Discussion:
Advice from someone who got their children back from CPS in two months. From FightCPS
(too old to reply)
Greegor
2008-09-28 01:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Posted by a happy mother on fightCPS.com
"I just want to update you guys on how our case is finally closed
after a hellish two months away from our babies and all charges
against us were dismissed! Smile
However, we are proceeding with caution because our lawyers warned us
the other side has 10 days to appeal. We are enjoying every second
with our babies, but I'm still going forward as if they were still
coming after us. We're going to be doing everything that they were
going to try to get us to do, but instead of it being court ordered,
we're doing it on our own. You can never be too safe, and we will do
whatever it takes to make sure that no one ever takes our babies away
again.
I want to thank everyone for their replies, they certainly helped!
Keeping a journal is so important, and every time they refuse you
something or if something happens, write it down. Little things add
up. This way you remember everything that happens and can give
accurate dates. That gives you more confidence when you answer your
questions instead of being unsure, and with confidence in your
answers, it shows, and you build more credibility.
Advice that I would give is to be proactive, responsible, and to take
the initiative. Showing through actions (show up to your appointments,
be on time, turn in paperwork, dress neatly and as professional as
possible - appearances do matter and you are being judged by everyone
around you, be polite, don't curse no matter how frustrated you get,
and just be responsible and together despite the chaos) and not just
only saying that you care and will do whatever it takes to bring your
child back speaks louder than words. Also, you have to act like an
adult as well as a role model and at least look like you have yourself
together in order to prove that you can care for your child.
Keep your mind open to change and suggestions. We can all improve
ourselves. No one is perfect and we all have our flaws. We all have
problems. We all have bad days.
When you speak in court, people tend to look at the lawyer instead of
the judge since the lawyers are asking you the questions. Try to make
eye contact with the judge and connect with him or her when you speak,
they're the one to determine your fate (and the fate of your
children).
I also want to thank LanceBabe for her recommendation for Cherise
Cuevas. We hired her and Kyle Skopic. They were an amazing team and
are phenomenal lawyers. They recently helped us bring our babies hope,
and we are just so thankful and happy beyond words. I highly recommend
both lawyers, so if you are seeking someone experienced in taking on
Cherise Cuevas Law, P.L.L.C.
703.815.0000http://www.cuevaslaw.us/attorneybio.html
Kyle E Skopic Law Office
(703) 246-9530
Even though I am just so happy to finally get my babies home after
only getting 6 hrs visitation a MONTH these past two months, which has
been torture for us since we've never been apart from them before, I'm
also thinking of you guys. I know how tough it is.
Don't let CPS win. Sometimes you have to hit the bottom to come back
up so have faith and stay strong. Never give up hope, and never stop
fighting to get your kids. You will all be in my thoughts and prayers,
and I hope all of your children will be returned to you soon."
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?

Did anything about this strike you as
just a wee bit too sunny and too quick, Dan?

How many such optimistic and short outcomes
have you seen in your huge experience, Dan?

WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?

How do I know this isn't another one of your
Oliver Sutton type fakes to shill for
your position or yourself using outright lies?

Come on Dan, this one reads like a cartoon you wrote!
Andrew Usher
2008-09-28 03:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?
I agree that this sounds like an advertisement, and there's
probably something they are hiding about it.

But - and I know I can't tell parents how they should behave
when CPS comes after them - there's something missing here.
Namely, that these kind of victories are referred to as 'winning'
against CPS. That is absolutely not true.

They _have already won_ when they first contact you. They force
you to do everything possible to show that you're a good parent
by their standards, and that may not be enough, to keep or get
back your kids. Honestly, you can't beat the system by working
with the system. Now, I agree that one should contact a lawyer
if it happens. But for everyone's sake one should pursue them
in the courts if that has any reasonable chance of success, as
that's the only way to truly _win_ anything, and not to give it
up until you win or lose. Getting your child back under their
conditions _after_ they've turned your life upside-down for months
or years may be better than the alternative but it is not victory.

Andrew Usher
Greegor
2008-09-28 09:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Greegor
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?
I agree that this sounds like an advertisement, and there's
probably something they are hiding about it.
But - and I know I can't tell parents how they should behave
when CPS comes after them - there's something missing here.
Namely, that these kind of victories are referred to as 'winning'
against CPS. That is absolutely not true.
They _have already won_ when they first contact you. They force
you to do everything possible to show that you're a good parent
by their standards, and that may not be enough, to keep or get
back your kids. Honestly, you can't beat the system by working
with the system. Now, I agree that one should contact a lawyer
if it happens. But for everyone's sake one should pursue them
in the courts if that has any reasonable chance of success, as
that's the only way to truly _win_ anything, and not to give it
up until you win or lose. Getting your child back under their
conditions _after_ they've turned your life upside-down for months
or years may be better than the alternative but it is not victory.
Andrew Usher
It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists
""win"" in a sense by making us become so
paranoid about airport and other security
that we willingly gave up many freedoms.

The agency here ran or is still running a racket
where parents take parent skills classes
that are almost nothing but anti-spanking brainwash.

The class issues no completion note whatsoever.

Lawyers occasionally jump on this after
a parent participates in the classes
only to have the caseworker deny in court
that they did. One woman took them 8 times.

So kissing caseworker ass may not work so well..

PLUS the classes here are not even available
unless DHS sends you to them.
The open enrollment classes are NOT the same.

Andrew: Dan has LONG advocated that parents
win by doing everything CPS asks, whether
there was any basis or not. I have dubbed
it Dan's "winning through surrender" strategy.

That's part of what Dan's selling with this ruse.

" We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. "
krp
2008-09-28 09:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Greegor
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?
I agree that this sounds like an advertisement, and there's
probably something they are hiding about it.
But - and I know I can't tell parents how they should behave
when CPS comes after them - there's something missing here.
Namely, that these kind of victories are referred to as 'winning'
against CPS. That is absolutely not true.
They _have already won_ when they first contact you. They force
you to do everything possible to show that you're a good parent
by their standards, and that may not be enough, to keep or get
back your kids. Honestly, you can't beat the system by working
with the system. Now, I agree that one should contact a lawyer
if it happens. But for everyone's sake one should pursue them
in the courts if that has any reasonable chance of success, as
that's the only way to truly _win_ anything, and not to give it
up until you win or lose. Getting your child back under their
conditions _after_ they've turned your life upside-down for months
or years may be better than the alternative but it is not victory.
Andrew Usher
< It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists ""win"" in a sense by
making us become so
< paranoid about airport and other security that we willingly gave up many
freedoms.

The point here is that there are people you just never waste your time
trying to reason with. CPS caseworkers are high on that list. If you have
been captured by a tribe of cannibals and they have you in the stewing pot -
that is NOT a good time to try to "REASON" with them. When you have been
captured by Al Queda, they have you tied up on your knees with the video
cameras rolling and a sword to your neck NOW isn't a good time to
"NEGOTIATE!" If you are Ripley in your pants and a bra and you are
surrounded by "Aliens" now is NOT the time for dialogue.

When CPS has taken your child - now is the time to KICK THEIR ASSES and
cost a few folks their jobs! You do NOT sign a "performance agreement"
allowing them to have control over your family for the REST OF YOUR LIFE -
no matter WHAT Danny Sullivan says! You become a DALEK..

"Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!" You feed the system RAT POISON.
Kent Wills
2008-09-28 13:34:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:25:03 GMT, " krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]
Post by krp
< It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists ""win"" in a sense by
making us become so
< paranoid about airport and other security that we willingly gave up many
freedoms.
The point here is that there are people you just never waste your time
trying to reason with. CPS caseworkers are high on that list. If you have
been captured by a tribe of cannibals and they have you in the stewing pot -
that is NOT a good time to try to "REASON" with them. When you have been
captured by Al Queda, they have you tied up on your knees with the video
cameras rolling and a sword to your neck NOW isn't a good time to
"NEGOTIATE!" If you are Ripley in your pants and a bra and you are
surrounded by "Aliens" now is NOT the time for dialogue.
Why do you propose people just surrender to CPS?
Post by krp
When CPS has taken your child - now is the time to KICK THEIR ASSES and
cost a few folks their jobs! You do NOT sign a "performance agreement"
allowing them to have control over your family for the REST OF YOUR LIFE -
no matter WHAT Danny Sullivan says! You become a DALEK..
Only a Dalek can become a Dalek. One isn't made into a Dalek.
If you're going to use an analogy, try using one that actually
works.
Post by krp
"Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!" You feed the system RAT POISON.
Is that why your children hate you to the degree reported? Did
you once try to poison them?


"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team.
Kent Wills
2008-09-28 13:33:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Greegor
Post by Andrew Usher
They _have already won_ when they first contact you. They force
you to do everything possible to show that you're a good parent
by their standards, and that may not be enough, to keep or get
back your kids. Honestly, you can't beat the system by working
with the system. Now, I agree that one should contact a lawyer
if it happens. But for everyone's sake one should pursue them
in the courts if that has any reasonable chance of success, as
that's the only way to truly _win_ anything, and not to give it
up until you win or lose. Getting your child back under their
conditions _after_ they've turned your life upside-down for months
or years may be better than the alternative but it is not victory.
Andrew Usher
It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists
""win"" in a sense by making us become so
paranoid about airport and other security
that we willingly gave up many freedoms.
I wasn't aware that removing one's shoes equates to a loss of
freedom.
Post by Greegor
The agency here ran or is still running a racket
where parents take parent skills classes
that are almost nothing but anti-spanking brainwash.
The class issues no completion note whatsoever.
Do you need a diploma?
Post by Greegor
Lawyers occasionally jump on this after
a parent participates in the classes
only to have the caseworker deny in court
that they did. One woman took them 8 times.
Can you offer a cite for this, or is this another of your claims
like your lie about David?
Post by Greegor
So kissing caseworker ass may not work so well..
PLUS the classes here are not even available
unless DHS sends you to them.
The open enrollment classes are NOT the same.
The "closed" enrolment are for those with founded complaints.
The open enrollment classes are for those parents who realize they
need some education to help ensure they don't end up abusing their
children unintentionally.
It would also help to ensure there's no intentional abuse, as
occurred in your case.
Post by Greegor
Andrew: Dan has LONG advocated that parents
win by doing everything CPS asks, whether
there was any basis or not. I have dubbed
it Dan's "winning through surrender" strategy.
Since Dan's never presented such advocacy, you should doubt it.
Post by Greegor
That's part of what Dan's selling with this ruse.
It's a sad commentary that you see truth as a ruse. Truly it is.
Post by Greegor
" We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. "
An interesting analogy, since in the Star Trek universe,
resistance wasn't always futile. In fact, resistance often proved
very effective.


http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <***@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Andrew Usher
2008-09-29 03:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists
""win"" in a sense by making us become so
paranoid about airport and other security
that we willingly gave up many freedoms.
I wasn't aware that removing one's shoes equates to a loss of
freedom.
What's the definition of 'freedom', Kent?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
So kissing caseworker ass may not work so well..
PLUS the classes here are not even available
unless DHS sends you to them.
The open enrollment classes are NOT the same.
The "closed" enrolment are for those with founded complaints.
The open enrollment classes are for those parents who realize they
need some education to help ensure they don't end up abusing their
children unintentionally.
Which would be none. No parent bad enough to abuse children
unintentionally would realise that he or she needed help.
Post by Kent Wills
It would also help to ensure there's no intentional abuse, as
occurred in your case.
Cheap shot. Also wrong; do you really think these indoctrination
classes are going to make parents care about their children
more?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
Andrew: Dan has LONG advocated that parents
win by doing everything CPS asks, whether
there was any basis or not. I have dubbed
it Dan's "winning through surrender" strategy.
Since Dan's never presented such advocacy, you should doubt it.
He doesn't have to spell it out in precise words, you know.

Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
2008-09-29 10:55:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:23:19 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
It's a bit like the notion that the terrorists
""win"" in a sense by making us become so
paranoid about airport and other security
that we willingly gave up many freedoms.
I wasn't aware that removing one's shoes equates to a loss of
freedom.
What's the definition of 'freedom', Kent?
Ask Greg. He's the one who claims we willingly gave up many
freedoms.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
So kissing caseworker ass may not work so well..
PLUS the classes here are not even available
unless DHS sends you to them.
The open enrollment classes are NOT the same.
The "closed" enrolment are for those with founded complaints.
The open enrollment classes are for those parents who realize they
need some education to help ensure they don't end up abusing their
children unintentionally.
Which would be none. No parent bad enough to abuse children
unintentionally would realise that he or she needed help.
Yet the open enrollment classes exist for just such a purpose,
among others.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
It would also help to ensure there's no intentional abuse, as
occurred in your case.
Cheap shot.
That you see truth as a cheap shot speaks volumes.
Post by Andrew Usher
Also wrong;
Greg abused Lisa's daughter intentionally. Or do you think he
is as mentally defective as he presents?
If he had a mental disease or defect, this should have been
brought up. There's nothing to suggest his mental abilities were
questioned, so the only conclusion we can reach is that his actions
were intentional.
Post by Andrew Usher
do you really think these indoctrination
classes are going to make parents care about their children
more?
The classes help to ensure no abuse occurs.
It is interesting how you worded your question. Do you accept
that Greg cared nothing about the child he abused?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
Andrew: Dan has LONG advocated that parents
win by doing everything CPS asks, whether
there was any basis or not. I have dubbed
it Dan's "winning through surrender" strategy.
Since Dan's never presented such advocacy, you should doubt it.
He doesn't have to spell it out in precise words, you know.
But he would need to present the concept.
I've seen nothing from him that would suggest he has.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
Andrew Usher
2008-09-30 10:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
I wasn't aware that removing one's shoes equates to a loss of
freedom.
What's the definition of 'freedom', Kent?
Ask Greg. He's the one who claims we willingly gave up many
freedoms.
Avoiding the question. By definition,m if we are forced to do
something we weren't before, we have lost a freedom.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
The "closed" enrolment are for those with founded complaints.
The open enrollment classes are for those parents who realize they
need some education to help ensure they don't end up abusing their
children unintentionally.
Which would be none. No parent bad enough to abuse children
unintentionally would realise that he or she needed help.
Yet the open enrollment classes exist for just such a purpose,
among others.
You're ignoring my point. Why do you think anyone attends those
classes?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
It would also help to ensure there's no intentional abuse, as
occurred in your case.
Cheap shot.
That you see truth as a cheap shot speaks volumes.
That's the definition of 'cheap shot'.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Also wrong;
Greg abused Lisa's daughter intentionally. Or do you think he
is as mentally defective as he presents?
I don't know anything about Greg's particular case, so I'm not
commenting on it.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
do you really think these indoctrination
classes are going to make parents care about their children
more?
The classes help to ensure no abuse occurs.
Begging the question.
Post by Kent Wills
It is interesting how you worded your question. Do you accept
that Greg cared nothing about the child he abused?
I don't know, but I doubt it. In any case you're avoiding the
question again.

Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
2008-10-01 01:00:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:03:09 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
I wasn't aware that removing one's shoes equates to a loss of
freedom.
What's the definition of 'freedom', Kent?
Ask Greg. He's the one who claims we willingly gave up many
freedoms.
Avoiding the question.
Since Greg uses the term, he would be the one to ask.
Post by Andrew Usher
By definition,m if we are forced to do
something we weren't before, we have lost a freedom.
Odd. Merriam-Webster doesn't list anything like that as a
definition.
What dictionary are you using? I'd like to verify the definition
you present.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
The "closed" enrolment are for those with founded complaints.
The open enrollment classes are for those parents who realize they
need some education to help ensure they don't end up abusing their
children unintentionally.
Which would be none. No parent bad enough to abuse children
unintentionally would realise that he or she needed help.
Yet the open enrollment classes exist for just such a purpose,
among others.
You're ignoring my point. Why do you think anyone attends those
classes?
They attend the open enrollment classes because they want to.
What motivates them to want to could encompass many things. Among
those things would be realizing they need help with parenting. A
fear that they might unintentionally abuse their child(ren). And so
on.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
It would also help to ensure there's no intentional abuse, as
occurred in your case.
Cheap shot.
That you see truth as a cheap shot speaks volumes.
That's the definition of 'cheap shot'.
Truth is a cheap shot, huh? An odd position you've taken.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Also wrong;
Greg abused Lisa's daughter intentionally. Or do you think he
is as mentally defective as he presents?
I don't know anything about Greg's particular case, so I'm not
commenting on it.
If you have the time and desire, read up on it. You'll find it
quite interesting.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
do you really think these indoctrination
classes are going to make parents care about their children
more?
The classes help to ensure no abuse occurs.
Begging the question.
Answering the question. That you don't like the answer doesn't
alter that I answered it.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
It is interesting how you worded your question. Do you accept
that Greg cared nothing about the child he abused?
I don't know, but I doubt it. In any case you're avoiding the
question again.
Since I already answered it, I can't possibly be avoiding it. I
simply pointed out, in a follow-up comment, the interesting way in
which you worded your question. Some may not have noticed. I did.
--
Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Kent Wills
2008-09-28 13:33:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Greegor
Don't let CPS win. Sometimes you have to hit the bottom to come back
up so have faith and stay strong. Never give up hope, and never stop
fighting to get your kids. You will all be in my thoughts and prayers,
and I hope all of your children will be returned to you soon."
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?
By checking any and all public records about the matter. Most
records will not be public, but those that are will help add to or
detract from the credibility of the claims presented.
Since this is a concern for you, I presume you've made inquiries.
What did you find?
Post by Greegor
Did anything about this strike you as
just a wee bit too sunny and too quick, Dan?
I'm not Dan, but it reads as plausible to me.
Post by Greegor
How many such optimistic and short outcomes
have you seen in your huge experience, Dan?
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
Not everyone has your issues with authority. Few people think
anyone in a position of authority MUST be brow-beaten into submission,
then whine for years when the attempt fails.
Someone winning against CPS isn't a scam. People can and do win.
Post by Greegor
How do I know this isn't another one of your
Oliver Sutton type fakes to shill for
your position or yourself using outright lies?
Since Dan doesn't have the mental infliction you present yourself
as having, there's no reason to believe it's anything but what it's
presented to be.
Post by Greegor
Come on Dan, this one reads like a cartoon you wrote!
Outside of your continued proof that you are psychologically
unable to be honest about anything at any time, Dan doesn't write
cartoons.


http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <***@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Andrew Usher
2008-09-29 03:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
How many such optimistic and short outcomes
have you seen in your huge experience, Dan?
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues',
which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Post by Kent Wills
Few people think
anyone in a position of authority MUST be brow-beaten into submission,
then whine for years when the attempt fails.
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Post by Kent Wills
Someone winning against CPS isn't a scam. People can and do win.
He and I have not disputed that not all parents lose their children to
CPS,
which is the outcome you'd define as not 'winning', isn't it?

The scam is that hiring a certain lawyer could guarantee such a
result. There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children? And
how much of their freedom did they have to give up?

Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
2008-09-29 10:56:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:36:44 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
How many such optimistic and short outcomes
have you seen in your huge experience, Dan?
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Because the claim presented is that doing them worked. This is
why I offered the guess.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues',
which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Actually, Greg has made it very clear he has issues with
authority. Not only in dealing with CPS.
A prime example is when Lisa's daughter was having bladder
control issues. According to Greg, a medical doctor stated she would
grow out of it. It is possible Greg lied and that no medical
consultation was made.
Greg, proving how he is unable or unwilling to accept the advice
of those who know better, made the choice to abuse the girl over her
inability, if the doctor's position as reported by Greg is correct,
to get to the toilet in time.
There are many other examples, but I think I've made my point that
Greg is unable or unwilling to accept he advice/rulings of those in
positions of authority.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Few people think
anyone in a position of authority MUST be brow-beaten into submission,
then whine for years when the attempt fails.
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Someone winning against CPS isn't a scam. People can and do win.
He and I have not disputed that not all parents lose their children to
CPS,
which is the outcome you'd define as not 'winning', isn't it?
If one is battling CPS and looses their child(ren), then they have
lost.
Post by Andrew Usher
The scam is that hiring a certain lawyer could guarantee such a
result.
I saw nothing that would indicate any guarantee was offered. The
author did give an endorsement of a specific lawyer, but there's
nothing to suggest any guaranty.
Would you be so kind as to point out where anything that could be
seen as a guaranty was presented?
Post by Andrew Usher
There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?
I don't have those stats. You probably don't either.
Post by Andrew Usher
And
how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
Andrew Usher
2008-09-30 10:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Because the claim presented is that doing them worked. This is
why I offered the guess.
Well, then I guess they did 'have to', right?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues', which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Actually, Greg has made it very clear he has issues with
authority. Not only in dealing with CPS.
This is not responsive to my point.

<snip description>
Post by Kent Wills
There are many other examples, but I think I've made my point that
Greg is unable or unwilling to accept he advice/rulings of those in
positions of authority.
One case doesn't prove anything, does it? And anyway, you've just
demonstrated my point that you believe in submitting to authority.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?
I don't have those stats. You probably don't either.
Right. They probably don't want to disclose that information. But
since you don't know, how can you be so sure they're all guilty?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
And
how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
If all CPS did was stop unquestionable abuse, people wouldn't
complain about it. You know that's not true!

