Dan skewered by "tacit admission" then tries it IMPROPERLY
Greegor
> On Dec 20, 4:16 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 1:09 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 11:59 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, 12:49 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 20, 8:46 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Are you listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry for sexual abuse
> > > > > > of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter, grag? Or physical abuse?
> > > > > Never. You're projecting again!
> > > > I'm just questioning your earlier statement, grag, "I am now a
> > > > "founded" child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold
> > > > shower."
DJS3 > Was the CPS determination regarding your behavior sexual abuse
No it was not.
DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
Forced physically? No. Commanded.
Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
Not on paper!
G > Do you honestly think that a cold shower
G > meets the technical legal requirement to
G > qualify as child abuse, Dan?
Failure to answer directly. Yes or no.
DJS3 > Evidently the authorities in Iowa believe
This is always a brain storm kind of comment.
DJS3 > what you did to the little
DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
That is NOT what they put down on paper.
DJS3 > The fact that you failed to say which form
DJS3 > of abuse it was is a tacit admission it
DJS3 > was determined to be sexual abuse.
Just a bit heavy handed with the meaning of
"tacit" aren't you? Not only are you saying
that failure to answer regarding something
means something MUCH larger, but you
presume a non-answer before I had TIME
to answer!
Will you accuse me of a tacit admission
for failing to answer a question you never
even asked, next?
DJS3 > Right, grag?
Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
And what you describe would be a criminal charge, not family court.
Dan, Are you saying that having a kid take
a fast cold shower is child abuse?
Please be very clear on this point. Yes or no.
And then turn around and try to declare yourself
to be an advocate for Family Rights against CPS.
Dan Sullivan
> On Dec 20, 8:24 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 4:16 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 1:09 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 11:59 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 20, 12:49 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 20, 8:46 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Are you listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry for sexual abuse
> > > > > > > of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter, grag? Or physical abuse?
> > > > > > Never. You're projecting again!
> > > > > I'm just questioning your earlier statement, grag, "I am now a
> > > > > "founded" child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold
> > > > > shower."
>
> DJS3 > Was the CPS determination regarding your behavior sexual abuse
>
> No it was not.
You forced an unrelated, naked, seven year old girl to take a cold
shower as punishment and CPS did NOT determine it was sexual abuse,
grag??
I don't believe you.
> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>
> Forced physically? No. Commanded.
And the little girl "stripped" and jumped into a cold shower on your
command without you ever having to touch her at all, grag?
I don't believe you.
> Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
>
> DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
>
> Not on paper!
Then what kind of abuse was it when you said "I am now a "founded"
child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold shower."
> G > Do you honestly think that a cold shower
> G > meets the technical legal requirement to
> G > qualify as child abuse, Dan?
>
> Failure to answer directly. Yes or no.
I believe that you forcing an unrelated naked seven year old girl to
take a cold shower as punishment was sexual abuse, grag, because I
believe you got sexual gratification from what you did.
How many times did you force her to take a cold shower, grag?
> DJS3 > Evidently the authorities in Iowa believe
>
> This is always a brain storm kind of comment.
>
> DJS3 > what you did to the little
> DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
>
> That is NOT what they put down on paper.
What did they put down on paper?
> DJS3 > The fact that you failed to say which form
> DJS3 > of abuse it was is a tacit admission it
> DJS3 > was determined to be sexual abuse.
>
> Just a bit heavy handed with the meaning of
> "tacit" aren't you? Not only are you saying
> that failure to answer regarding something
> means something MUCH larger,
Not much larger, based on the information YOU POSTED.
> but you
> presume a non-answer before I had TIME
> to answer!
You responded TWICE to my question, whether it was physical or sexual
abuse, 1 - "Never. You're projecting again!," and 2 - "Do you
honestly think that a cold shower meets the technical legal
requirement to qualify as child abuse, Dan?" and now you're claiming
you didn't have "TIME to answer?"
> Will you accuse me of a tacit admission
> for failing to answer a question you never
> even asked, next?
I asked the question TWICE, grag.
> DJS3 > Right, grag?
>
> Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
You also claimed you were a "founded child abuser."
> And what you describe would be a criminal charge, not family court.
