they participate in such a thing.

LaVonne

Kane



Kane wrote:

Visiting the following website set me to ponderin'.....

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm

.........as I browse through the many websites devoted to anti cps
rhetoric I am struck by my inability to find one that somewhere in
its
"about us" pages isn't identified as "Christian."

Some are so extreme in their Rightist leanings as to excite my
interest in other right leaning Christian groups. And to the
furtherest right of all in the country, Christianity's "Al Queda,"
Christian Reconstructionism.

Oh, you best read up on CR. Do they have plans for the rest of us:

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

and source material from the benevolent CR folks them very selves:

www.chalcedon.edu

www.ustaxpayers.org

Further wanderings in the Promised Land of Christian Rightism I
come
across claims that an often cited organization that now has made
inroads into the powerful federal legislation involving families,
ASFA, has principals that are linked, by some, to this
Reconstructionism movement.

Is it possible, is there a connection, between these factions and
organizations that trace back to the CR folks, who plainly state
their
long term goal is a Theopolitical solution to all human matters
with
them at the helm, and our own lovely group of rabid anti CPS'rs?

Some folks seem to think so:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp...struction.html

"The Home School Legal Defense Association/Foundation has many
links
to Reconstructionism. In his well-researched 1995 book, Home
Schooling: The Right Choice, HSLDA attorney Christopher Klicka
frequently quotes Reconstructionst writers, notably Rushdoony and
Barton. In addition to including Rushdoony's "The Difference
Between
Christian Education and Humanistic Education", the book's forward
was
written by D. James Kennedy and many of the ideals expressed seem
Reconstructionist, however, he does not state specifically that he
is
a Reconstructionist"

"The relationship between President Michael Farris of HSLDA and Tim
and Beverly LaHaye goes back to the early 1980's when Michael
Farris
was head of the legal department of Concerned Women for America.
Tim
LaHaye was attempting to start a television ministry that failed.
In
1983 he started the American Coalition for Traditional Values which
was similar to the now defunct Moral Majority, its goal being to
mobilize Christians to register and vote. Some accounts indicate
Michael Farris was deeply involved with ACTV while others do not
mention his involvement. ACTV closed down shortly after the 1986
elections. Tim LaHaye withdrew from his television ministry when it
was publicized that his church was funding an anti-Catholic group.
In
1985 he further withdrew after it became known that CWA had
accepted
'generous help' from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church
which teaches the divinity of the Rev. Moon in direct conflict with
Christian teachings. In 1987 Rev. LaHaye was forced to resign as
co-chair from Jack Kemp's presidential campaign because newspapers
printed divisive passages from his writings, which were
anti-catholic
and anti-Semetic."

The organization popularized in this ng by Doug, who wouldn't
discuss
it further with me when I first pointed out the dangers of HSLDA
involvement in federal legislation, other than to parrot the belief
that they are only trying to insure that families "constitutional
rights" would be more protected, is or is not closely linked to
Christian Reconstructionism.

Can I prove it, and will I be able to in the future?

Yah got me there as it is now quite clear that the CR folks are
going
subrosa in the last few years as their Al Queda like approach to
solving mankinds problems came under fire from opposing
forces...like
other Sane Christians who plainly see the dangers that more secular
folks might miss.

Is there a link?

Yah got me..

I'm just speculating at the incursions into federal goverment
agencies
celebrated here so triumphantly by the anti-cps crowd.

Could this ng be a target for CR's that see it as a fertile ground
for
planting their seeds of goverment takeover by preaching distrust?
Hmmmm....?

You women better get ready to walk three paces behind, everyone
plan
on there being a lot of dead children that defied their parents and
were subjected to Old Testament Stoning, and babies scarred for
life
by such instruments of "Christian Parenting" as The Rod, and other
fine solutions to national and global governance.

Best wishes for a Happy Holiday. 'For yah know it it'll be
Christmas.

(And don't waste my time claiming I'm anti Christian as you folks
have
by trying to claim I'm anti parent....I'm anti abusive parent and
anti
CR..plainly)

Whatah yah think folks, might The Jig be up?

Kane

For those of you who could not tell, Kane is an atheist.
LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?
(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)
I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.
I am agnostic, not lost, just deliberately
neutral and respectful of all religions.
Was an honorary International Student.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group? It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

Sounds a lot like some sort of "guilt by association" ploy.

Joseph McCarthy lives on.

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
For those of you who could not tell,

Or who haven't had the time or interest to read the many posts where
I've said so, crossposted to three of these ngs usually.

Kane is an atheist.

I kind of like to think of myself as a Jesuit trained (naw just
kiddin' Dan) recovering Christian.

LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?

You have a lot of nerve. Ok, let's play. What's yours.

And though I was kidding about Society of Jesus member training (don't
I ever wish) I have had considerable training in matters Christian.

When I know your's I might just be tempted to remind of some of the
rules laid down for members of that faith.

(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)

Excuses, excuses. Don't you ever run out of rationalizations for your
brutish behavior?

Me, I revel in it and don't lie or play coy about it. I'm mean and
uncouth and that's that.

I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.

You couldn't reconstruct a Lincoln Log toy cabin.

I am agnostic, not lost, just deliberately
neutral and respectful of all religions.

Oh, pity the other poor agnostics that they must count you among their
numbers. Pity. Most I know are very decent thoughtful people. Wouldn't
think of becoming gigolos. Nosiree.

Was an honorary International Student.