Andrew Usher
krp
2008-09-30 13:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Because the claim presented is that doing them worked. This is
why I offered the guess.
Well, then I guess they did 'have to', right?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues', which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Actually, Greg has made it very clear he has issues with
authority. Not only in dealing with CPS.
This is not responsive to my point.
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Cown Colony. Authority must be reasonable and
something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit to. Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us. The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature. BUT somebody
who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+ years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Post by Andrew Usher
<snip description>
Post by Kent Wills
There are many other examples, but I think I've made my point that
Greg is unable or unwilling to accept he advice/rulings of those in
positions of authority.
One case doesn't prove anything, does it? And anyway, you've just
demonstrated my point that you believe in submitting to authority.
Mr. Wills - the convicted FELON has a thing with Greg to try to bring
him down to his level as oppsoed to dealing honestly with the issues Greg
raises, something Kent is incapable of doing. He has to personally attack
anyone who disagrees with him.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
There are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many
parents, of
all those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?
I don't have those stats. You probably don't either.
Right. They probably don't want to disclose that information. But
since you don't know, how can you be so sure they're all guilty?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None. Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
If all CPS did was stop unquestionable abuse, people wouldn't
complain about it. You know that's not true!
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug! Only the EXTREMELY guilty would complain. Funny, that's the SAME
Polish logic David Moore uses with me. He claims that because I challenge
the bullshit he has on his website as being untrue -- that means I am guilty
of what he accuses me of. His reasoning is that if I was innocent I wouldn't
object to his lies. Nice logic.
Kent Wills
2008-10-01 01:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Because the claim presented is that doing them worked. This is
why I offered the guess.
Well, then I guess they did 'have to', right?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues', which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Actually, Greg has made it very clear he has issues with
authority. Not only in dealing with CPS.
This is not responsive to my point.
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Cown Colony.
There is a serious difference between authority and tyranny.
It's a sad commentary about you that you can't see the difference.
Post by krp
Authority must be reasonable and
something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit to.
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Post by krp
Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us.
What medical doctor works near minimum wage?
Post by krp
The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
I wasn't aware MDs offered "Performance Agreements." Must be
something new.
The next time I have cause to speak with a medical doctor, I'll
ask about it. Or would you rather admit you're lying and save me the
time?
Post by krp
BUT somebody
who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+ years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Once again you proudly display that you're stupid (unable to
learn).
70 years ago, Skladkowski was ruler. Before him, Felicjan
Slawoj-Skladkowski ruled from 1936 to 1939.
Morawski became Primer in 1945, followed by Cyrankiewic in 1947.
Jozef Cyrankiewic left office in 1952 when Boleslaw Bierut took over.
Hitler committed suicide in 1945. During the time Hitler could
have ruled, he didn't.
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Maybe your alcoholic delusion have you believing that being
allies means giving up ruler ship, but in the real world, this isn't
how it happened.
Further, Poland and USSR weren't real close allies. They were
far closer in the mid to late 1700s when Poniatowski and Catherine II,
of Russia, were very close friends. It's rumored they were far closer
than *normal* diplomatic relations would allow <wink, wink. nudge,
nudge>.
For the record, I've seen nothing to confirm they were more than
friendly to each other.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
<snip description>
Post by Kent Wills
There are many other examples, but I think I've made my point that
Greg is unable or unwilling to accept he advice/rulings of those in
positions of authority.
One case doesn't prove anything, does it? And anyway, you've just
demonstrated my point that you believe in submitting to authority.
Mr. Wills - the convicted FELON has a thing with Greg to try to bring
him down to his level as oppsoed to dealing honestly with the issues Greg
raises, something Kent is incapable of doing. He has to personally attack
anyone who disagrees with him.
I use facts in my retorts.
See above where I prove, again, that you have NO knowledge in
regards to Poland.
Funny thing is, within seconds I found several web sites that
support what I've written above, and a few that don't.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rulers+of+Poland+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

You're too stone cold stupid to use Google.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
I'm fairly certain Greg abandoned his idea of such a career
change. Certainly nothing's been presented to support your claim that
he's a garage burglar.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
There are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many
parents, of
all those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?
I don't have those stats. You probably don't either.
Right. They probably don't want to disclose that information. But
since you don't know, how can you be so sure they're all guilty?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None. Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
If all CPS did was stop unquestionable abuse, people wouldn't
complain about it. You know that's not true!
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug!
Who has ever presented such a concept? In reality, I mean. Not
within the confines of the mental illness you've twice admitted you
have because of your alcoholism.
Post by krp
Only the EXTREMELY guilty would complain.
You hold some very odd views, Kenny-Bob.
Post by krp
Funny, that's the SAME
Polish logic David Moore uses with me. He claims that because I challenge
the bullshit he has on his website as being untrue -- that means I am guilty
of what he accuses me of.
Not so.
He's offered, numerous times, for you to show him wrong. A few
times he's offered to remove the web site and leave Usenet forever if
you could prove one of your lies to be true.
Note the site still up, and he continues to post.
Post by krp
His reasoning is that if I was innocent I wouldn't
object to his lies. Nice logic.
It's your logic. David has never presented what you claim. Not
outside of your drunken stupors, anyway.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Andrew Usher
2008-10-02 14:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Crown Colony.
There is a serious difference between authority and tyranny.
It's a sad commentary about you that you can't see the difference.
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Authority must be reasonable and
something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit to.
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right? Again I don't know any details
of that case, but there are certainly places where I would want
to disregard medical advice.
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us.
What medical doctor works near minimum wage?
Post by krp
The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
I wasn't aware MDs offered "Performance Agreements." Must be
something new.
He's not talking about doctors, moron. But you know that.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
BUT somebody
who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+ years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Once again you proudly display that you're stupid (unable to
learn).
70 years ago, Skladkowski was ruler. Before him, Felicjan
Slawoj-Skladkowski ruled from 1936 to 1939.
Morawski became Primer in 1945, followed by Cyrankiewic in 1947.
Jozef Cyrankiewic left office in 1952 when Boleslaw Bierut took over.
Hitler committed suicide in 1945. During the time Hitler could
have ruled, he didn't.
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?

Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Post by Kent Wills
Further, Poland and USSR weren't real close allies. They were
far closer in the mid to late 1700s when Poniatowski and Catherine II,
of Russia, were very close friends. It's rumored they were far closer
than *normal* diplomatic relations would allow <wink, wink. nudge,
nudge>.
For the record, I've seen nothing to confirm they were more than
friendly to each other.
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then - Russia would
surely have prevented most or all of the Partitions in that case.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
I'm fairly certain Greg abandoned his idea of such a career
change. Certainly nothing's been presented to support your claim that
he's a garage burglar.
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug!
Who has ever presented such a concept? In reality, I mean. Not
within the confines of the mental illness you've twice admitted you
have because of your alcoholism.
You certainly implied it.
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.

Andrew Usher
krp
2008-10-02 15:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Crown Colony.
There is a serious difference between authority and tyranny.
It's a sad commentary about you that you can't see the difference.
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
Kent won't understand the difference, or the similarity. He's too dumb
for that.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Authority must be reasonable and something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit
to.
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right? Again I don't know any details
of that case, but there are certainly places where I would want
to disregard medical advice.
Kent thinks it is reasonable because he DECREES that it is reasonable.
Ken needs to look at the rate of medical malpractice in America, or how
these "INFALLIBLE DOCTORS" do things like amputate a leg on a patient in for
an apendectomy in amajor hospital. Kent just NEEDS to support his psoition
that Greg is the root of ALL EVIL because Greg disagrees with him. Ken's
ONLY recourse is to demonize whoever DARES to disagree with the great Kent
Wills.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
I said authority is what WE THE PEOPLE agree to. NOT some arrogant son
of a bitch imposing their own will on us!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us.
What medical doctor works near minimum wage?
That reference was to SOCIAL WORKERS - Kent Wills is class DUNCE!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
The very nature of "Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the
American nature.
I wasn't aware MDs offered "Performance Agreements." Must be
something new.
He's not talking about doctors, moron. But you know that.
No - actually he doesn't. He IS that stupid! REALLY Andy he *IS* that
stupid.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
BUT somebody who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+
years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Once again you proudly display that you're stupid (unable to learn).
70 years ago, Skladkowski was ruler. Before him, Felicjan
Slawoj-Skladkowski ruled from 1936 to 1939.
Morawski became Primer in 1945, followed by Cyrankiewic in 1947.
Jozef Cyrankiewic left office in 1952 when Boleslaw Bierut took over.
Hitler committed suicide in 1945. During the time Hitler could
have ruled, he didn't.
SOVIET PUPPETS.
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory? Ever
heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
He doesn't know what that is.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Oh crap. When Stalin told his Polish SERVANTS when to shit - they asked
"HOW HIGH MASTER?"
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Further, Poland and USSR weren't real close allies. They were
far closer in the mid to late 1700s when Poniatowski and Catherine II,
of Russia, were very close friends. It's rumored they were far closer
than *normal* diplomatic relations would allow <wink, wink. nudge,
nudge>.
For the record, I've seen nothing to confirm they were more than
friendly to each other.
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then - Russia would
surely have prevented most or all of the Partitions in that case.
Kent is amusing. He is TRYING to insinuate that Poland was NOT a puppet
state folloing WW-2 up until Solidarity started to bring down the Polish
state run from MOSCOW.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
I'm fairly certain Greg abandoned his idea of such a career
change. Certainly nothing's been presented to support your claim that
he's a garage burglar.
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
He just LIES about it along with almost everything else.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug!
Who has ever presented such a concept? In reality, I mean. Not
within the confines of the mental illness you've twice admitted you
have because of your alcoholism.
You certainly implied it.
Almost SCREAMED it.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
Wills is DESPERATE and STUPID and that makes him dangerous. He is also
a fukkkkkking LIAR. I don't drink at all. Only with RARE exceptions. And
even there I have never finished a glass of beer. Maybe a half a 12 ounce
glass. But I can count the number of times THAT has happened in the past 30
years on ONE HAND.
Kent Wills
2008-10-02 22:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Crown Colony.
There is a serious difference between authority and tyranny.
It's a sad commentary about you that you can't see the difference.
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
Kent won't understand the difference, or the similarity. He's too dumb
for that.
Yet I explain the difference.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Authority must be reasonable and something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit
to.
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right? Again I don't know any details
of that case, but there are certainly places where I would want
to disregard medical advice.
Kent thinks it is reasonable because he DECREES that it is reasonable.
A medical opinion offered by a medical doctor is going to be
reasonable.
Post by krp
Ken needs to look at the rate of medical malpractice in America,
Why do you need to do that?
Post by krp
or how
these "INFALLIBLE DOCTORS"
When, outside of your latest drunken delusion, has anyone claimed
they're infallible?
Post by krp
do things like amputate a leg on a patient in for
an apendectomy in amajor hospital. Kent just NEEDS to support his psoition
that Greg is the root of ALL EVIL
I've never offered such a position.
Post by krp
because Greg disagrees with him. Ken's
ONLY recourse is to demonize whoever DARES to disagree with the great Kent
Wills.
Odd that I rarely have need, and rarer still desire, to do so.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
I said authority is what WE THE PEOPLE agree to. NOT some arrogant son
of a bitch imposing their own will on us!
And agreeing with a medical doctor's opinion is very reasonable.
On some matters it's wise to get a second opinion, but when
dealing with a young girl's inability to control her balder, it's a
good bet other doctors will agree.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us.
What medical doctor works near minimum wage?
That reference was to SOCIAL WORKERS - Kent Wills is class DUNCE!
Liar.
At this point of the discussion, we were talking about medical
opinions offered by medical doctors. If you wanted to change the
scope of the discussion, you should have mentioned it.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
The very nature of "Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the
American nature.
I wasn't aware MDs offered "Performance Agreements." Must be
something new.
He's not talking about doctors, moron. But you know that.
No - actually he doesn't. He IS that stupid! REALLY Andy he *IS* that
stupid.
You're the one who presented that medical doctors offer
Performance Agreements.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
BUT somebody who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+
years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Once again you proudly display that you're stupid (unable to learn).
70 years ago, Skladkowski was ruler. Before him, Felicjan
Slawoj-Skladkowski ruled from 1936 to 1939.
Morawski became Primer in 1945, followed by Cyrankiewic in 1947.
Jozef Cyrankiewic left office in 1952 when Boleslaw Bierut took over.
Hitler committed suicide in 1945. During the time Hitler could
have ruled, he didn't.
SOVIET PUPPETS.
So Poland was a Soviet Puppet in WW2?
Why do you feel it so important to PROVE just how stone cold
stupid (unable to learn) you are?
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory? Ever
heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
He doesn't know what that is.
I grew up in Krakow, dullard.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Oh crap. When Stalin told his Polish SERVANTS when to shit - they asked
"HOW HIGH MASTER?"
The metaphor you wanted to use is in regards to jumping.
And Poland wasn't an Eastern Bloc state.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Further, Poland and USSR weren't real close allies. They were
far closer in the mid to late 1700s when Poniatowski and Catherine II,
of Russia, were very close friends. It's rumored they were far closer
than *normal* diplomatic relations would allow <wink, wink. nudge,
nudge>.
For the record, I've seen nothing to confirm they were more than
friendly to each other.
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then - Russia would
surely have prevented most or all of the Partitions in that case.
Kent is amusing. He is TRYING to insinuate that Poland was NOT a puppet
state folloing WW-2 up until Solidarity started to bring down the Polish
state run from MOSCOW.
You're quite amusing since you think there's a continent called
Eastern Europe.
He's honestly presented this concept, folks.
While your bigotry won't allow you to accept it, Poland was
independent of the USSR.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
I'm fairly certain Greg abandoned his idea of such a career
change. Certainly nothing's been presented to support your claim that
he's a garage burglar.
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
He just LIES about it along with almost everything else.
Are you saying I question if Greg abandoned his idea of such a
career change?
If you are, present your evidence.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug!
Who has ever presented such a concept? In reality, I mean. Not
within the confines of the mental illness you've twice admitted you
have because of your alcoholism.
You certainly implied it.
Almost SCREAMED it.
Only within the confines of your alcoholic induced mental illness.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
Wills is DESPERATE and STUPID and that makes him dangerous. He is also
a fukkkkkking LIAR. I don't drink at all. Only with RARE exceptions.
On at least two occasions you admitted your mental illness is the
result of your alcoholism.
Were you lying then, or now? I'll accept either answer.
Post by krp
And
even there I have never finished a glass of beer. Maybe a half a 12 ounce
glass. But I can count the number of times THAT has happened in the past 30
years on ONE HAND.
How about the number of times you've chugged a bottle of whiskey
and/or schnapps?