I asked whether the CPS finding of abuse made in regard to your
maltreatment of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter was sexual or
physical.
Neither criminal nor family court.
> Dan, Are you saying that having a kid take
> a fast cold shower is child abuse?
I'm saying you were founded by CPS for sexual abuse because you forced
an unrelated naked seven year old daughter to take cold showers as
punishment.
> Please be very clear on this point. Yes or no.
>
> And then turn around and try to declare yourself
> to be an advocate for Family Rights against CPS.
grag, if I learned you forced my seven year old daughter to take a
cold shower as punishment, I do far worse to you than the grandfather
of Lisa Watkins' daughter did.
Greegor
> On Dec 21, 12:34 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:24 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 4:16 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 1:09 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 20, 11:59 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 20, 12:49 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 20, 8:46 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Are you listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry for sexual abuse
> > > > > > > > of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter, grag? Or physical abuse?
> > > > > > > Never. You're projecting again!
> > > > > > I'm just questioning your earlier statement, grag, "I am now a
> > > > > > "founded" child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold
> > > > > > shower."
DJS3 > Was the CPS determination regarding your behavior sexual abuse
G > No it was not.
DJS3 > You forced
Commanded.
DJS3 > an unrelated, naked, seven year
DJS3 > old girl to take a cold shower as
DJS3 > punishment
And to wash off PEE.
DJS3 > and CPS did NOT determine it
DJS3 > was sexual abuse, grag??
DJS3 > I don't believe you.
Aww! Poor little Danny!
Gonna hold your breath and jump up and down?
That's what Moe's going to do!
DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
DJS3 > And the little girl "stripped" and jumped
DJS3 > into a cold shower on your command
DJS3 > without you ever having to touch her at all, grag?
Yes, and I collected the peed clothes to put directly in the washing
machine.
DJS3 > I don't believe you.
Dan, You've been bitching about me for YEARS.
Was I supposed to expect you would suddenly kiss my ass?
G > Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
G > Not on paper!
DJS3 > Then what kind of abuse was it
DJS3 > when you said "I am now a "founded"
DJS3 > child abuser for making a 7 year old
DJS3 > take a fast cold shower."
Dan, Do you think it should have been sexual
abuse for making a kid take a cold shower?
G > Do you honestly think that a cold shower
G > meets the technical legal requirement to
G > qualify as child abuse, Dan?
G > Failure to answer directly. Yes or no.
DJS3 > I believe that you forcing an unrelated
DJS3 > naked seven year old girl to take a
DJS3 > cold shower as punishment was
DJS3 > sexual abuse, grag, because I believe
DJS3 > you got sexual gratification from
DJS3 > what you did.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > How many times did you force her
DJS3 > to take a cold shower, grag?
Two or 3, until she decided she would rather
miss 5 minutes of school in the bathroom.
She stopped fighting with her own bladder
and losing.
She was so excited about class that she
didn't want to miss 5 minutes.
DJS3 > Evidently the authorities in Iowa believe
G > This is always a brain storm kind of comment.
DJS3 > what you did to the little
DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
G > That is NOT what they put down on paper.
DJS3 > What did they put down on paper?
Neglect. I told you that before.
DJS3 > The fact that you failed to say which form
DJS3 > of abuse it was is a tacit admission it
DJS3 > was determined to be sexual abuse.
G > Just a bit heavy handed with the meaning of
G > "tacit" aren't you? Not only are you saying
G > that failure to answer regarding something
G > means something MUCH larger,
DJS3 > Not much larger, based on the
DJS3 > information YOU POSTED.
G > but you presume a non-answer before
G > I had TIME to answer!
DJS3 > You responded TWICE to my question, whether
DJS3 > it was physical or sexual abuse, 1 - "Never.
DJS3 > You're projecting again!," and 2 - "Do you
DJS3 > honestly think that a cold shower meets the
DJS3 > technical legal requirement to qualify as child
DJS3 > abuse, Dan?" and now you're claiming
DJS3 > you didn't have "TIME to answer?"
So you had TWO answers, yet you thought the
"tacit" thing was a game you could play?
Like your spelling gotcha that backfired?