I always love those honorary titles. I have a couple myself, so I
leave them quietly on the darkest corner wall of my office out of
politness, but post them publically on USENET? I don't think so.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group?

The old idea that connection by association isn't a valid area of
examination is kinda shoot down by common police work, don'tcha think?

The question to be asked, rightly, is this: are the tactics and
methods, and intentions revealed, upon examination, to be seen in the
latter as like or the same as the former. Yah know: are the low life
dangerous to mankind CR folks shopping out their business?

We'll see. Now won't we. Outside of you, and The Plant, hardly the
best representation of what the pretenders here have to offer, no one
has stepped up to the plate. Couple of unattached have commented but I
don't think they get it or are in the picture.

Until you have researched CR and given me your opinion of whether or
not you agree with them and would support their efforts, fully, you
don't have a worthwhile contribution to make.

And that is par for you.

It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

You'll have to sort out, just write their names when you speak of
them, who is connected to who. I won't tell that you told.

Sounds a lot like some sort of "guilt by association" ploy.

No, it sounds a lot more like the American version of Al Queada would
find fertile ground in the anti cps, anti child welfare, anti family
court arena. If I were them that is exactly where I would go. Lots of
recruits to be had.

Joseph McCarthy lives on.

Same old crap. Sounds like the "Honorary" part of "Honorary
international student" was the significant portion of that title.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/w...lker072503.htm

A recent debate on the subject by two CONSERVATIVES, one who did the
proper
research and the other who didn't and thought McCarthy a baaaaaaaaaad
man....just as you thought, ignorantly.

McCarthy was a jerk, and probably a drunk, if memory serves, (I
watched it on TV, and he was not part of the HUAC) but the people
that went after him did a thorough job of deflecting the american
people from
the truth at that time, somewhat like you and your cronies are busily
trying
to do even now.

McCarthy went after, as was his mandate as a US Senator, those he
thought
enemies of the US, enemies in the military or working for the
military.

While there was spillover in the form of the HUAC being recognized by
Joe M.
he never sat on or chaired the HUAC.

The whole thing since was just the outcome of the bogus ploy to
discredit him
because he pinched the toes of some liberal squats who had the ear of
people
high up in the State department and the Army.

Here's a piece from the debate I mention above:

"Ann pressed; Bill retreated. He noted that "everyone" knew about the
abuses
of the House Un-American Activities Committee. While it is an
undeserved
compliment to the ignoramuses of college campuses today to assume that
students or professors have even heard of HUAC, Ms. Coulter noted the
patent
absurdity of O*Reilly*s assertion: Senator Joe McCarthy was never on
the House
Un-American Activities Committee. "

Try reading the entire article. The methods and madness resemble
highly the
lies and bull**** propogated by you dip****s. Claims of things that
never
happened, twisting of facts to suit your agendas, excusing of, while
claiming
otherwise, brutal violent victimisors of children, excusing of each
other no
matter how low and sick the perpetrator (you and those like you),
outlandish
claims of numbers in support of claims that are poorly related to the
data at
all, sick repetitious kant.

You ought to read that article and find out who WAS the chair of the
HUAC. A damned paid Soviet agent, a democrat and a US Representative.

Don't that just tickle your guts though.

What you are about, by the way, has little or nothing to do with who
or what
Joe McCarthy was, but you brought him up in the course of the
conversation
with Dan to try once again to minimize the damage you have visited on
a young
girl by being in her life and refusing to leave, or do what it takes
to keep
her and her mother together. You ain't worth spit, boy.

You and your cronies are nothing but a pack of ignorant dips that
can't chew and walk at the same time.

Do a search on Joseph McCarthy and HUAC, and watch the results. You'll
get commentary on the connection, but when you read on you find that
the commentators are full of beans, either disinformation agents or
suckers that swallowed, for their own purposed, the lies of the
agents.

Kind of reminds me of the major thrust of this ng. The only bright
spots are the few that actually help families. The rest of you boogie
man creators are full of it.

Kane

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:34:12 -0400, "madeupagin"
wrote:

Define success.

Did you say that or did I? Just curious.

Then I'll tell you.

Okay. Let's see if mine agrees with yours.

I've got over 270 families on my radar right now.

Dan has far fewer families he has aimed his radar at and won at an
incredible rate of success, and he's taken really tough ones.

Want to make a wild guess right now what I consider success?

Number of targets aimed at, in sharpshooting, isn't the measure of
success. The number hit, even if only one target, is.

Success isn't always the child being returned -- success to ME is the
parent
not losing hope. But, that's MY definition. What's yours?

The child being returned, no matter the feelings, always and forever.

I don't go for feel good solutions.

Is that a male thing I wonder?

Could be.

As for MY success - I've beaten them three times on my youngest
child.

Excellent. I am pleased for the child's sake. I am a bit more cautious
when it comes to recommending your definition of success above though.
Waaay too much room for error. I suspect the Christine's felt very
elated and successful driving away from the rest stop with their kids.

Tactics matter a great deal more than feeling hopeful.

They
keep coming after her to shut me up about the other two. Which is
the
success? To me, both. They keep taking youngest because they know
I'm right
about other two. Who were NEVER removed from MY care.

Never being removed is the ultimate in success. I'll buy that.

I won't buy your former definition for anything useful to families.

Keeping one's hope up is nice, it's even energizing, something needed,
but in the end there is only one measure, no matter what went befo
the child is home for good.

Tere

Notice how our mileage differs.