"We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..."
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a
woman on the talk.rape newsgroup
He admits to authoring the threat here:
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Kent Wills
2008-10-02 22:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 07:54:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority." That's why
we are not still a British Crown Colony.
There is a serious difference between authority and tyranny.
It's a sad commentary about you that you can't see the difference.
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
Tyranny is defined by Merriam-Webster as: oppressive power <every
form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially
: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police
state>
In the U.S. we are allowed redress of grievances. We didn't when
we were a part of the British Crown.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Authority must be reasonable and
something WE THE PEOPLE agree to submit to.
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right?
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
I've noticed that when you reply, you don't reply to what's
actually written. You completely ignore the context of the post to
which you are replying.
Post by Andrew Usher
Again I don't know any details
of that case, but there are certainly places where I would want
to disregard medical advice.
If you lack confidence in the medical opinion given by your
doctor, you should seek a different doctor.
Oh, I wrote opinion, and not advice.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Not something imposed on us by
some near minimum wage public hireling imposing it on us.
What medical doctor works near minimum wage?
Post by krp
The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
I wasn't aware MDs offered "Performance Agreements." Must be
something new.
He's not talking about doctors, moron. But you know that.
Since the topic at this stage of the discussion is the opinion
given by the medical doctor, he must have been. Not even Kenny-Bob
can be as stupid as you would need him to be for your claim to be
accurate.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
BUT somebody
who grew up in Poland where its history for the past 70+ years was to be
ruled by a tyrant named Adolph Hitler and replaced by a tyrant named Joe
Stalin is unlikely to have ANY even remote understanding of why the hair
stands up on the back of our necks when some punk 24 year old snot tell us
that we "HAVE TO" do as she says OR ELSE!
Once again you proudly display that you're stupid (unable to
learn).
70 years ago, Skladkowski was ruler. Before him, Felicjan
Slawoj-Skladkowski ruled from 1936 to 1939.
Morawski became Primer in 1945, followed by Cyrankiewic in 1947.
Jozef Cyrankiewic left office in 1952 when Boleslaw Bierut took over.
Hitler committed suicide in 1945. During the time Hitler could
have ruled, he didn't.
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?
Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
I was born and raised in Krakow. I spoke with people who
survived Auschwitz One and Two. I spoke with people who were around
the area at the time of the killings.
Yes, I know a great deal about the Holocaust. Possibly more than
you, though I can't be any more definitive than "possibly."
This doesn't alter Kenny-Bob's inability to learn about the Ruling
History of Poland.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States. It was
independent of the USSR. Much the same as East Berlin was.
Poland and USSR were allies, in name if not in reality, but that
was it.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Further, Poland and USSR weren't real close allies. They were
far closer in the mid to late 1700s when Poniatowski and Catherine II,
of Russia, were very close friends. It's rumored they were far closer
than *normal* diplomatic relations would allow <wink, wink. nudge,
nudge>.
For the record, I've seen nothing to confirm they were more than
friendly to each other.
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were. As can be seen above, I present that
they were closer than during the time Kenny-Bob referenced. Not even
close to your deceptive claim.
Post by Andrew Usher
- Russia would
surely have prevented most or all of the Partitions in that case.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
You'll learn about our Garage Burglar.
I'm fairly certain Greg abandoned his idea of such a career
change. Certainly nothing's been presented to support your claim that
he's a garage burglar.
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Seem Kenny-Bob is convinced Greg is. I don't know on what
Kenny-Bob basis this view. Yes, Greg has a criminal past, yes Greg
thinks he's exempt from all laws, but there's nothing to support the
idea Greg has committed a burglary.
It's possible Kenny-Bob knows something I don't.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by krp
How nice it is to handle the abuse of authority issue by claiming than
anyone who complains about it is by fact an abuser. Using the Polish
reasoning, an INNOCENT person would NEVER complain about being FORCED to
submit to humiliating conditions to get their children back from a state
thug!
Who has ever presented such a concept? In reality, I mean. Not
within the confines of the mental illness you've twice admitted you
have because of your alcoholism.
You certainly implied it.
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
That you've been reduced, again, to lying indicates just how
desperate you are.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
I offer the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify. I'm
not asking the readers to take my word for it. I don't have to.
Is there a specific reason you're lying about this?
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Andrew Usher
2008-10-03 11:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not
providing one.
Post by Kent Wills
Tyranny is defined by Merriam-Webster as: oppressive power <every
form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially
: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police
state>
In the U.S. we are allowed redress of grievances. We didn't when
we were a part of the British Crown.
And that's meaningless. Whether power is 'oppressive' doesn't
depend on whether we're allowed to complain about it.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right?
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts. Of course
it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
Post by Kent Wills
I've noticed that when you reply, you don't reply to what's
actually written. You completely ignore the context of the post to
which you are replying.
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
Post by Kent Wills
Since the topic at this stage of the discussion is the opinion
given by the medical doctor, he must have been. Not even Kenny-Bob
can be as stupid as you would need him to be for your claim to be
accurate.
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?
Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
I was born and raised in Krakow. I spoke with people who
survived Auschwitz One and Two. I spoke with people who were around
the area at the time of the killings.
Yes, I know a great deal about the Holocaust. Possibly more than
you, though I can't be any more definitive than "possibly."
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
Post by Kent Wills
As can be seen above, I present that
they were closer than during the time Kenny-Bob referenced. Not even
close to your deceptive claim.
You haven't presented any such evidence.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Seem Kenny-Bob is convinced Greg is. I don't know on what
Kenny-Bob basis this view. Yes, Greg has a criminal past, yes Greg
thinks he's exempt from all laws, but there's nothing to support the
idea Greg has committed a burglary.
Haven't you been convicted of burglary? We're not
taling about Greg, you know.
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
Post by Kent Wills
That you've been reduced, again, to lying indicates just how
desperate you are.
I haven't lied.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
I offer the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify. I'm
not asking the readers to take my word for it. I don't have to.
That message ID contains no such admission.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Post by Kent Wills
Is there a specific reason you're lying about this?
I think you're lying.

Andrew Usher
krp
2008-10-03 12:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it. ( IN
CUBA, NORTH KOREA , IRAN, etc)
< It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not providing
one.

Soon, Andy, you'll figure out what I single him out to call him a "dumb
Polack!"
Tyranny is defined by Merriam-Webster as: oppressive power <every
form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially
: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
In the U.S. we are allowed redress of grievances. We didn't when
we were a part of the British Crown.
< And that's meaningless. Whether power is 'oppressive' doesn't
< depend on whether we're allowed to complain about it.

You could complain about oppressive power in Nazi Germany. Of course
you'd get shot in the street,. BUT you could complain!!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right?
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
< A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts. Of course
< it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.

You are trying to explain something to a PINEAPPLE Andy! And -- not one
of the brighter Pineapples, at that! Kent NEEDS doctors to be infallible to
suit his argument. Reality is, for Kent, whatever he needs it to be for the
instant argument he is making. He reserves the right to make exactly the
opposite argument when he needs that at the time. He is schizo!
I've noticed that when you reply, you don't reply to what's
actually written. You completely ignore the context of the post to
which you are replying.
< Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
< so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.