Dork!
In answer to whether it was physical abuse
or sexual abuse, it was neither.
It was marked as neglect.
G > Will you accuse me of a tacit admission
G > for failing to answer a question you never
G > even asked, next?
DJS3 > I asked the question TWICE, grag.
And got two answers, Dork!
DJS3 > Right, grag?
G > Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
DJS3 > You also claimed you were a "founded child abuser."
And you think you have a GOTCHA, right?
When I said that did I know the difference between abuse and neglect?
And what IS the difference, legally speaking, Dan?
G > And what you describe would be a criminal charge, not family
court.
DJS3 > I asked whether the CPS finding of abuse
DJS3 > made in regard to your maltreatment
Why DO you adopt the language that is
itself the rhetoric of the Child protection INDUSTRY?
Nothing was called "maltreatment" in 2001, Dork!
Child Abuse and Neglect, often lumped together
to misrepresent what's really going on.
DJS3 > of Lisa Watkins' seven year old
DJS3 > daughter was sexual or physical.
DJS3 > Neither criminal nor family court.
G > Dan, Are you saying that having a kid take
G > a fast cold shower is child abuse?
DJS3 > I'm saying you were founded by CPS for
DJS3 > sexual abuse because you forced
Maybe you should TELL THEM THAT!
I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear from you!
DJS3 > an unrelated naked seven year old daughter
DJS3 > to take cold showers as punishment.
And to wash off PEE.
> > Please be very clear on this point. Yes or no.
You just can't give a straight answer, can you?
Telling a kid to take a cold shower to wash off
pee is sexual abuse in your dirty mind?
You're just a pervert, Dan!
That's why your family had to undergo 20+
investigations and you were FOUNDED
for 5 of them, one for Child Sexual Abuse.
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
G > And then turn around and try to declare yourself
G > to be an advocate for Family Rights against CPS.
DJS3 > grag, if I learned you forced my seven year
DJS3 > old daughter to take a cold shower as
DJS3 > punishment, I do far worse to you than
DJS3 > the grandfather of Lisa Watkins' daughter did.
You claim you caused your family to endure
22+ investigations for Child Abuse and 5 of them
were marked FOUNDED, one of those was for
Child Sexual Abuse.
When you hooked up with Susan, did she
have any kids already?
Did you tell her about your 20+ investigations
and your 5 FOUNDEDS, one for Child Sexual Abuse?
If she had any kids already, and their Dads
found out a guy with your history moved in
with their kids, what then?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>DJS3 > Was the CPS determination regarding your behavior sexual abuse
>
>G > No it was not.
>
>DJS3 > You forced
>
>Commanded.
Presumably with a threat of physical abuse added on.
>
>DJS3 > an unrelated, naked, seven year
>DJS3 > old girl to take a cold shower as
>DJS3 > punishment
>
>And to wash off PEE.
A warm shower would have done that just as well.
>
>DJS3 > and CPS did NOT determine it
>DJS3 > was sexual abuse, grag??
>
>DJS3 > I don't believe you.
>
>Aww! Poor little Danny!
>
>Gonna hold your breath and jump up and down?
>That's what Moe's going to do!
>
When, outside of drug induced delusions, has Moe claimed she is
going to do such?
>
>DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>
>G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>
If a threat of physical violence is made, it's not a command, but
force.
Is this what occurred?
>DJS3 > And the little girl "stripped" and jumped
>DJS3 > into a cold shower on your command
>DJS3 > without you ever having to touch her at all, grag?
>
>Yes, and I collected the peed clothes to put directly in the washing
>machine.
Uh huh.
Why didn't you have her do it? She wet them.
>
>DJS3 > I don't believe you.
>
>Dan, You've been bitching about me for YEARS.
Dan's not a big fan of CPS shills, so his doing as you claim is
easy to believe.
>Was I supposed to expect you would suddenly kiss my ass?
>
>G > Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
>
>DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
>
>G > Not on paper!
>
>DJS3 > Then what kind of abuse was it
>DJS3 > when you said "I am now a "founded"
>DJS3 > child abuser for making a 7 year old
>DJS3 > take a fast cold shower."