Kane


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
"madeupagin" wrote in message
. ..
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
Visiting the following website set me to ponderin'.....

snipping.....................

Whatah yah think folks, might The Jig be up?

Kane

Well, no. Because those of us who don't have web sites right now
are
busy
saving families.

What have you done, and how many families are you working to save?
How
many saved so far?

I'm not being rude. I look for people that are successful. If they
want help they get it.

I, for one, don't have a web site yet (but damn if it isn't
in my brain, all pretty just for you).

You will?

Why?

I didn't ask for a website from anyone.


When I *do* have a website, although
I am indeed a Christian -- that word will be no where on it.
Why?
Because
it isn't just Christian families having problems with CPS.
Indeed.

I know. Did I say anything to lead to believe that I was saying
there
weren't.
This isn't about "Christian families," it's about all families that
may be being terribly suckered.

So, Kane, just for you,

I don't need you to do anything for me. Well, except keep on
target,
help families where you can, and be wary of those that come bearing
false hope and bad directions for those families.

Children can be gotten back, but ask yourself, how many in this ng
have accomplished that?

And why haven't they?

While it takes a great deal of persistence, the means to do so has
been laid down by one here. Certainly these folks that pillory him
are
smart enough to use those methods (well...I am stretching it just a
bit here...r r r r), but no.

They won't.

Now why would they persist in continuing methods that have been
shown,
ala Greegor the Whore and his magnificent opus to Motions
everywhere,
but criticize success?

Either they are, as I claim, dumb as posts, or they have an
interest
in the failure of families to get their children back.

People in pain, more especially that of loss, and more especially
of
loss of loved ones, are extremely vulnerable. One can get them to
do
damn near anything, no matter how dangerous and foolish it might
appear to those of us not so encumbered by loss and pain.

Have you read the saga of Ruth and Brian Christine? Advised by the
likes of some here, cheered on as they made serious error after
error
and in the end lost their children and their freedom. Thank
goodness
their children when to family and in time can reunite, but had they
gone one little finger squeeze further, they would have been in
jail
essentailly for life.

And the caterwauling around here about how they should have pulled
that trigger gives ample testimony to my Blood Dancer claims. And I
didn't see a single one of the anti crowd here do anything but
wallow
in it and not criticise those that suggested they should have
killed
caseworkers.

You figure it out. I'd like to slap you with an insult now to wake
you
up but I'm weary and on the off chance you are still suffering
mourning for your losses, I won't do that. But watch them take
advantage of you. It would be kinder for my to whack you one upside
the head.

when I *do* have my site up and running (which will
be a while, I'm busy with paperwork, screw getting a site for
more work)
I'll let you know.

You do that. Can we count on you to find and tell the truth, or are
you too going to lure other families down the path to loss?

Are you that lonely in your pain you want others to join you, in
hopes
that more misery will ease yours? You can all commisserate each
other
and declare, "gee ain't it awful" or will you take the time to
learn
the tactics that win, win, win and get those children back home?

Entirely up to you of course.

Tere

I'll even give you a tactical secret. I win against CPS by the
slyest
methods of all. I sneedle.

I tell them nice things, what they want to hear, all the while
sliding
what I want right from under their noses. In fact they give it to
me
with both hands.

If I think for a second they might see me in what to them is an
oppositional posture, it's, "Hey, wanna go get a cup of coffee and
talk it over?"

I can't get case records, but anything about operations is mine for
the taking if I am patient and nice. You have any idea what that's
worth to a decent tactician in the fight to get children back?

Of course, the difficulty with that is to be extremely careful who
I
share it with. And that goes especially for the brutes that think
they
are parents but are not.

I'll be watching for your website, and good luck.

Kane

Greg Hanson wrote:

For those of you who could not tell, Kane is an atheist.
LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?
(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)

I affiliate with no denomination but consider myself a Christian at this
point in my life. There were times when I considered myself atheist,
and later when I considered myself agnostic.

I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.

Excuse my ignorance, Greg, but what is a Christian Reconstructionist?

I am agnostic, not lost, just deliberately
neutral and respectful of all religions.
Was an honorary International Student.

I wasn't lost when I was agnostic. I wasn't lost when I was atheist.
What I currently believe has nothing to do with others, nor do I believe
I have the right to judge anyone for their personal beliefs. This is
quite different from some individuals who consider themselves to be
fundamentalist Christians.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group? It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

One can go overboard with anything, Greg. The post of my which you cut
stated that I do not like broad generalizations. Fundamentalist
Christians have been lumped into a group that defends hitting and
hurting children in the name of discipline. Some fundamentalist
Christians believe this, many do not. I object to the
over-generalization.

There is a radical fundamentalist sect of Islam that, among other
things, contributed to 9/11. This is not a fair judgment of Islam any
more than believing that all Christians spank their children.

Sounds a lot like some sort of "guilt by association" ploy.

I was actually opposing "guilt by association." Perhaps you should have
included my post.



Joseph McCarthy lives on.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:47:16 -0500, LaVonne Carlson
wrote:



Greg Hanson wrote:

For those of you who could not tell, Kane is an atheist.
LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?
(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)

I affiliate with no denomination but consider myself a Christian at
this
point in my life. There were times when I considered myself atheist,
and later when I considered myself agnostic.

I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.

Excuse my ignorance, Greg, but what is a Christian Reconstructionist?

Our own homegrown, Christian version of Al Queda. Their aim is pretty
clearly a whole planet wide, starting here in the US, theocracy with
them at the head and wait until you find out what they have in store
for the rest of us.