That's because that's all the Garage Burglar knows. He can't debate the
facts, so he diverts attention by attacking the people.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
< Provide a quote.

Of course that is NOT what I said. But it is what goes through his
Polish soup strainer mind.
Since the topic at this stage of the discussion is the opinion
given by the medical doctor, he must have been. Not even Kenny-Bob
can be as stupid as you would need him to be for your claim to be
accurate.
< was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
< discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.

Again - reality is whatever Kent needs at the moment. You have to be a
VERY dumb POLACK to have missed that I was speaking of social workers since
I *SAID* case workers. BUT that's our POLSKI IDIOTKA!!
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?
Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
I was born and raised in Krakow. I spoke with people who
survived Auschwitz One and Two. I spoke with people who were around
the area at the time of the killings.
Yes, I know a great deal about the Holocaust. Possibly more than
you, though I can't be any more definitive than "possibly."
< So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
<if they didn't control Poland?

MAGIC!!!!!! Andy - my high school sweetheart is Jewish - her parents
lost about 90% of their families in the holcaust but KENT WILLS knows more
than I do. Or so he claims. I just ate dinner with the remnants of that
family every Saturday evening and went to the synagogue with them. But KENT
WILLS knows VASTLY VASTLY MORE! What do *I* know I just say in a building
with perhaps 2 or 3 dozen people who survived those camps in Europe. BUT
KENT WILLS KNOWS MORE! He always does. Kent is the WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERT
on everything! Pick a subject and ask him. Law, electronics, space
explotarion, physics, medicine, psychology. He has even invented NEW
psychologal maladies like "Projection-Transferrence!" That's straight from
the Kent Wills Polish Psychological Journal! He also will tell you about his
dicvovery of "Neurotic-Psychosis" and several other things.

In Willsworld there were NEVER any Nazis in Poland! NONE! In Willsworld
those were Mongolians attacking the Warsaw ghetto!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
KW> Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.

Which IS, of course WHY they called it the "WARSAW PACT!" Because Poland
was NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER part of it! Welcome wo WILLSWORLD!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
< Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
< they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
< inference.

Andy - I think Willsworld was claimign that Poland and the USSR were
NEVER allies after WW-2. They wsere BITTER ENEMIES. The Warsaw Pact? NEVER
EXISTED! Kenny-Bob made it up! Right Kent?
As can be seen above, I present that
they were closer than during the time Kenny-Bob referenced. Not even
close to your deceptive claim.
< You haven't presented any such evidence.

Welcome to Willsworld. A polish thrill ride.
Post by Andrew Usher
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Seem Kenny-Bob is convinced Greg is. I don't know on what
Kenny-Bob basis this view. Yes, Greg has a criminal past, yes Greg
thinks he's exempt from all laws, but there's nothing to support the
idea Greg has committed a burglary.
< Haven't you been convicted of burglary? We're not
< talking about Greg, you know.

Ken has to SWITCH the subject because he's losing on the subject at
hand. MAKE IT GREG.
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None. Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
< Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
< not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
< such an implication.

Welcome to WILLSWORLD. Free thrill rides!
That you've been reduced, again, to lying indicates just how
desperate you are.
< I haven't lied.

Kent Wills = RUG!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
I offer the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify. I'm
not asking the readers to take my word for it. I don't have to.
< That message ID contains no such admission.

It does in WILLS WORLD. The mad hatter's teacup ride.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
< Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.

UNFAIR Andy you are confusing the Polack! No fair getting in a battle
of wits with an UNARMED OPONNENT!
Is there a specific reason you're lying about this?
< I think you're lying.


Lying? I used to think that. And then I just discovered the MOST STUPID
POLACK on the planet was arguing with me. The GARAGE BURGLAR Kent Wills.
(NOT HIS REAL NAME)
Kent Wills
2008-10-03 22:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it. ( IN
CUBA, NORTH KOREA , IRAN, etc)
< It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not providing
one.
Soon, Andy, you'll figure out what I single him out to call him a "dumb
Polack!"
Your bigotry is well known and documented.
Post by krp
Tyranny is defined by Merriam-Webster as: oppressive power <every
form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially
: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
In the U.S. we are allowed redress of grievances. We didn't when
we were a part of the British Crown.
< And that's meaningless. Whether power is 'oppressive' doesn't
< depend on whether we're allowed to complain about it.
You could complain about oppressive power in Nazi Germany. Of course
you'd get shot in the street,. BUT you could complain!!
Wow. Kenny-Bob just proved Andrew a liar. Or, at best,
seriously ignorant of basic U.S. history.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right?
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
< A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts. Of course
< it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
You are trying to explain something to a PINEAPPLE Andy! And -- not one
of the brighter Pineapples, at that! Kent NEEDS doctors to be infallible to
suit his argument.
Only within the confines of your drunken delusions.
Post by krp
Reality is, for Kent, whatever he needs it to be for the
instant argument he is making. He reserves the right to make exactly the
opposite argument when he needs that at the time. He is schizo!
Cite one time when I've done as you claimed.
In reality, I mean. I'm certain you have MANY drunken delusions
to draw from as examples, but I want something from reality.
Post by krp
I've noticed that when you reply, you don't reply to what's
actually written. You completely ignore the context of the post to
which you are replying.
< Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
< so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
That's because that's all the Garage Burglar knows. He can't debate the
facts, so he diverts attention by attacking the people.
Again, Greg hasn't committed any burglaries, as far as I know.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
< Provide a quote.
Of course that is NOT what I said. But it is what goes through his
Polish soup strainer mind.
I didn't say anything about a quote, dullard. I said you
presented the idea.
BTW, I did quote where you presented it in my reply to Andrew.
Post by krp
Since the topic at this stage of the discussion is the opinion
given by the medical doctor, he must have been. Not even Kenny-Bob
can be as stupid as you would need him to be for your claim to be
accurate.
< was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
< discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
Again - reality is whatever Kent needs at the moment. You have to be a
VERY dumb POLACK
Your bigotry is well known and documented.
Post by krp
to have missed that I was speaking of social workers since
I *SAID* case workers.
Not at the point of the discussion we're at.
Post by krp
BUT that's our POLSKI IDIOTKA!!
What is IDIOTKA? I've not seen the word before.
Is it another of your drunken words?
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?
Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
I was born and raised in Krakow. I spoke with people who
survived Auschwitz One and Two. I spoke with people who were around
the area at the time of the killings.
Yes, I know a great deal about the Holocaust. Possibly more than
you, though I can't be any more definitive than "possibly."
< So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
<if they didn't control Poland?
MAGIC!!!!!! Andy - my high school sweetheart is Jewish - her parents
lost about 90% of their families in the holcaust but KENT WILLS knows more
than I do.
I know that "millions of Polish Jews" didn't die in the
Holocaust. You and Andrew are alone in your delusion that there were
millions of Polish Jews.
I don't know why Andrew has this delusion. Yours is undoubtedly
the result of your admitted alcoholism.
Post by krp
Or so he claims. I just ate dinner with the remnants of that
family every Saturday evening and went to the synagogue with them. But KENT
WILLS knows VASTLY VASTLY MORE! What do *I* know I just say in a building
with perhaps 2 or 3 dozen people who survived those camps in Europe. BUT
KENT WILLS KNOWS MORE!
I spoke with survivors of the death camps outside of Krakow. I
spoke with people who were in the area at the time.
You may not think them as credible as the descendants of those who
were at the camps, but you'll find few who will agree with you.
Oh, I've visited Auschwitz One and Two numerous times in my life.
Yes, I submit I do know more than you about the matter.
Post by krp
He always does.
Since I've been to and graduated from College, it stands to reason
I always know more than you.
You bought your degrees from a diploma mill as was proved here:
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/degree.html
Post by krp
Kent is the WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERT
on everything!
Outside of your mentally illness that you've twice admitted you
have as a result of your alcoholism, I'm not "the WORLD'S FOREMOST
EXPERT on everything!" IN fact, I'll go so far as to say I'm not the
WORLD'S FOREMOST EXPERT on anything.
I know more than some about certain topics, and less than some on
others.
Post by krp
Pick a subject and ask him. Law, electronics, space
explotarion, physics, medicine, psychology. He has even invented NEW
psychologal maladies like "Projection-Transferrence!" That's straight from
the Kent Wills Polish Psychological Journal! He also will tell you about his
dicvovery of "Neurotic-Psychosis" and several other things.
I posted links to several papers and commentaries about
projection-transference. You didn't read them, as proved by your
lack of understanding the concept.
It's understandable. Most were written so that someone with a
formal education would understand them. You didn't stand a chance.
Post by krp
In Willsworld there were NEVER any Nazis in Poland! NONE!
More proof that you can't be honest noted.
Post by krp
In Willsworld
those were Mongolians attacking the Warsaw ghetto!
Again with the bigotry.
I think everyone has accepted that you're a bigot. You don't
NEED to keep proving it.
It is nice that you're willing for the benefit of anyone new
reading your posts, but since your bigotry is so well documented at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html there is no need for you to
continue.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
KW> Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
Which IS, of course WHY they called it the "WARSAW PACT!" Because Poland
was NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER part of it! Welcome wo WILLSWORLD!
Thank you for helping prove yourself wrong.
Warsaw is in Poland, not Russia (USSR). So much for your claim
about Poland being ruled by Stalin.
It's always nice when YOU prove yourself wrong, since you can't
get out of it.
Post by krp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
< Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
< they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
< inference.
Andy - I think Willsworld was claimign that Poland and the USSR were
NEVER allies after WW-2.
Liar.
Post by krp
They wsere BITTER ENEMIES.
Liar.
Post by krp
The Warsaw Pact? NEVER
EXISTED! Kenny-Bob made it up! Right Kent?
Liar.
Post by krp
As can be seen above, I present that
they were closer than during the time Kenny-Bob referenced. Not even
close to your deceptive claim.
< You haven't presented any such evidence.
Welcome to Willsworld. A polish thrill ride.
Andrew lied about my not presenting evidence. Please refrain
from encouraging his lying.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Seem Kenny-Bob is convinced Greg is. I don't know on what
Kenny-Bob basis this view. Yes, Greg has a criminal past, yes Greg
thinks he's exempt from all laws, but there's nothing to support the
idea Greg has committed a burglary.
< Haven't you been convicted of burglary? We're not
< talking about Greg, you know.
Ken has to SWITCH the subject because he's losing on the subject at
hand. MAKE IT GREG.
You are losing. No one disputes this.
Um, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? :)
Post by krp
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None. Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
< Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
< not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
< such an implication.
Welcome to WILLSWORLD. Free thrill rides!
Please don't encourage Andrew's lies.
He was replying to my comment about how we have to remove our
shoes (a reference to flying on commercial airliners). He didn't
mention CPS at all.
Post by krp
That you've been reduced, again, to lying indicates just how
desperate you are.
< I haven't lied.
Kent Wills = RUG!
I have already proved a few of Andrew's lies. It's not like he
made it a challenge.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
I offer the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify. I'm
not asking the readers to take my word for it. I don't have to.
< That message ID contains no such admission.
It does in WILLS WORLD. The mad hatter's teacup ride.
It does in every world save for Andrew's dishonesty and your
drunken delusions.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
< Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
UNFAIR Andy you are confusing the Polack! No fair getting in a battle
of wits with an UNARMED OPONNENT!
Again you prove yourself the bigot you are.
It's accepted that you have a great deal of hate for those who
aren't just like you.
One only needs to see the documentation at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html for absolute proof.
Post by krp
Is there a specific reason you're lying about this?
< I think you're lying.
Lying? I used to think that. And then I just discovered the MOST STUPID
POLACK on the planet was arguing with me.
You're a bigot. Got it. You can move on.
Post by krp
The GARAGE BURGLAR Kent Wills.
Has never, as far as I know, been a part of this discussion.
Post by krp
(NOT HIS REAL NAME)
At least you can accept that truth. You're doing better than
some.