>
>Dan, Do you think it should have been sexual
>abuse for making a kid take a cold shower?
Avoidance of the question asked noted.
Now that you've played the avoidance card, please answer the
question Dan asked.
>
>G > Do you honestly think that a cold shower
>G > meets the technical legal requirement to
>G > qualify as child abuse, Dan?
>
>G > Failure to answer directly. =A0Yes or no.
>
Why do your posts CONSTANTLY have the "=A0" all over them? I've
yet to see a single post from you over the past few weeks where they
aren't present.
They appear in Pangborn's as well, but to a lesser degree.
>DJS3 > I believe that you forcing an unrelated
>DJS3 > naked seven year old girl to take a
>DJS3 > cold shower as punishment was
>DJS3 > sexual abuse, grag, because I believe
>DJS3 > you got sexual gratification from
>DJS3 > what you did.
>DJS3 >
>DJS3 > How many times did you force her
>DJS3 > to take a cold shower, grag?
>
>Two or 3, until she decided she would rather
>miss 5 minutes of school in the bathroom.
>
>She stopped fighting with her own bladder
>and losing.
First you claimed it occurred at school. Then you claimed she
was outside playing with her friends. Now she's back at school.
I do wish you'd pick a lane.
>
>She was so excited about class that she
>didn't want to miss 5 minutes.
>
>DJS3 > Evidently the authorities in Iowa believe
>
>G > This is always a brain storm kind of comment.
>
>DJS3 > what you did to the little
>DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
>
>G > That is NOT what they put down on paper.
>
>DJS3 > What did they put down on paper?
>
>Neglect. I told you that before.
And as I've proved, multiple times, neglect is a form of abuse.
You can whine about it all you want, and further PROVE your guilt
by doing so, all you need. The truth remains the truth.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 12:34�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 8:24�pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 4:16�pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 20, 1:09 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 20, 11:59 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > > > > On Dec 20, 12:49 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Dec 20, 8:46 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Are you listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry for sexual abuse
>> > > > > > > of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter, grag? Or physical abuse?
>> > > > > > Never. �You're projecting again!
>> > > > > I'm just questioning your earlier statement, grag, "I am now a
>> > > > > "founded" child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold
>> > > > > shower."
>>
>> DJS3 > Was the CPS determination regarding your behavior sexual abuse
>>
>> No it was not.
>
>You forced an unrelated, naked, seven year old girl to take a cold
>shower as punishment and CPS did NOT determine it was sexual abuse,
>grag??
>
>I don't believe you.
They clearly found it to be abuse, unless Greg LIED about being
listed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry (he's RUN from every request to
prove the claim).
>
>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>>
>> Forced physically? � No. �Commanded.
>
>And the little girl "stripped" and jumped into a cold shower on your
>command without you ever having to touch her at all, grag?
>
>I don't believe you.
The mere THREAT of physical assault may have been enough to
motivate her to do as Greg demanded. As such, it is possible he had
no physical contact with her in regards to the above mentioned
incident.
>
>> Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
>>
>> DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
>>
>> Not on paper!
>
>Then what kind of abuse was it when you said "I am now a "founded"
>child abuser for making a 7 year old take a fast cold shower."
He's flat out lying. DHS is required by law to inform the
accused via mail. As such, it was on paper.
>
>> G > Do you honestly think that a cold shower
>> G > meets the technical legal requirement to
>> G > qualify as child abuse, Dan?
>>
>> Failure to answer directly. �Yes or no.
>
>I believe that you forcing an unrelated naked seven year old girl to
>take a cold shower as punishment was sexual abuse, grag, because I
>believe you got sexual gratification from what you did.
By Greg's own standards, it was PROVED he touched the little
girl's genital area. It's not difficult to imagine that he was
sexually aroused by forcing her to take a cold shower. Gratification
may have occurred at the same time, or later while fantasizing about
her.
>
>How many times did you force her to take a cold shower, grag?
>
>> DJS3 > Evidently the authorities in Iowa believe
>>
>> This is always a brain storm kind of comment.
>>
>> DJS3 > what you did to the little
>> DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
>>
>> That is NOT what they put down on paper.
>
>What did they put down on paper?