And don't sell them short. They may be grim in a funny sort of way,
but they aren not playing for chumpchange. They want it all. Dominion
over all.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atla...struction.html

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm
I particularly like rambling through the above site, as it has those
wonderful old time religion practices like stoning, the relative
position of the wife to the husband, a cleareyed approach to child
rearing...r r r . and more Better hurry they are catchin on that we
are catchin on and the lies are starting up.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delp...struction.html

Watch for words like Dominion Theology out there in the world. It's
the code phrase for "resistance is futile", we are the Boring.

I am agnostic, not lost, just deliberately
neutral and respectful of all religions.
Was an honorary International Student.

I wasn't lost when I was agnostic. I wasn't lost when I was atheist.
What I currently believe has nothing to do with others, nor do I
believe
I have the right to judge anyone for their personal beliefs. This is
quite different from some individuals who consider themselves to be
fundamentalist Christians.

And I just introduced to one of the strongest arguments for judging
people by their beliefs.

My key question is this, "would you kill in defense of your religion?"
The answer tells me pretty clearly who and what I am talking to.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group? It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

One can go overboard with anything, Greg. The post of my which you
cut
stated that I do not like broad generalizations. Fundamentalist
Christians have been lumped into a group that defends hitting and
hurting children in the name of discipline. Some fundamentalist
Christians believe this, many do not. I object to the
over-generalization.

There is a radical fundamentalist sect of Islam that, among other
things, contributed to 9/11. This is not a fair judgment of Islam
any
more than believing that all Christians spank their children.

Sounds a lot like some sort of "guilt by association" ploy.

I was actually opposing "guilt by association." Perhaps you should
have
included my post.



Joseph McCarthy lives on.

LaVonne Carlson said

Greg Hanson wrote:
For those of you who could not tell, Kane is an atheist.
LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?
(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)

I affiliate with no denomination but consider myself a Christian at this
point in my life. There were times when I considered myself atheist,
and later when I considered myself agnostic.

I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.

Excuse my ignorance, Greg, but what is a Christian Reconstructionist?

Something you expressed fear of, joining in with Kane in his lunacy.
Quite Frankly, I don't know or CARE what it is, and don't need to
know or CARE what it is to know that I am NOT a part of it.
WhatEVER it is, I am not a part of it.

The trap you fell into was set by an ATHEIST so rabid
that they think all Christians are child abusers and the enemy.

This is quite different from some individuals who consider
themselves to be fundamentalist Christians.

I'm torn on that one. The Fundy's do worry me, but
Kane is going too far to foist some paranoid conspiracy
theory. Kane seems to be full of cathartic psychology.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group? It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

One can go overboard with anything, Greg.
The post of my which you cut stated that I
do not like broad generalizations.

I worry MOST about broad generalizations when they are
used IN Juvenile Court, as with

A. the myth that when a kid has spiral fractures
that it's automatically child abuse. Kids removed
FROM THEIR HOME until somebody confesses, etc.

B. the myths about Munchhausens which seem to have
been fueled by undereducated amateurs who were
welfare-to-work hires at CPS and who got whipped into
a frenzy (seeing it everywhere) after seeing an NBC
MOVIE OF THE WEEK.

C. OVERBROAD generalization that step parents abuse kids

D. Recovered memories (fiasco of the past, not dead yet.)

E. Ritual Child Abuse (boondogle waste of the 1980's.)

Sweeping generalizations might not always be BAD,
but I don't think it's a stretch to say they have
NO PLACE in Juvenile Court, being used to PRESUME
things that destroy families.

The guy who FABRICATED a ""sex abuse history"" on me
seemed to think that the IMAGINED ends justified
his truly despicable means.

Fundamentalist Christians have been lumped into a
group that defends hitting and hurting children in
the name of discipline. Some fundamentalist
Christians believe this, many do not.
I object to the over-generalization.

Where did you tell KANE this?
You're addressing his issue.

Although I should point out that your idea of
what comprises "hitting and hurting children"
includes all forms of SPANKING, doesn't it?

I'm sure for you it's simpler to lump spanking
in with caning and head wounds, but when you
deal with people less liberal than yourself, you
need to be more careful about that distinction.

Can you agree to disagree about the spanking
part and stop viewing spankers as equivalent
to head bashers or stick beaters?

If for no other reason than the HUGE legal
difference?

If you preach and practice TOLERANCE, then I'd
suggest you stop lumping spankers with beaters
by calling them all child beaters. .. If for
no other reason that so you don't ALIENATE the
large numbers in this country who DO believe
in spanking.

LaVonne: If you have a cause, web site, organization..
does it link to ANYBODY with views different from you
own? Think. If you did that you could become
dangerously politically inbred. (Something I KNOW for
a fact was a problem when I left Minneapolis about
ten years ago.)

So, LaVonne, will you ever tell KANE that you don't like his
whitewash McCarthyite smear tactic? I do believe you said
you don't like it without saying you don't like it to KANE.

There is a radical fundamentalist sect of Islam that,
among other things, contributed to 9/11. This is not
a fair judgment of Islam any more than believing that
all Christians spank
OH OH! Your agenda rears it's head!
their children.

Ya see, LaVonne, you started out talking about Christians
BEATING kids, and then you let it slip you are really talking
about Christians SPANKING kids!

Your equation of the two is OFFENSIVE and Demogogic.

You painted with a BROAD brush while trying to say
you were against painting people with a broad brush.