"We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..."
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a
woman on the talk.rape newsgroup
He admits to authoring the threat here:
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Kent Wills
2008-10-03 22:28:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:57:29 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not
providing one.
I did provide one once you asked. You didn't ask before I offered
the definition from Merriam-Webster.
Why are you lying and acting as if any request had been made
earlier?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Tyranny is defined by Merriam-Webster as: oppressive power <every
form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially
: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police
state>
In the U.S. we are allowed redress of grievances. We didn't when
we were a part of the British Crown.
And that's meaningless. Whether power is 'oppressive' doesn't
depend on whether we're allowed to complain about it.
The Colonists were allowed to complain about it. In fact, they
did.
Redress of grievances isn't just complaining.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
A medical doctor offering his medical opinion about a girl's
inability to control her bladder is reasonable. Any mentally sound
person would agree to submit to such an authority.
Why? Are doctors always right?
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts.
With the benefit of specific knowledge.
Post by Andrew Usher
Of course
it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
It can be, yes. There's nothing to suggest the doctor was wrong
in regards to Lisa's daughter.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
I've noticed that when you reply, you don't reply to what's
actually written. You completely ignore the context of the post to
which you are replying.
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
We weren't discussing CPS.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
"We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority."
That's why we are not still a British Cown [sic] Colony."

The matter at hand when Kenny-Bob posted that was authority.
Since he compared the tyranny of the British Crown with authority, he
must see the two as equal. He's had enough time to correct any
misunderstanding.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Since the topic at this stage of the discussion is the opinion
given by the medical doctor, he must have been. Not even Kenny-Bob
can be as stupid as you would need him to be for your claim to be
accurate.
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
At that point of his reply, the topic was the doctor's medical
opinion. No amount of spin on your part with alter this.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Everyone knows that, even though Hitler did not need to rule
directly, he controlled Poland and other Nazi-occupied territory?
Ever heard of the Holocaust, Kent?
I was born and raised in Krakow. I spoke with people who
survived Auschwitz One and Two. I spoke with people who were around
the area at the time of the killings.
Yes, I know a great deal about the Holocaust. Possibly more than
you, though I can't be any more definitive than "possibly."
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Millions of Polish Jews? Millions? Plural?
There weren't even one million Polish Jews in total in Poland at
the time, let alone the plural millions.
Or do you think the Austrian and German, etc. Jews became
citizens of Poland when they arrived at the death camps?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Wow. Information about the countries who were members of the
Warsaw (that's in Poland, BTW) pact.
I guess you see Poland as the Grand Ruler, huh? :)
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
They were closer. I wrote exactly what I meant. You made the
dishonest inference you needed to try to support your deceptive claim.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
As can be seen above, I present that
they were closer than during the time Kenny-Bob referenced. Not even
close to your deceptive claim.
You haven't presented any such evidence.
I have. You don't like it, so you lie and claim I didn't.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Playing dumb again, are you? You know who is the garage burglar!
Seem Kenny-Bob is convinced Greg is. I don't know on what
Kenny-Bob basis this view. Yes, Greg has a criminal past, yes Greg
thinks he's exempt from all laws, but there's nothing to support the
idea Greg has committed a burglary.
Haven't you been convicted of burglary?
No. Since I don't commit burglaries, it's unlikely I ever will
be.
Kenny-Bob, and Greg, hold the belief that everyone with the same
first and last name (even if the first name is a Usenet Nym given as a
joke that few would get) are all the same person.
This is why Kenny-Bob claimed the David Moore he's stalking from
Calumet City, IL is the same one we know from Usenet. This is why
Greg posted probate court information about a Kent Wills in Webster
City, IA, claiming it was about me.
You should re-think your sources.
Post by Andrew Usher
We're not
taling about Greg, you know.
We were.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
You weren't talking about CPS at all. Your comment was in reply
to mine about having to remove one's shoes (TSA requirement for air
travel).
Is there anything about which you will be honest?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
That you've been reduced, again, to lying indicates just how
desperate you are.
I haven't lied.
You have. A few times.
I prove another a few lines above.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
Ken has never admitted that and you know it. At least Moore uses
Ken's own words, but you're apparently too DUMB for that.
I offer the MID so that anyone with an interest may verify. I'm
not asking the readers to take my word for it. I don't have to.
That message ID contains no such admission.
Sure it does. You even quote it below.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Not so, since he replied to the whole of the comment.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Is there a specific reason you're lying about this?
I think you're lying.
You may think whatever you wish. Truth remains truth, even if you
think it does not.

"We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..."
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a
woman on the talk.rape newsgroup
He admits to authoring the threat here:
http://groups.google.com/group/milw.general/msg/0468b8085d0ee5b5
Andrew Usher
2008-10-06 13:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not
providing one.
I did provide one once you asked. You didn't ask before I offered
the definition from Merriam-Webster.
It's not a useful one for deciding what is 'tyranny'.
Post by Kent Wills
Why are you lying and acting as if any request had been made
earlier?
I'm not, and that wouldn't be lying if true.
Post by Kent Wills
Redress of grievances isn't just complaining.
What do you think it is, then? 'Redress' means correction,
but even in this country, Kent, one can't get that just
by asking for it.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts.
With the benefit of specific knowledge.
That doesn't affect my point that a judgement can be right or wrong.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Of course
it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
It can be, yes.
So some doctors are infallible?
Post by Kent Wills
There's nothing to suggest the doctor was wrong
in regards to Lisa's daughter.
Irrelevant.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
We weren't discussing CPS.
We were, actually, but for you every thread is about your hatred for
Greg and Ken.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
"We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority."
That's why we are not still a British Cown [sic] Colony."
The matter at hand when Kenny-Bob posted that was authority.
Since he compared the tyranny of the British Crown with authority, he
must see the two as equal.
Wrong. It's fallacious to say that because your opponent made a
comparison, he must believe that the two are equal in every respect.
In any case he never used the word 'tyranny', nor did he make an
explicit comparison.
Post by Kent Wills
He's had enough time to correct any misunderstanding.
No, if you misunderstand something, it's not his duty to correct you.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
At that point of his reply, the topic was the doctor's medical
opinion. No amount of spin on your part with alter this.
Not something imposed on us by some near minimum wage public hireling > imposing it on us. The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
Doctors had not even been mentioned in the thread leading up to this.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Millions of Polish Jews? Millions? Plural?
There weren't even one million Polish Jews in total in Poland at
the time, let alone the plural millions.
The exact number doesn't matter. Try addressing the point.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Wow. Information about the countries who were members of the
Warsaw (that's in Poland, BTW) pact.
What do you think the Warsaw pact was? Are you implying that Poland
was the leader of it?

It was an agreement of submission to the Soviet Union.

In any case, you're simply wrong about the Eastern bloc. The Wikipedia
article defines it as 'the Soviet Union and countries it either
controlled or that were its allies in Central and Eastern Europe
(Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Romania ...)'. The term was used that way, and you can't arbitrarily
re-define it.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
They were closer. I wrote exactly what I meant.
They were not closer during the late 18th century than during the
Warsaw Pact. You don't know anything about Polish history, evidently.
So why do you pretend to be an expert on it?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Haven't you been convicted of burglary?
No. Since I don't commit burglaries, it's unlikely I ever will
be.
Kenny-Bob, and Greg, hold the belief that everyone with the same
first and last name (even if the first name is a Usenet Nym given as a
joke that few would get) are all the same person.
So 'Kent Wills' is not your legal name?
Post by Kent Wills
This is why Kenny-Bob claimed the David Moore he's stalking from
Calumet City, IL is the same one we know from Usenet. This is why
Greg posted probate court information about a Kent Wills in Webster
City, IA, claiming it was about me.
Well that makes sense, at least.
Post by Kent Wills
You should re-think your sources.
When you blindly accept anything David Moore has said because you're
incapable of doing any research yourself?
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
We're not talking about Greg, you know.
We were.
Wrong.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
You weren't talking about CPS at all. Your comment was in reply
to mine about having to remove one's shoes (TSA requirement for air
travel).
No it wasn't. The quote above was preceded by my words 'There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?'. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REFERS DO? Certainly NOT air
travel!
Post by Kent Wills
Is there anything about which you will be honest?
You're projecting your inability to tell the truth.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Not so, since he replied to the whole of the comment.
Post by Andrew Usher
And so I've shown that 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, ... are prime >> numbers. Further I can show that there are only finitely many more.
Wrong.
, you would say that the second poster was claiming that 2, 3, 5, etc.
are not prime? And you would continue harassing him HUNDREDS and
HUNDREDS of times about his so-called claim?