I doubt Greg will even acknowledge the question. If he does, he
will try to distract attention from it by trying to change the
subject.
>
>> DJS3 > The fact that you failed to say which form
>> DJS3 > of abuse it was is a tacit admission it
>> DJS3 > was determined to be sexual abuse.
>>
>> Just a bit heavy handed with the meaning of
>> "tacit" aren't you? �Not only are you saying
>> that failure to answer regarding something
>> means something MUCH larger,
>
>Not much larger, based on the information YOU POSTED.
Greg is upset that the standards he DEMANDS for others are being
used against him.
>
>> but you
>> presume a non-answer before I had TIME
>> to answer!
>
>You responded TWICE to my question, whether it was physical or sexual
>abuse, 1 - "Never. You're projecting again!," and 2 - "Do you
>honestly think that a cold shower meets the technical legal
>requirement to qualify as child abuse, Dan?" and now you're claiming
>you didn't have "TIME to answer?"
Greg's admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause him
difficulty in telling time.
>
>> Will you accuse me of a tacit admission
>> for failing to answer a question you never
>> even asked, next?
>
>I asked the question TWICE, grag.
And he answered, as you prove above.
I find it interesting that he's presenting that he didn't.
>
>> DJS3 > Right, grag?
>>
>> Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
>
>You also claimed you were a "founded child abuser."
As Greg is well aware, neglect is abuse under Iowa law. No
amount of his crying about it will change this simple truth.
>
>> And what you describe would be a criminal charge, not family court.
>
>I asked whether the CPS finding of abuse made in regard to your
>maltreatment of Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter was sexual or
>physical.
>
>Neither criminal nor family court.
Greg is DESPERATE to distract from the truth that it was sexual.
>
>> Dan, Are you saying that having a kid take
>> a fast cold shower is child abuse?
>
>I'm saying you were founded by CPS for sexual abuse because you forced
>an unrelated naked seven year old daughter to take cold showers as
>punishment.
>
AND sexual stimulation. By Greg's own standards, any claim made
by a caseworker is 100% true and accurate, it was PROVED he sexually
abused Lisa's little girl.
>> Please be very clear on this point. �Yes or no.
>>
>> And then turn around and try to declare yourself
>> to be an advocate for Family Rights against CPS.
>
>grag, if I learned you forced my seven year old daughter to take a
>cold shower as punishment, I do far worse to you than the grandfather
>of Lisa Watkins' daughter did.
Grandpa was punished far too harshly. I wasn't consulted, of
course, but had I been, I would have suggested a one dollar fine and
15 minutes of community service, which would be met by kicking Greg in
a place that would minimize his sexual interest in any children, at
least for a while.
--a true story
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
Greegor
DJS3 > was sexual abuse, grag??
DJS3 > I don't believe you.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d31c8107-3ee9-43c6...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> DJS3 > and CPS did NOT determine it
> DJS3 > was sexual abuse, grag??
> DJS3 > I don't believe you.
>
> I believed you, when you said:
>
> Feb 2002
> Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
And the next three sentences were...
The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
That's exactly what the CW wrote in my case record and THEN the CW
wrote."We didn't know what the child was trying to say!"
How can something be credible if you didn't know what they were
saying?
The erroneous "founded" determination was reversed by the State.
Greegor
DJS3 > was sexual abuse, grag??
DJS3 > I don't believe you.
Dan Sullivan
You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
"commanded" her back into the shower.
When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
> DJS3 > And the little girl "stripped" and jumped
> DJS3 > into a cold shower on your command
> DJS3 > without you ever having to touch her at all, grag?
>
> Yes, and I collected the peed clothes to put directly in the washing
> machine.
>
> DJS3 > I don't believe you.
>
> Dan, You've been bitching about me for YEARS.
> Was I supposed to expect you would suddenly kiss my ass?
>
> G > Forced in the sense that she was ordered and complied.
>
> DJS3 > Or did CPS conclude it was physical abuse?
>
> G > Not on paper!
>
> DJS3 > Then what kind of abuse was it
> DJS3 > when you said "I am now a "founded"
> DJS3 > child abuser for making a 7 year old
> DJS3 > take a fast cold shower."