It's almost viral isn't it?

If you're so against guilt by association, did I MISS
a message where you admonished KANE for doing just that?

Quite the opposite, I saw you chiming in to agree with
the rabid ATHEIST and their whitewash of religion.

Somehow I get the feeling that in your
heart you mean well on this.

I detect a spirit of tolerance and inclusionism in you.
Am I wrong?

While I do confess my fears of Fundy's, my fears
are not a professional bias, professional opinion,
will not be coded into law, or destroy a family.

I'm confused about why you target Fundy's for spanking.
Spanking is not the territory of just some extreme
Fundy's. Quite the opposite, responsible spanking is
believed in (used at minimum) by people of every faith.

People who are agnostic, Lutheran, Atheist or Hindu
should be speaking up about going after ANY Fundy
or Wiccan for legal SPANKING. And judges should
throw out any case with such creeping bias in it!

There probably is a higher percentage of Fundy's who
get into some literal thing about "the rod" for spanking.

Would you suggest CHILD REMOVAL for that though?
A cure worse than the ill?

I guess when a Judge, a Cop, a Caseworker or a SW
deals with a family the nature of their job calls
for them to NOT MAKE GENERALIZATIONS and PRESUMPTIONS.

An irked off family who saw 3 LOUSY attorneys might
have good reason to generalize about lawyers.
Not very professional. The family isn't supposed to be!

An irked off family who has been in a sense "raped"
by caseworkers lies and vilification might well
have reason to generalize about caseworkers.
Not very professional. The family isn't supposed to be!

But Judges, caseworkers etc. in the system presume
and generalize to the point of doing GREAT HARM.
Not very professional. They ARE supposed to be!

Not all anger is irrational.

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
LaVonne Carlson said

Greg Hanson wrote:
For those of you who could not tell, Kane is an atheist.
LaVonne, What is your religious orientation?
(Your comments make it an appropriate question.)

I affiliate with no denomination but consider myself a Christian at this
point in my life. There were times when I considered myself atheist,
and later when I considered myself agnostic.

I am most definately NOT a Christian Reconstructionist.

Excuse my ignorance, Greg, but what is a Christian Reconstructionist?

Something you expressed fear of, joining in with Kane in his lunacy.

That's odd. She never heard of it before but she expressed fear of?
All she did was ask what it is.

Quite Frankly, I don't know or CARE what it is, and don't need to
know or CARE what it is to know that I am NOT a part of it.

Really? How thoroughly intelligent of you.

WhatEVER it is, I am not a part of it.

Let me see, you don't know what it is but you are not a part of it.
What if I told you it was just another name for an honest upright
family supporting man?

Would you still say you aren't a part of it?

See, Greegor, when you don't know what a group is you don't know if
you are part of it or not.

The trap you fell into was set by an ATHEIST so rabid
that they think all Christians are child abusers and the enemy.

I do? Odd that you would say that when for about 50th time I resonded
to someone's posts on how I feel about parents...and it's never
changed and never going to.

I don't care what organizations you belong to, or ethnicity you are,
or what language you speak, or the color of your hair, if you abuse
children you will hear from me. If you do not you won't, except for an
appreciation for you.

Since you are the former you won't hear words of appreciation from me.

Notice I never, until you tried sloppily to bait LaVonne, asked
anything about you. Nothing. I'm an equal opportunity child abuser
hater. Isn't that nice, asshole?

This is quite different from some individuals who consider
themselves to be fundamentalist Christians.

I'm torn on that one. The Fundy's do worry me,

Why. Not all fundies express a desire to interject a theocracy in to
our system. Frankly, as far as I am concerned they can handle snakes
drink lye marry their first cousins and howl at the moon, and as long
as they don't abuse children and don't want to tell the rest of us how
to govern I'm not the least interested in them.

but
Kane is going too far to foist some paranoid conspiracy
theory. Kane seems to be full of cathartic psychology.

What was it in the citations I offered that you clicked on and read
that would lead you to think I'm paranoid about a conspiracy?

"Cathartic psychology"? I took many college courses in psychology and
did not run across that one. Do they teach it at the fascist college
you got kicked out of for being even more of a puke than they?

I wonder how they knew what you were going to do to that little girl
and her mother.

Why would it be a problem for a group to have "connections to"
some other more radical group? It sounds to me like
you're complaining that they do something right, in
that they have "connections to" a large number of other
groups.

One can go overboard with anything, Greg.
The post of my which you cut stated that I
do not like broad generalizations.

I worry MOST about broad generalizations when they are
used IN Juvenile Court, as with

You do? Go back an read your motions. It's nothing but a stack of
broad generalizations.

Heretofore, at lest in the post, known as BG.

A. the myth that when a kid has spiral fractures
that it's automatically child abuse. Kids removed
FROM THEIR HOME until somebody confesses, etc.

BG

This isn't what happens in all cases, so it's a generization to say it
as though it is the rule, majority, or all.

B. the myths about Munchhausens which seem to have
been fueled by undereducated amateurs who were
welfare-to-work hires at CPS and who got whipped into
a frenzy (seeing it everywhere) after seeing an NBC
MOVIE OF THE WEEK.

Odd, the medical doctors, and the researchers I've seen quoted, even
the one refuted, was highly respected. In fact, I don't think he
really erred in what he found, but only in what importance he assigned
to it in parts of it.

MBP exists. It simply became to specific. It used to mean someone that
killed their children by performing on them in a way that mimiced
illnesses. Then it got a set of accompanying characterists that was
not true in all cases...and that blew it up.