Andrew Usher
krp
2008-10-06 14:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not
providing one.
I did provide one once you asked. You didn't ask before I offered
the definition from Merriam-Webster.
It's not a useful one for deciding what is 'tyranny'.
Post by Kent Wills
Why are you lying and acting as if any request had been made
earlier?
I'm not, and that wouldn't be lying if true.
Post by Kent Wills
Redress of grievances isn't just complaining.
What do you think it is, then? 'Redress' means correction,
but even in this country, Kent, one can't get that just
by asking for it.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts.
With the benefit of specific knowledge.
That doesn't affect my point that a judgement can be right or wrong.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Of course
it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
It can be, yes.
So some doctors are infallible?
Post by Kent Wills
There's nothing to suggest the doctor was wrong
in regards to Lisa's daughter.
Irrelevant.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
We weren't discussing CPS.
We were, actually, but for you every thread is about your hatred for
Greg and Ken.
He's polish. A limited attention span and little long term memory.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
"We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority."
That's why we are not still a British Cown [sic] Colony."
The matter at hand when Kenny-Bob posted that was authority.
Since he compared the tyranny of the British Crown with authority, he
must see the two as equal.
Wrong. It's fallacious to say that because your opponent made a
comparison, he must believe that the two are equal in every respect.
In any case he never used the word 'tyranny', nor did he make an
explicit comparison.
Remember Wills is an immigrant. There is much he doesn't understand,
such as that it is in the nasic nature of Americans to "QUESTION AUTHORITY"
and put it to the test of being reasonable. We are NOT like Europeans who
bow down in an instant to potentates. It was NOT America that gave the world
Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Atilla, Franco, Mousolini and Hitler to name JUST
A FEW.What our POLACK doesn't get is how we thew over tyranny when Crown
hirelings imposed a SIX CENT TAX on tea! It doesn't finter through the puss
between his ears. "QUESTION AUTHORITY!"
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
He's had enough time to correct any misunderstanding.
No, if you misunderstand something, it's not his duty to correct you.
` In Willsworld it is. What's to correct?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
At that point of his reply, the topic was the doctor's medical
opinion. No amount of spin on your part with alter this.
Not something imposed on us by some near minimum wage public hireling >
imposing it on us. The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
Doctors had not even been mentioned in the thread leading up to this.
Parson me for trying to sort through the Polish logic here, do DOCTORS
impose "PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS" on people????? Will is doing his Polish best
to deign another of his famous STRAW DOGS so he can beat the shit out of it
and convince hiumself of his MIGHTY LOGIC.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Millions of Polish Jews? Millions? Plural?
There weren't even one million Polish Jews in total in Poland at
the time, let alone the plural millions.
The exact number doesn't matter. Try addressing the point.
BUT just to QUIBBLE with our POLISH BS ARTIST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland

The number of Jews in Poland on September 1st 1939 amounted to about
3,474,000 people.[4]

It is impossible to argue with a braying jackass, Andy!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Wow. Information about the countries who were members of the
Warsaw (that's in Poland, BTW) pact.
What do you think the Warsaw pact was? Are you implying that Poland
was the leader of it?
It was an agreement of submission to the Soviet Union.
Kent seems to think it was an annual TEA festival!
Post by Andrew Usher
In any case, you're simply wrong about the Eastern bloc. The Wikipedia
article defines it as 'the Soviet Union and countries it either
controlled or that were its allies in Central and Eastern Europe
(Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Romania ...)'. The term was used that way, and you can't arbitrarily
re-define it.
This IS Kent Wills you are answering. YES HE CAN and WILL!!!!!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
They were closer. I wrote exactly what I meant.
They were not closer during the late 18th century than during the
Warsaw Pact. You don't know anything about Polish history, evidently.
So why do you pretend to be an expert on it?
He was born there. He believes what his MASTERS told him.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Haven't you been convicted of burglary?
No. Since I don't commit burglaries, it's unlikely I ever will
be.
Kenny-Bob, and Greg, hold the belief that everyone with the same
first and last name (even if the first name is a Usenet Nym given as a
joke that few would get) are all the same person.
So 'Kent Wills' is not your legal name?
It IS the name he was CONVICTED under.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
This is why Kenny-Bob claimed the David Moore he's stalking from
Calumet City, IL is the same one we know from Usenet. This is why
Greg posted probate court information about a Kent Wills in Webster
City, IA, claiming it was about me.
Well that makes sense, at least.
Post by Kent Wills
You should re-think your sources.
When you blindly accept anything David Moore has said because you're
incapable of doing any research yourself?
He believs what he NEEDS to believe. When Moore tells him something he
WANTS to hear he just BUYS it! Hook - line and sinker!
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
We're not talking about Greg, you know.
We were.
Wrong.
HE was.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
You weren't talking about CPS at all. Your comment was in reply
to mine about having to remove one's shoes (TSA requirement for air
travel).
No it wasn't. The quote above was preceded by my words 'There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?'. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REFERS DO? Certainly NOT air
travel!
Post by Kent Wills
Is there anything about which you will be honest?
You're projecting your inability to tell the truth.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Not so, since he replied to the whole of the comment.
That's our boy Kent again.
Kent Wills
2008-10-07 00:09:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:04:25 GMT, " krp" <***@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
We weren't discussing CPS.
We were, actually, but for you every thread is about your hatred for
Greg and Ken.
He's polish. A limited attention span and little long term memory.
Your bigotry is well known and documented. You don't need to keep
proving it.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
"We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority."
That's why we are not still a British Cown [sic] Colony."
The matter at hand when Kenny-Bob posted that was authority.
Since he compared the tyranny of the British Crown with authority, he
must see the two as equal.
Wrong. It's fallacious to say that because your opponent made a
comparison, he must believe that the two are equal in every respect.
In any case he never used the word 'tyranny', nor did he make an
explicit comparison.
Remember Wills is an immigrant.
And they're all bad, right? Unless they're a mail-order bride, of
course.
Post by krp
There is much he doesn't understand,
such as that it is in the nasic nature of Americans to "QUESTION AUTHORITY"
and put it to the test of being reasonable.
Only the seriously demented, such as you, would think a medical
doctor's opinion about why a girl has bladder control issues is
unreasonable.
And if Greg had such concerns about that doctor's opinion, why
didn't he seek out a second opinion? He's made it clear he never
asked another doctor about it. He went straight to abusing the girl.
Post by krp
We are NOT like Europeans who
bow down in an instant to potentates.
What Europeans are? In reality, I mean. Not within the confines
of your latest drunken delusions.
Post by krp
It was NOT America that gave the world
Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Atilla, Franco, Mousolini and Hitler to name JUST
A FEW.What our POLACK doesn't get is how we thew over tyranny when Crown
hirelings imposed a SIX CENT TAX on tea! It doesn't finter through the puss
between his ears. "QUESTION AUTHORITY!"
But don't disregard it because you can't accept what someone in
authority tells you.
Using the doctor analogy again:
If Greg didn't trust the doctor's opinion, he and Lisa could have
sought a second opinion. If there was a conflict, a third doctor
could break the tie. Or the two doctors could have had a conference
and come to an agreement.
Opting to ignore the opinion completely and going straight to
abuse, as Greg has made it clear he did, was and is not the answer.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
He's had enough time to correct any misunderstanding.
No, if you misunderstand something, it's not his duty to correct you.
` In Willsworld it is. What's to correct?
Any misunderstanding.
If your meaning was other than what I perceived it to be, you
would have made it known. You didn't, since I interpreted your
comment as you intended.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
At that point of his reply, the topic was the doctor's medical
opinion. No amount of spin on your part with alter this.
Not something imposed on us by some near minimum wage public hireling >
imposing it on us. The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
Doctors had not even been mentioned in the thread leading up to this.
Parson me for trying to sort through the Polish logic here, do DOCTORS
impose "PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS" on people?????
You claimed they do. Are you now claiming they don't?
If so, why did you previously claim they do?
Post by krp
Will is doing his Polish best
to deign another of his famous STRAW DOGS so he can beat the shit out of it
and convince hiumself of his MIGHTY LOGIC.
I was replying to your comment.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Millions of Polish Jews? Millions? Plural?
There weren't even one million Polish Jews in total in Poland at
the time, let alone the plural millions.
The exact number doesn't matter. Try addressing the point.
BUT just to QUIBBLE with our POLISH BS ARTIST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland
The number of Jews in Poland on September 1st 1939 amounted to about
3,474,000 people.[4]
How many were Polish Jews?
At no point has anyone disagreed that there were millions of Jews
in Poland. The point of contention is if they were Polish Jews.
Does your current drunken stupor having you believing that every
Jew became a Polish citizen upon entering the country?
Post by krp
It is impossible to argue with a braying jackass, Andy!
Since Andrew isn't trying to argue with you, it's clear he
understands this.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Wow. Information about the countries who were members of the
Warsaw (that's in Poland, BTW) pact.
What do you think the Warsaw pact was? Are you implying that Poland
was the leader of it?
It was an agreement of submission to the Soviet Union.
Kent seems to think it was an annual TEA festival!
Only within the confines of your drunken stupors.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
In any case, you're simply wrong about the Eastern bloc. The Wikipedia
article defines it as 'the Soviet Union and countries it either
controlled or that were its allies in Central and Eastern Europe
(Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Romania ...)'. The term was used that way, and you can't arbitrarily
re-define it.
This IS Kent Wills you are answering. YES HE CAN and WILL!!!!!
I didn't, since I didn't need to.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
They were closer. I wrote exactly what I meant.
They were not closer during the late 18th century than during the
Warsaw Pact. You don't know anything about Polish history, evidently.
So why do you pretend to be an expert on it?
He was born there. He believes what his MASTERS told him.
I believe what the evidence shows.
That it ruins your claims, as well as Andrews, only means it ruins
your claims.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Haven't you been convicted of burglary?
No. Since I don't commit burglaries, it's unlikely I ever will
be.
Kenny-Bob, and Greg, hold the belief that everyone with the same
first and last name (even if the first name is a Usenet Nym given as a
joke that few would get) are all the same person.
So 'Kent Wills' is not your legal name?
It IS the name he was CONVICTED under.
Liar.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
This is why Kenny-Bob claimed the David Moore he's stalking from
Calumet City, IL is the same one we know from Usenet. This is why
Greg posted probate court information about a Kent Wills in Webster
City, IA, claiming it was about me.
Well that makes sense, at least.
Post by Kent Wills
You should re-think your sources.
When you blindly accept anything David Moore has said because you're
incapable of doing any research yourself?
He believs what he NEEDS to believe.
I believe what the evidence shows to be true.
Post by krp
When Moore tells him something he
WANTS to hear he just BUYS it! Hook - line and sinker!
Liar.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
We're not talking about Greg, you know.
We were.
Wrong.
HE was.
Not so.
Post by krp
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
You weren't talking about CPS at all. Your comment was in reply
to mine about having to remove one's shoes (TSA requirement for air
travel).
No it wasn't. The quote above was preceded by my words 'There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?'. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REFERS DO? Certainly NOT air
travel!
Post by Kent Wills
Is there anything about which you will be honest?
You're projecting your inability to tell the truth.
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Not so, since he replied to the whole of the comment.
That's our boy Kent again.
You admitted that your mental illness is a result of your
alcoholism. There's no denying it.
If you meant something other than what you wrote, you should have
mentioned it when I asked.
The truth is you admitted you have a mental illness. Further, you
admitted it's the result of your alcoholism.
Some truths are so powerful (like your alcoholic induced mental
illness) that you can't deny them.


Dan:
Only in your mentally ill mind, pornbag.