>
> Dan, Do you think it should have been sexual
> abuse for making a kid take a cold shower?
As I've already said, what YOU did to the little girl, yes, I believe
it was sexual abuse.
And I believe there were more contact that you aren't revealing.
I believe there was physical contact prior to your touching the girl
in the bathroom.
IOW you worked up to that level of contact.
And you've also claimed CPS made up a prior history of sexual abuse.
Why would CPS fabricate a prior history of sexual abuse when they had
credible evidence you had inappropriate physical contact with an
unrelated naked seven year old girl?
Why did you claim you were a "founded abuser," back then and
subsequently claim it was neglect?
Is your memory better NOW compared to your memory back when it
happened, grag?
> DJS3 > The fact that you failed to say which form
> DJS3 > of abuse it was is a tacit admission it
> DJS3 > was determined to be sexual abuse.
>
> G > Just a bit heavy handed with the meaning of
> G > "tacit" aren't you? Not only are you saying
> G > that failure to answer regarding something
> G > means something MUCH larger,
>
> DJS3 > Not much larger, based on the
> DJS3 > information YOU POSTED.
>
> G > but you presume a non-answer before
> G > I had TIME to answer!
>
> DJS3 > You responded TWICE to my question, whether
> DJS3 > it was physical or sexual abuse, 1 - "Never.
> DJS3 > You're projecting again!," and 2 - "Do you
> DJS3 > honestly think that a cold shower meets the
> DJS3 > technical legal requirement to qualify as child
> DJS3 > abuse, Dan?" and now you're claiming
> DJS3 > you didn't have "TIME to answer?"
>
> So you had TWO answers,
I had two responses, NOT answers to the questions.
> yet you thought the
> "tacit" thing was a game you could play?
>
> Like your spelling gotcha that backfired?
>
> Dork!
>
> In answer to whether it was physical abuse
> or sexual abuse, it was neither.
> It was marked as neglect.
>
> G > Will you accuse me of a tacit admission
> G > for failing to answer a question you never
> G > even asked, next?
>
> DJS3 > I asked the question TWICE, grag.
>
> And got two answers, Dork!
That's a proven lie, grag.
> DJS3 > Right, grag?
>
> G > Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
>
> DJS3 > You also claimed you were a "founded child abuser."
>
> And you think you have a GOTCHA, right?
>
> When I said that did I know the difference between abuse and neglect?
Is that going to be your excuse?
> And what IS the difference, legally speaking, Dan?
You still don't know?
LOL!!!
Kent Wills
And Greg HATES that. You beat the CPS he loves so much.
--a true story
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[Snips for brevity]
>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>>
>> G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>
>You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
>seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
>"commanded" her back into the shower.
>
>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>
I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
and am correct.
[...]
>>
>> Dan, Do you think it should have been sexual
>> abuse for making a kid take a cold shower?
>
>As I've already said, what YOU did to the little girl, yes, I believe
>it was sexual abuse.
There was NO reason for Greg to have been in the room while the
little girl was showering. None.
Well, aside from his sexual interest, of course.
>
>And I believe there were more contact that you aren't revealing.
I agree.
>
>I believe there was physical contact prior to your touching the girl
>in the bathroom.
>
>IOW you worked up to that level of contact.
I believe this occurred as well.
I know of no way to have this belief proved to be truth or not, so
it will likely remain nothing more than a belief.
[...]
>>
>> DJS3 > what you did to the little
>> DJS3 > girl WAS abuse, based on your admission.
>>
>> G > That is NOT what they put down on paper.
>>
>> DJS3 > What did they put down on paper?
>>
>> Neglect. I told you that before.
>
>And you've also claimed CPS made up a prior history of sexual abuse.
>
>Why would CPS fabricate a prior history of sexual abuse when they had
>credible evidence you had inappropriate physical contact with an
>unrelated naked seven year old girl?
He touched her genital area with his bare hands. According to
Greg's own standards, this was PROVED to have occurred.
>
>Why did you claim you were a "founded abuser," back then and
>subsequently claim it was neglect?
Neglect is abuse, as Greg is well aware. I cited applicable law.