If you prefer we can call that narrow set of actions by a parent
perform on a child that results in illness and sometimes death, and
Hansen by Proxie.

Would that help you sort out what vicious people do to children?

C. OVERBROAD generalization that step parents abuse kids

What "step parents" were accused of, generally, abusing kids.

D. Recovered memories (fiasco of the past, not dead yet.)

You are wrong. Some extremely sensational incidences of recovered
memory were likely therapist induced hysteria, but Greeg, the way the
memory works in is that we don't remember everything all in one huge
lump then pick and choose what we'll use.

We have an event that for what ever reason, sometimes whimsy,
sometimes vital to our survival or things in between, triggers a
recall of a long unthought of memory. It is the normal human function.

And one of the well proven phenomena is that some memories of times
and events that were so painful and frightening can be supressed and
not come out until years later. I've had them, you've had them, but
you are too stupid and constipated of brain to recognize them.

E. Ritual Child Abuse (boondogle waste of the 1980's.)

I explained this to you once. The boondogle was not about "ritual
abuse" but about satanic abuse, with or without ritual.

Ritual child abuse simply means that a set of protocols that included
repetativeness with objects and actions used repeatedly, usually in
the same order that creates a pattern of reactions, are used.

I think I mentioned both Patty Hearst, and the grandfather that locked
his little gdaughter in the closet and only brought her out for his
sexual pleasure. That was when she got fed as well. There was a set
pattern to the behaviors. Hence she, just as Ms Hearst, developed
responses that they no longer could easily control.

And those were patterns of behavior. I dare say Ms Hearst had to do
some conscious work on restructuring her inner life, and consequently
her actions. I know the little girl did with the help of the mother
who adopted her.

Sweeping generalizations might not always be BAD,

We know...bad when we use them, just the ticket when you do.

Go read your motion again.

but I don't think it's a stretch to say they have
NO PLACE in Juvenile Court, being used to PRESUME
things that destroy families.

Then you'd be wrong. Sometimes sweeping generalities, like anyone that
cooks meth in a house with children loses three things, the house,
their freedom, and their children, auto****ingmatically.

I rather like that.

The guy who FABRICATED a ""sex abuse history"" on me
seemed to think that the IMAGINED ends justified
his truly despicable means.

We can't help but wonder at your continued protest about the same
thing. Could it be because we express some concern at you repeatedly
performing Shampoo Girl and TowelBoy duties in the bathroom with a
little girl you were not related to?

I dunno, could be there is no connection.

Fundamentalist Christians have been lumped into a
group that defends hitting and hurting children in
the name of discipline. Some fundamentalist
Christians believe this, many do not.
I object to the over-generalization.

Where did you tell KANE this?
You're addressing his issue.

Because she saw that I did not mean all fundamentalist when I was
talking about reconstructionists, and she wanted to talk about
something that was on topic, I would guess. I'm kindah smart that way,
like my teacher taught me to understand the langwich...eh?

Although I should point out that your idea of
what comprises "hitting and hurting children"
includes all forms of SPANKING, doesn't it?

Absolutely. You had to ask?

I don't even have to ask her permission to speak for her. She has
spoken already and she has said it plain and clear. Any hitting, not
matter what apologist minimizing vicious little thug language you use
to try and hide from the facts of "spanking" to LaVonne is recognized
as restricted behavior when aimed at an adult, and allowed when aimed
at a child.

I'll put it too you bluntly. I consider people that suffer so badly
from the thinking error that a child experiences spanking different
from hitting is one sick puppy...but we knew that about you.

If a father hits his child or spanks his child the child cannot tell
the two apart, only that he or she has been terribly betrayed and now
life shifts into survival mode with all it's inherent evils and
injuries.

I'm sure for you it's simpler to lump spanking
in with caning and head wounds,

I would. It's simply a matter of degree. In the matter of law, that is
true, as long as the target is an adult. Only with children does the
law, in some countries, allow a special set of hitting actions be
called by a special name to be used.

but when you
deal with people less liberal than yourself, you
need to be more careful about that distinction.

Odd. I'm rather conservative myself. But I do not see myself, and a
good many conservatives being the least confused about the exact
duplication of spanking as to hitting, and not liking it a bit.

And I am quite aware of highly touchy feeling bleeding heart liberals
that are fine with and lie about spanking just like you do...they love
to do it to kids. Weird eh?

Can you agree to disagree about the spanking
part and stop viewing spankers as equivalent
to head bashers or stick beaters?

Can't speak for her. For myself there is no difference. Only in
degree, and a parent who spanks fancies themselves not only a superior
judge of what is spanking and when it escalates into hitting at the
peril of the child's injury.

It's exactly how a great deal of abuse CPS enters the picture over and
the parent insist they are good people and only discipline their
children. The collection of objects they've had to escalate to to gain
some lasting compliance from the child belie their claim.

As do the injured, often lifelong, parts of the body on their
children.

If for no other reason than the HUGE legal
difference?

Actually the ONLY legal difference is a deep sick and shameful brand
on countries where hitting children in the name of discipline and
excusing it by giving it a special name is the practice and the law.

If you preach and practice TOLERANCE, then I'd
suggest you stop lumping spankers with beaters
by calling them all child beaters. ..

I have no tolerance for people who hit children. I might allow some
slack for a few times mistakenly thinking it works, but when the
evidence it doesn't begins to surface, through the unwanted side
effects that present in the child, and the asshole can't wake up
enough to see it, my TOLERANCE is ended.

