Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On 22 Nov 2003 04:45:19 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Kane:
>You have me at a distinct disadvantage since I don't
>read NAMBLA literature or posts.

That isn't what I asked. Had you not AGAIN deliberately avoided
attributing the post you reply to the reader would know. This isn't a
private forum for you and I to exchange pleasantries.

If you cannot post in the open, with relevant material attributed from
post to post, then you are attempting, obviously, to mislead. Shame on
you. R R R R

I merely pointed out that you POST like the transcripts I've read of
NAMBLA member's confessions. I would't doubt some of them can be found
through media sources here on The Web.

>What happened, did Geoff Rantz leave a copy laying
>around in your lunchroom?

Who would Geoff Rantz be? If a member of NAMBLA how convenient you
know his name. So you have not read NAMBLA literature or posts, right?

You can't even lie effectively within a single post let along across a
series of them.

If I said you bleat like a goat would you insist that I have
documentation?

You bleat like a NAMBLA member. 

>How many NAMBLA caseworkers work in your CPS office?

I don't have a CPS office. My only office is a larege lovely second
floor bedroom I converted years ago into a computer work center and
the location of my LAN server.

You should see the view. Breathtaking forest covered mountains all
around me. If CPS has an office located here I'm hard put to find it.
Help me out.

If you think I work for the state look me up on their employee search
utilities. Many states have them.

As for your question: If you think there are NAMBLA caseworkers in any
office why don't you call up and ask. Get back to us with the answer.

>I didn't use my hands to shampoo the child.

I didn't say you did. 

>That is what you said,

Show me where I said you did. 

Any old post you come up with were writen in response to what you had
revealed to THAT time...you seem to be coming up with a lot of new
information lately, liarboy.

>old chap,

That is correct. I am. I am too old to be taken in by naughty little
boys such as you. And I am a chap, male.

>and what I refuted.

YOU? "Refuted"?  R R R R R R R  You haven't refuted a damn thing for
over 2 years that I've followed you in these ngs. All you've done is
bury yourself deeper and deeper and deeper.

I don't recall you offering a single bit of credible evidence beyond
your year or two late to the challenge babbling. Your first
descriptions of what you did are what count in my book and you left a
great deal unsaid while making it very clear you put your hands on the
child while she was in the shower.

Refute THIS! Scummy one. 

>I did use my hands to push her head under
>a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

Oh, now we get a refutation of a refutation. You didn't shampoo her
using your hands but you pushed her head under a shower spray to rinse
shampoo out....a six year old girl?

>Parents and more interestingly, Foster Parents
>do this sort of thing all the time and it does
>not raise a fuss.  It is legal.

You are neither. Have you not noticed that?

The only foster parent that would invite and unrelated male into their
foster home to the unsupervised (hell, supervised for that matter)
"attendand" to the showering and disciplining of a naked six year old
girl would not last long if caught.

As for the parent that would to it: PFWAY PATOOIE.....YUK!

They deserve the scrutiny that CPS gives them. And the chance to mend
their ways that CPS gives them. That the boyfriend does all he can to
sabotage so he won't lose his free ride.

Foster parents have background checks, they are given rather clear
instructions about what males, who are licensed or listed on the
foster contract as residents in the household must NOT do with little
girls in foster care, and a very important thing is to not even be
alone with them, let alone giving the shampoo hands on assistance (do
you like that better?), and providing towel delivery.

You sir, have all the earmarks of, at the very least, an incipient
child molester. Your abusive treatment of the child, your willingness
to be allowed to be alone with the child for many hours each day, your
brutal punishment of what is a common event to child (wetting
themselves), and your stupidly cruel imposition of parenting methods
that hardly would pass as humane in animal training.

>Clearly, Child Protection knew that it was
>a big nothing, 

They knew that you fit the profile of the predatory pediphile to a tee
in how you got the household set up for your convenient access to a
unsupervised child.

That's hardly "nothing." And if you were the first one they ever ran
across their hair would still stand on end at the thought of what you
did.

>since they had to exaggerate
>it to state that I "pushed her head under water"
>which is quite a different thing from pushing
>her head under a shower spray to rinse shampoo out.

It was more accurate than most of what you post. 

On the other hand, if you weren't such a self opinionated, self
serving loud mouth little prick, you could have followed the simple
advice given you, gotten focused on getting the child back and used
that questionable language of the worker and nailed their CPS
asses....and, sad for you...the child WOULD be home and the mother
would have a better view of reality and have booted your sorry ass by
now.

>And nothing I did was a crime.

That is correct. Nothing YOU did. It was, however, apparently
something the mother did or didn't do that put the court onto you. And
not complying with service agreements seems to fit.

You couldn't have created a better way to keep that child out than you
fucking over the mother in the parenting class by being an outright
boob, and then topping it all off with the frosting of shit you called
a "Motion."

>You imagine perversion because is suits your dirty cause.

What dirty cause might that be now?

I have helped thousands deal successfully with CPS, and Dan tells me,
and you, that I've lent a hand in my small way to the successes of
families he's worked with.

How many have YOU helped, even peripherally? 

All you have done, according to your own posts, is fuck over one child
and her mother, and according to what we read of you here, try
desperately to steer parents that come here seeking help away from the
one resource that can rightly boast to helping so many as Dan has.

Haven't you figured out what a low life you are yet?

I've done everything I know how to do to reform you long distance. If
I was g'pa I'd have done exactly the same to you as he did but with
much more effect. You can bank on it.

All that is left for me to post to and about you is a warning to
others to take what you post with more than one grain of salt.

Kane