If anyone wants/need me to do so, I can find the post on Google.
>
>Is your memory better NOW compared to your memory back when it
>happened, grag?
It appears to be worse.
Greg will often ask the same questions multiple times after
answers have been given. Unless he's offering proof of his
psychological INABILITY to be honest each time he's presented the
questions, he's showing that his memory is very poor.
Greg would know which is the case, though I don't expect him to
ever tell us.
[...]
>>
>> DJS3 > You responded TWICE to my question, whether
>> DJS3 > it was physical or sexual abuse, 1 - "Never.
>> DJS3 >=A0You're projecting again!," and 2 - "Do you
>> DJS3 > honestly think that a cold shower meets the
>> DJS3 > technical legal requirement to qualify as child
>> DJS3 > abuse, Dan?" and now you're claiming
>> DJS3 > you didn't have "TIME to answer?"
>>
>> So you had TWO answers,
>
>I had two responses, NOT answers to the questions.
>
In Greg's mind, when he replies, he's answering, even if the
reply has NO connection to the question raised.
>> yet you thought the
>> "tacit" thing was a game you could play?
>>
[...]
>>
>> DJS3 > I asked the question TWICE, grag.
>>
>> And got two answers, Dork!
>
>That's a proven lie, grag.
Most would see it as a lie. Greg will try to play word games and
make it appear as if his nonsense replies qualify as answers.
>
>> DJS3 > Right, grag?
>>
>> G > Don't you WISH I hadn't said "neglect" over and over?
>>
>> DJS3 > You also claimed you were a "founded child abuser."
>>
>> And you think you have a GOTCHA, right?
>>
>> When I said that did I know the difference between abuse and neglect?
>
>Is that going to be your excuse?
There is no difference since neglect is abuse.
>
>> And what IS the difference, legally speaking, Dan?
>
>You still don't know?
>
>LOL!!!
The answer is simple. There is no difference.
I cited applicable law, that was in effect at the time Greg was
abusing Lisa's little girl, that neglect is abuse. No amount of
Greg's LYING will alter this simple truth.
--a true story
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ukn3j5dcgucouicgd...@4ax.com...
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
>>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>>>
>>> G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>>
>>You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
>>seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
>>"commanded" her back into the shower.
>>
>>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
>>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>>
>
> I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
> has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
> and am correct.
Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit
1 : expressed or carried on without words or speech <the blush was a tacit
answer - Bram Stoker>
2 : implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually
expressed <tacit consent> <tacit admission of guilt>
Sometimes claiming silence is a "tacit admission" is just bullshit.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ukn3j5dcgucouicgd...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Snips for brevity]
>
> >>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>
> >>> G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>
> >>You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
> >>seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
> >>"commanded" her back into the shower.
>
> >>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
> >>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>
> > I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
> > has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
> > and am correct.
>
> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
> You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit
>
> 1 : expressed or carried on without words or speech <the blush was a tacit
> answer - Bram Stoker>
Bram Stoker hardly was a good writer. Ever actually read "
Dracula"? He did a lot of melodrama and barely repressed sexuality.
The three female vampires on Renfield was a badly hidden group sex
scene.
> 2 : implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually
> expressed <tacit consent> <tacit admission of guilt>
And your silences mean?
>
> Sometimes claiming silence is a "tacit admission" is just bullshit.
In the case of you and Greg, your silences are indications of trying
not to admit wrongs or errors in your claims.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ukn3j5dcgucouicgd...@4ax.com...
>>
>> [Snips for brevity]
>>
>>>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>>>>
>>>> G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>>>
>>>You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
>>>seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
>>>"commanded" her back into the shower.
>>>
>>>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
>>>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>>>
>>
>> I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
>> has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
>> and am correct.
>
> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
>You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
You're going to harp on a typo?
If it was so bad that you couldn't understand the intended
meaning, or if you had made a joke about it, that would have been fine
with me. Given how poor your spelling and grammar is, you have no
grounds to comment on the spelling of others in the manner you do.
Why, exactly, are you so determined to PROVE yourself the
worthless hypocrite you are? Has anyone ever questioned you being
such?