If for
no other reason that so you don't ALIENATE the
large numbers in this country who DO believe
in spanking.

I hardly care whether child hitters are alienated. In fact I want them
to feel alienated. They are alien and sadly dangerous aliens to
children.

Children need understanding and tenderness and we are given the task
of being in THEIR service, not they in ours. It is our job to provide
them with learning and methods that work without sidetracking them
into survival. They don't need that, as the world provides ample
training in the survival areas.

And survival practice and actions morph easily into criminality as
time passes.

LaVonne: If you have a cause, web site, organization..
does it link to ANYBODY with views different from you
own?

What an odd thing to say. And stupid to boot.

Think.

"Think"? About what? How to come over to your apologist camp of
portraying six year old girls as willful and stubborn who wet
themselves and need to be given cold showers as punishment while
momma's boyfriend looks on, with out anyone else in attendance? Sure,
Greeg. Why don't YOU start a website, with pics, of how to apply cold
showers to little girls for punishment. Be sure the FBI gets the URL.

If you did that you could become
dangerously politically inbred. (Something I KNOW for
a fact was a problem when I left Minneapolis about
ten years ago.)

What, linked a website to others that weren't in agreement with her?
What rubbish. Suckin' the hookay again, aren't yah?

So, LaVonne, will you ever tell KANE that you don't like his
whitewash McCarthyite smear tactic?

Let me see now, my pointing out some simple truths about McCarthy and
you putting up a lot of smears of him of the time constituted my
whitewashing McCarthy..mmmmmhhhhmmm. Sure, Deep Thinker.

When the historians sort it out what the OTHERS were doing will be
much more apparent. You do remember that later it was discovered that
through those time the chair of the HUAC was a paid Soviet spy and
informer don't you?

Do you know what disinformation is?

I believe we'll find that the Democrat that chaired the HUAC will be
found to also have set up a good deal of the lies about McCarthy, and
sadly sucked in some perfectly nice folks.

I do believe you said
you don't like it without saying you don't like it to KANE.

What, whitewashing McCarthy? I think LaVonne would have to research it
further and we have a ways to go to sort all that out. There are still
scions of culture and American nobility that stand to be hurt by the
truth. With that comes a coverup for at least another few decades
until all parties are deceased

You are aware, for instance, that JFK was not the man the US was led
to believe during his administration...and how many years it took to
find out some simple truths. I suspect more ties to the mob will
surface eventually.

You have to understand who his father was and how he gained his wealth
and power, then it will kind of sink in. Same difficulty with
McCarthy. The truth is going to be along time coming out on that one.

There is a radical fundamentalist sect of Islam that,
among other things, contributed to 9/11. This is not
a fair judgment of Islam any more than believing that
all Christians spank
OH OH! Your agenda rears it's head!
their children.

Ya see, LaVonne, you started out talking about Christians
BEATING kids, and then you let it slip you are really talking
about Christians SPANKING kids!

That's because unlike you she is logical, honest, and does not suffer
from any more of the thinking errors than are common in trained
academics...many fewer than little ****s as you, and she knows the two
are interchangable.

I rather like cp myself, for corporal punishment.

Your equation of the two is OFFENSIVE and Demogogic.

You'd be offended of course, because you have cut your self off from,
or never learned, empathy. It's very plain from your description of
how you punished that child, a little six year old.

I do wish someone would strip you, a stranger so you'll feel just a
bit of the embarrassment she felt, and jam you into a cold shower for,
oh say, swipping a shopping cart from the local store for you HBCBP
business.

Maybe you'd get the idea then.

And the little girl was very likely totally unable to control her
reaction to things going on in her life. Children that wet themselves
don't dribble all day long, unless they are injured or ill, so we know
it isn't deliberate.

You painted with a BROAD brush while trying to say
you were against painting people with a broad brush.

CrockO****, spanker.

It's almost viral isn't it?

The lengths you will go to to insult without coming right out and name
calling is laughable. You are dying to call her a name, you ****ing
little asshole.

If you're so against guilt by association, did I MISS
a message where you admonished KANE for doing just that?

I don't recall her saying that at all. She merely pointed out that all
fundies aren't the same.

Quite the opposite, I saw you chiming in to agree with
the rabid ATHEIST and their whitewash of religion.

There was more than one of me here doing that? Now I know you are
hyped. You really should see someone about your habit.

Somehow I get the feeling that in your
heart you mean well on this.

Your smarmy patronizing is duly noted chuckle

I detect a spirit of tolerance and inclusionism in you.
Am I wrong?

You looking for her to accept that you are a spanker and that's okay?

Don't hold your breath you vicious worthless fleck of ****.

While I do confess my fears of Fundy's,

What's to be afraid of. It's only the REconstructionists that need to
be watched. Fear would be a proper motivator. Just like with a
suddenly comeupon snake, better to afraid and embarrassed when it
turns out to be a garden snake, that foolishly reach for it and be
struck by a rattler.

my fears
are not a professional bias, professional opinion,
will not be coded into law, or destroy a family.

I so value that trait in you.

I'm confused about why you target Fundy's for spanking.
Spanking is not the territory of just some extreme
Fundy's. Quite the opposite, responsible spanking is
believed in (used at minimum) by people of every faith.

"Responsible spanking?" Odd that so many parents that have used come
to find it so repugnant they give it up and learn to parent gently.
Were do you think the non-spankers who are parents come from? Most
were spanked themselves. They changed for reason. They were not
mentally ill to the degree you are.