Kenneth Robert Pangborn::
I only go by your own claims Danny Doolittle!
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
admitting that he is mentally ill.
MID <XsnGk.1001$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>

Kent Wills
2008-10-06 23:55:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:28:19 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So what's the difference? I get it, tyranny is something that happens
in other places. Not here, never!
If that's your definition, so be it. You'll find few share it.
It's not a 'definition'; it's a sarcastic comment on your not
providing one.
I did provide one once you asked. You didn't ask before I offered
the definition from Merriam-Webster.
It's not a useful one for deciding what is 'tyranny'.
Most people find MW's definitions useful. That said definitions
destroy your position doesn't make them any less useful.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Why are you lying and acting as if any request had been made
earlier?
I'm not, and that wouldn't be lying if true.
You claimed I hadn't provided a definition. Since you hadn't
requested one before hand, I wouldn't have done so.
When you asked for one, I provided one.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Redress of grievances isn't just complaining.
What do you think it is, then? 'Redress' means correction,
but even in this country, Kent, one can't get that just
by asking for it.
Sure you can.
Not for every little thing, of course.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Did you miss the point about his medical OPINION? How can an
opinion be wrong?
A medical opinion is a JUDGEMENT about facts.
With the benefit of specific knowledge.
That doesn't affect my point that a judgement can be right or wrong.
But it's more likely to be correct.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Of course
it can be wrong as no one's judgement can be perfect.
It can be, yes.
So some doctors are infallible?
I agree with you that no one's judgment can be perfect and you
deceptively act like I wasn't.
It's a sad commentary that you're need to be dishonest is so great
that you must lie about what I've stated when I'm in agreement with
you. Very sad.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
There's nothing to suggest the doctor was wrong
in regards to Lisa's daughter.
Irrelevant.
Only because it further destroys your argument.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Bullshit. You know CPS is indefensible by rational argument,
so you try to divert to the alleged details of Greg's case.
We weren't discussing CPS.
We were, actually, but for you every thread is about your hatred for
Greg and Ken.
Is there anything, anything at all, about which you will not lie?
I'm serious. I'd like to discuss something with you where you aren't
reduced to lying.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Oh wait. You see authority as tyranny.
Straw man, no one has said that all authority is tyranny.
Kenny-Bob presented the idea.
Provide a quote.
"We are a nation - a people who have issues with "authority."
That's why we are not still a British Cown [sic] Colony."
The matter at hand when Kenny-Bob posted that was authority.
Since he compared the tyranny of the British Crown with authority, he
must see the two as equal.
Wrong.
That it destroys your claim doesn't make it wrong.
Post by Andrew Usher
It's fallacious to say that because your opponent made a
comparison, he must believe that the two are equal in every respect.
In any case he never used the word 'tyranny', nor did he make an
explicit comparison.
He didn't use the word, but the idea.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
He's had enough time to correct any misunderstanding.
No, if you misunderstand something, it's not his duty to correct you.
Sure it is. If what he meant wasn't what came through, it befalls
him to make his position understood.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
He was obviously referencing social workers. The topic of
discussion is not necessrily whatever you claim it is.
At that point of his reply, the topic was the doctor's medical
opinion. No amount of spin on your part with alter this.
Not something imposed on us by some near minimum wage public hireling > imposing it on us. The very nature of
"Perforomance Agreements" if offensive to the American nature.
Doctors had not even been mentioned in the thread leading up to this.
Liar.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
So how do you think the Nazis got millions of Polish Jews
if they didn't control Poland?
Millions of Polish Jews? Millions? Plural?
There weren't even one million Polish Jews in total in Poland at
the time, let alone the plural millions.
The exact number doesn't matter. Try addressing the point.
I've noticed with you that accuracy doesn't matter.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Stalin never ruled Poland.
Again, the Soviets made it clear that the Easten Bloc states
were not to act independently. 1956 and 1968, right?
Poland was never a part of the Eastern Bloc States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Wow. Information about the countries who were members of the
Warsaw (that's in Poland, BTW) pact.
What do you think the Warsaw pact was? Are you implying that Poland
was the leader of it?
Where does one find Warsaw?
Post by Andrew Usher
It was an agreement of submission to the Soviet Union.
Uh, no.
Try reading it.
Post by Andrew Usher
In any case, you're simply wrong about the Eastern bloc. The Wikipedia
article defines it as 'the Soviet Union and countries it either
controlled
or that were its allies
A very important distinction that you are ignoring.
Post by Andrew Usher
in Central and Eastern Europe
(Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland,
Romania ...)'. The term was used that way, and you can't arbitrarily
re-define it.
I didn't. No amount of your trying to lie your way out of your
previous lie will alter this.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's generally accepted that they WERE lovers, but BEFORE either
became monarch. Further, Russia and Poland can hardly be
considered to have been 'real close allies' then
I didn't claim they were.
Yes, you did. You said they aren't 'real close allies' now but that
they were 'far closer' in the late 18th century. I drew the obvious
inference.
They were closer. I wrote exactly what I meant.
They were not closer during the late 18th century than during the
Warsaw Pact.
The Warsaw pack came AFTER, dullard.
Post by Andrew Usher
You don't know anything about Polish history, evidently.
So why do you pretend to be an expert on it?
I'm not an expert. I've never even implied I am. I do, however,
know more about it than you.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Haven't you been convicted of burglary?
No. Since I don't commit burglaries, it's unlikely I ever will
be.
Kenny-Bob, and Greg, hold the belief that everyone with the same
first and last name (even if the first name is a Usenet Nym given as a
joke that few would get) are all the same person.
So 'Kent Wills' is not your legal name?
You're learning.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
This is why Kenny-Bob claimed the David Moore he's stalking from
Calumet City, IL is the same one we know from Usenet. This is why
Greg posted probate court information about a Kent Wills in Webster
City, IA, claiming it was about me.
Well that makes sense, at least.
Post by Kent Wills
You should re-think your sources.
When you blindly accept anything David Moore has said because you're
incapable of doing any research yourself?
When have I done such?
I've checked the web site. I've followed the links to
Kenny-Bob's Usenet posts.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
We're not talking about Greg, you know.
We were.
Wrong.
No amount of your denying the truth will change the truth.
We were discussing Greg. As is so often the case on Usenet, the
subject has migrated to something else.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not so. At no time have I implied or stated that only the guilty
complain.
Post by Andrew Usher
And how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
Given that I was talking about all parents investigated by CPS,
not only guilty ones, your response can only be taken as
such an implication.
You weren't talking about CPS at all. Your comment was in reply
to mine about having to remove one's shoes (TSA requirement for air
travel).
No it wasn't.
The Google archive disagrees with you.
Post by Andrew Usher
The quote above was preceded by my words 'There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?'. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REFERS DO? Certainly NOT air
travel!
You were replying to my comment about the removal of shoes.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Is there anything about which you will be honest?
You're projecting your inability to tell the truth.
Odd that I keep proving you've lied.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
But CHIEF JUSTICE WILLS has OVERRULED that part of the rules!
Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Ken's 'no shit sherlock' clearly refers to 'not a justice', not to
anything else.
Not so, since he replied to the whole of the comment.
Post by Andrew Usher
And so I've shown that 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, ... are prime >> numbers. Further I can show that there are only finitely many more.
Wrong.
, you would say that the second poster was claiming that 2, 3, 5, etc.
are not prime?
No. The person reply was clearly referencing the first poster's
ability to show there are only finitely many more.
Unlike some, you for example, I can comprehend context.
Post by Andrew Usher
And you would continue harassing him HUNDREDS and
HUNDREDS of times about his so-called claim?
Only within the confines of your need to be dishonest.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Kent Wills
2008-10-01 00:54:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:09:15 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Greegor
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Because doing them worked? It's as plausible a guess as any.
And why would that be?
Because the claim presented is that doing them worked. This is
why I offered the guess.
Well, then I guess they did 'have to', right?
No one has claimed they 'have to.'
Greg asked why they wrote stuff, not why they did what they did.
In answer to his question of why they wrote what they did, I
offered a plausible guess. Doing the stuff worked. Since doing
it/them worked, they wrote about it.
If I didn't dumb my answer down enough, I apologize. I do have a
habit of presuming others instantly understand what I've written.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Not everyone has your issues with authority.
Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary authority is having
'issues', which we know is a code-word for mental disorder.
Actually, Greg has made it very clear he has issues with
authority. Not only in dealing with CPS.
This is not responsive to my point.
It most certainly is. That it destroys your position doesn't
negate it.
That you had to snip the part that explained my comment without
offering a counter-comment shows that you know you couldn't argue the
facts presented.
Post by Andrew Usher
<snip description>
Post by Kent Wills
There are many other examples, but I think I've made my point that
Greg is unable or unwilling to accept he advice/rulings of those in
positions of authority.
One case doesn't prove anything, does it?
It proves the topic of the case. At this point we're discussing
Greg's problems with authority.
If you'd like, I can easily cite other examples.
Post by Andrew Usher
And anyway, you've just
demonstrated my point that you believe in submitting to authority.
You didn't raise that I believe in submitting to authority. You
presented, "Apparently, not instantly submitting to arbitrary
authority is having 'issues', which we know is a code-word for mental
disorder."
No mention of me is made.
Is there a specific reason you're lying?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
It's NOT WHINING if it advocates a constructive message. It's not
whining
(obviously a prejudicial term here) just because it's one you don't
like.
Greg's been whining for years about how his methods failed.
Non-responsive again.
That you find my response impossible to counter does not make it
non-responsive.
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
There
are no guarantees when dealing with these people. How many parents, of
all
those persecuted by the system, actually do get to keep their
children?
I don't have those stats. You probably don't either.
Right. They probably don't want to disclose that information. But
since you don't know, how can you be so sure they're all guilty?
When have I claimed, either directly or through implication, that
they are all guilty?
Hint: I haven't.
Is there a specific reason for your use of deception? Do you have
the misguided belief that using it will be of benefit for you?
Post by Andrew Usher
Post by Kent Wills
Post by Andrew Usher
And
how much of their freedom did they have to give up?
None.
Contrary to what you want to present, abuse is not a freedom.
Really.
If all CPS did was stop unquestionable abuse, people wouldn't
complain about it. You know that's not true!
They investigate allegations of abuse. If the allegations are
unfounded, they can do nothing more. If they are founded, then there
are many actions they can take.
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Dan Sullivan
2008-10-02 14:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
How can anybody verify the authenticity of this
cartoon like wishful thinking outcome and
advertisement for two lawyers?
Read what was posted on FightCPS.

Call the lawyers.
Post by Greegor
Did anything about this strike you as
just a wee bit too sunny and too quick, Dan?
No.
Post by Greegor
How many such optimistic and short outcomes
have you seen in your huge experience, Dan?
More than a few.

Are you basing your question on Lisa Watkins seven plus years case?
Post by Greegor
WHY is it that these people wrote stuff
about doing services they don't even have to?
Such as?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...