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit
>
>1 : expressed or carried on without words or speech <the blush was a tacit
>answer - Bram Stoker>
>2 : implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually
>expressed <tacit consent> <tacit admission of guilt>
>
>
>
> Sometimes claiming silence is a "tacit admission" is just bullshit.
>
But Gregborn Logic� DEMANDS that it is an admission 100% of the
time.
Since you helped "create" that which I call Gregborn Logic�, you
MUST follow it. And you do, unless you can distract from the truth by
not using it, as you've done in the post to which I am replying.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
>> >>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>>
>> > I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
>> > has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
>> > and am correct.
>>
>> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
>> You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit
>>
>> 1 : expressed or carried on without words or speech <the blush was a tacit
>> answer - Bram Stoker>
>
> Bram Stoker hardly was a good writer. Ever actually read "
>Dracula"? He did a lot of melodrama and barely repressed sexuality.
>The three female vampires on Renfield was a badly hidden group sex
>scene.
You act as if that's a bad thing :-)
>
>> 2 : implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually
>> expressed <tacit consent> <tacit admission of guilt>
>
> And your silences mean?
>
>>
>> Sometimes claiming silence is a "tacit admission" is just bullshit.
>
> In the case of you and Greg, your silences are indications of trying
>not to admit wrongs or errors in your claims.
By the standards of Gregborn Logic�, it's an admission of guilt.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in misc.legal
that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
krp
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:12:03 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ukn3j5dcgucouicgd...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> [Snips for brevity]
>>>
>>>>> DJS3 > because you forced the naked little girl into the shower?
>>>>>
>>>>> G > Forced physically? No. Commanded.
>>>>
>>>>You were in the bathroom of the mobile home with an unrelated naked
>>>>seven year old girl, and you put your hands on her and physically
>>>>"commanded" her back into the shower.
>>>>
>>>>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
>>>>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
>>> has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
>>> and am correct.
>>
>> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
>>You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
>
> You're going to harp on a typo?
Not just a typo. A TYPO could have been to type in TACET instead of TACIT.
You typed TACTILE (meaning touch). NOT EVEN CLOSE BONEHEAD!
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>> I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
>>>> has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
>>>> and am correct.
>>>
>>> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
>>>You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
>>
>> You're going to harp on a typo?
>
>Not just a typo. A TYPO could have been to type in TACET instead of TACIT.
>You typed TACTILE (meaning touch). NOT EVEN CLOSE BONEHEAD!
So you are going to further PROVE you only post while drunk by
harping on a typo. Got it.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, expressing his
fondness for child porn in Message-ID: <RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
womanGoddess
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:52:16 -0800 (PST), womanGoddess
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> >>When you issued your command do you think the little girl complied
> >> >>because she thought you were going to manhandle her again?
>
> >> > I suggested something very similar. As of my writing this, Greg
> >> > has opted to give the tactile admission, by his standards, that I was
> >> > and am correct.
>
> >> Alas Poor KUNT WILLS and his arrogance. "TACTILE?" Look the word up.
> >> You MAY have meant "TACIT" instead.
>
> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tacit
>
> >> 1 : expressed or carried on without words or speech <the blush was a tacit
> >> answer - Bram Stoker>
>
> > Bram Stoker hardly was a good writer. Ever actually read "
> >Dracula"? He did a lot of melodrama and barely repressed sexuality.
> >The three female vampires on Renfield was a badly hidden group sex
> >scene.
>
> You act as if that's a bad thing :-)
Naw it's not. Stoker was still part of Victorian England, which was
highly sexually repressed.
Makes me think either the trio were very lonely or Renfield was
gorgeous.
>
>
>
> >> 2 : implied or indicated (as by an act or by silence) but not actually
> >> expressed <tacit consent> <tacit admission of guilt>
>
> > And your silences mean?
>
> >> Sometimes claiming silence is a "tacit admission" is just bullshit.
>
> > In the case of you and Greg, your silences are indications of trying
> >not to admit wrongs or errors in your claims.
>
> By the standards of Gregborn Logic , it's an admission of guilt.
>
> "you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
> -- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
> owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in misc.legal
> that David Moore can
> and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
> Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Moe