Far less thinking errors the capacity for empathy, conscience,
developed sufficiently to get it.

In a way, and occasionaly, I feel sorry for calling the **** that you
are, but you have had more than enough chances to examine your
actions, seek out knowledge that has been offered you, and evolve from
the beast you are, to a real man with the capacity to see the reality
of what it looks like when an adult whales away on a little child.

People who are agnostic, Lutheran, Atheist or Hindu
should be speaking up about going after ANY Fundy
or Wiccan for legal SPANKING. And judges should
throw out any case with such creeping bias in it!

Yes, we know you lack empathy and social awareness. We know that you
are unable to experience the pain a child feels when they are hit.
Some of us are evolved and some are not.

Do you know that their humans walking around, rather a lot of them,
that when they see a child hit have a real actual pain at the same
site on their own bodies. These are evolved people, and usually they
are non spanked people themselves.

My children were utterly shocked when they saw other children shamed,
hit, humiliated. My daughter, about 12, demanded I expell a guest from
our property because he had spoken rudely and threateningly to her
little brother.

I kicked his sorry ass out. All my son had asked ask was if he could
watch the man build something. Rather than set up some safety rules
and get on with his work he ordered my son away rudely. That, without
even a touch, no spanking, was an insult to a growing curious child
and a blow to their capacity to learn.

We still laugh over the asshole not believing I'd put him and his ****
in my pickup and drive him out to the highway. Was his sorry ass
surprised.

When I was alone with him and saying goodbye I told him clearly what
would happen if his sorry ass ever showed up on our property again.

Have you any idea the trust my children have for me, and the
remarkable capacity for learning they have? At 37 and 43?

They are bored with TV or other stupid diversions. What interests them
is learning. The have never stopped.

There probably is a higher percentage of Fundy's who
get into some literal thing about "the rod" for spanking.

Probably? It is considered a bibically driven imparative. One has to
or they are betraying their child. I love the logic of that.

They raise kids that are either terrified and whimper their lives away
only have living and enjoying, or they become little criminals who
themselves have to hit others in revenge for what happened to them,
and their major thinking errors are expressed by rationalizing their
beating of their children as discipline, and children as willfully
noncompliant.

Would you suggest CHILD REMOVAL for that though?
A cure worse than the ill?

Yes. The burden on society has become too great. These are the people,
once children that were "spanked" who now guzzle and snort and inject
and perform the crimes to support it, and kill others that we have to
contend with because little assholes like you had to beat on their
asses for ease your own pain.

I guess when a Judge, a Cop, a Caseworker or a SW
deals with a family the nature of their job calls
for them to NOT MAKE GENERALIZATIONS and PRESUMPTIONS.

You'll find that they work a great deal with specific evidence, and
it's only the crazed such as you, with your clearly revealed thinking
errors in this ng, that thinks the evidence isn't relevant.

An irked off family who saw 3 LOUSY attorneys might
have good reason to generalize about lawyers.
Not very professional. The family isn't supposed to be!

Why would they but not the judge or CW that sees thousands of assholes
like you in their careers? Looks like a double standard to me, but
that's to be expected. You are ****ed up boy. Badly.

An irked off family who has been in a sense "raped"
by caseworkers lies and vilification might well
have reason to generalize about caseworkers.

One of the prime characteristics of cons in lockup, when you question
them about how they got to the sorry condition they are in, is their
blaming of everyone else but themselves.

That has been the theme of your posts for as long as I can google
back. It's always the kid, the gparents, the cops, the CWs, the judge,
everyone is out to get you, even Dan Sullivan, who has saved twits
like you and helped them turn their lives back on the path better for
them.

I used to be just a bit miffed at him for helping the guilty but I saw
them, some of them, turn it around, and that's good enough for me.

Your are worthy to shine his shoes. And you know it. That's why you
attack him. That goes for others in these ngs.

Not very professional. The family isn't supposed to be!

So not being a judge or other professional gives one an ethical
license to be unethical. Sure I get it. Con think.

But Judges, caseworkers etc. in the system presume
and generalize to the point of doing GREAT HARM.

That is a much touted crock of **** laid out their to capture assholes
such as yourself. The "harm" done is nothing on the scale of the good
done, and the lives saved, and the pain stopped.

How many good things do you think CW's do in ratio to the bad things
your buttbuddies like to post here. I'd estimate thousands. No one
puts them here, or in the media, and the people that do the work of
saving kids from such as you just keep pluggin along.

Not very professional. They ARE supposed to be!

Ah, and the "parents"?

Not very parenty. Just thugs like you that abuse their children.

But then not all parents are like that, just as all judges aren't
unprofessional, nor CWs. It's the rare one that is so flawed.

In your case they were near saints. I do so appreciate that they got
that little girl away from you before something more happened, and
that IS based on my generality, adequately backed by facts, that the
boyfriend of a single parent mom has a very high likelihood of abusing
her children.

Not all anger is irrational.

Which poster are you referring to that claimed it was? I just wrote
you a minnie paper on that, a "whitescreen" if you will, and LaVonne
would be one of the last people to claim it was. In your case though
it's simply a coverup for your intended purpose, you revealed here,
that what you are about is suing and making a bundle off the pain YOU
cause that child, and will cause her mother when she figures you out.

I could teach her to use a castrating knife too, should she ever come
to wish it.

Of course for entertainment purposes only, you understand.

Kane