"Drop the (law) suit or you're dead!"
Newsgroup Leader Kathleen ActionLyme
June 08, 2006
"Drop the (law) suit or you're dead!"
.FOX 61 NEWS VIDEO
.
June 6, 2006, re Kristine Blake: "This is a very disturbing story,
but what's even more disturbing, is that this is across the board how
the State operates."-Steve Erickson
The harassment of CT State Employee Kristine Blake: Fox 61 TV Video
(stay tuned, it is in two parts)
Erickson Interview Kristine Blake Audio June 6, 2006
Erickson Video Kristine Blake Interview June 6, 2006
Kristine Blake- false police report for "improper contact" after
filed a complaint of Department of Mental Retardation Employee Marlene
Fein, Manchester Police filed Detective Renee Ferron
Sgt Chris Davis, wanted Kristine to take a lie detector test- advised
not to comply with polygraph through police because they are rigged.
Captain of Manchester Police called her a "bitch." If she any
needed assistance from the Police, she would need to seek this
assistance through a lawyer. Manchester Police complicit in false
police complaints.
"Code of Silence: Whistleblowers are nailed... The victim always
becomes the criminal. DMR will harass you until you can't work any
more."-- Kristine Blake.
* * * *
The above case is the best proof that Connecticut is being run in a bad
way from the top down. The system has not been corrected and the abuse
only continues to get worse. Connecticut is definitely the "State of
Fear". When will it end, when will an official or agency step in and
state acting for the US Constitution and start upholding the law?
A post with links to more interviews, click
The SRV
Posted by Vikingas at 02:35 PM · (0) Comments · (0) Trackbacks ·
Permalink
Greegor
Yes, there is a short blank in the middle of the video
between the first and second part, be patient.
Very interesting.
Kristina Blake told to drop suit against DMR or die?
DMR verbally "beat down her and several others
to keep quiet about reported abuse of
a group home resident.
CT Department of Mental Retardation
Kane and Dan, please comment about this video.
dragonsgirl
Did she have breast implants?
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149804648.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Greegor
dragonsgirl
Watkins.
I appreciate your considerations.
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149808436.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Elected Newsgroup leader Chuck
more bullshit from Kathleen
Greegor
What good would fake breasts do for that, Betty?
dragonsgirl
>
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
>
> What good would fake breasts do for that, Betty?
I wouldn't know Mr Hansen, I don't have any. Mine are all natural.
Ummmm. I hate to ask, but you don't toss off to that pic do you?
Seems odd that you have a link to my photo when even I don't.
Tell us true, are you like, um, you know...smitten???
Please, say it aint so.
>
BreastImplantAwareness.org
dragonsgirl
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:3daj82l0s1iqgptaq...@4ax.com...
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/betty-wirsen.htm
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#WitchWirsen
>
>
>
http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal.htm
Greegor
> Why did you post it to ASBI? Did she have breast implants?
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
Greg wrote
> What good would fake breasts do for that, Betty?
Betty wrote (on June 8th)
> I wouldn't know Mr Hansen, I don't have any. Mine are all natural.
Betty, How exactly are you involved in the breast impant newsgroup?
You complained about something off topic there,
but given your picture and your "all natural" comment isn't
your very presence there off topic?
Whacking off to your picture?
I'm not into beastiality.
dragonsgirl
> Betty wrote (on June 8th)
> > Why did you post it to ASBI? Did she have breast implants?
>
>
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
> Greg wrote
> > What good would fake breasts do for that, Betty?
>
> Betty wrote (on June 8th)
> > I wouldn't know Mr Hansen, I don't have any. Mine are all natural.
>
> Betty, How exactly are you involved in the breast impant newsgroup?
When I consider it your business, I will let you know, else you can look at
archives to find out...or, just ask your new friend, eh?
> You complained about something off topic there,
> but given your picture and your "all natural" comment isn't
> your very presence there off topic?
Hardly...and, um...I'm just curious, while you are bitching about my
presence being off topic...how about your own? Cross dressing, transgender
and we don't know it?
>
> Whacking off to your picture?
> I'm not into beastiality.
Oh...I see.
So, the government will let you raise a dog, but not a kid?
I understand perfetly now.
Thank you for clarifying.
http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal.htm
>
0:->
It's "bestiality" stupid.
I thought you were supposed to be against obscenity.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
BreastImplantAwareness.org
dragonsgirl
Very good read for those interested in the 'quotes' of Ilena over the years.
Coleah
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:qh7m82dg8jdut8l7c...@4ax.com...
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/betty-wirsen.htm
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#WitchWirsen
BrentB
"THE WORSE THING THAT DR DOBKE EVER DID WAS KEEP YOU ALIVE"
Ilena Rosenthal
lmao,
nice website, It's like a "best of".
Greegor
Did you write this?
Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen wrote
> I have to add that it was MY fault that we divorced...I had
> found out that he cheated on me several years before
> with a truck stop hooker, giving me herpes even, a mistake
> that we really should have been able to work through
> and continued our marriage, but I was unwilling ot do
> that and instead we ended up divorcing when I had an
> affair with a woman in the trailer park...
>
> I had dated my boss (who was married) for
> about a year by this time.
dragonsgirl
I've been looking for the culprit.
Did you?
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149996489.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
dragonsgirl
Oh, psssst, just so you know, you really should check headers and what not
before you go accusing someone of writing something.
The post you mention, for instance, has headers that look like this:
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!sn-xit-08!
sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: johncwir...@mchsi.com (WitchWirsen)
Newsgroups:
alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.adoption.issues,alt.support.childf
ree
Subject: Re: TO WITCH WIRSEN
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:01:07 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <418a5037...@news.supernews.com>
References: <4189a85b...@news.supernews.com>
<_viid.362630$D%.67239@attbi_s51> <_8oid.1655$Fk7...@sam.nntpserver.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Complaints-To: ab...@supernews.com
Lines: 574
The one that I actually wrote that is slightly similar to this post you
refer to, has headers that look like this:
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews
.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.
net!attbi_s54.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "WitchWirsen" <johncwir...@mchsi.com>
Newsgroups: alt.adoption.issues
References: <AQigd.333410$D%.11750@attbi_s51>
<20041029092805...@mb-m10.aol.com>
Subject: Re: Tie the child to a chair?????
Lines: 281
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <xfugd.271277$wV.45596@attbi_s54>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.218.119.120
X-Complaints-To: ab...@mchsi.com
X-Trace: attbi_s54 1099067485 12.218.119.120 (Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:31:25 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:31:25 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:31:25 GMT
Can you find the differences, or should we turn out the lights for you and
tell you to pretend it's your ass? Ooops, wait, you can't find that with
both hands either.
I've never posted from Forte Free, or anything other than my own IPS,
mediacom and sbcglobal.
Don't believe me?
Check for yourself, I am sure there are lots of posts in the archives for
you to do so with.
The post you refer to was in a thread ADDRESSED TO ME.
Now, why would I address a post to myself?
Get it?
While we are on the subject of said, and who did not say what, didn't you
say you were accused of sexual abuse of a child and that child was removed
from her home because of it?
>
Greegor
No. Where did that text first appear?
Was it in a newsgroup, or a weblog?
dragonsgirl wrote:
> Nope.
> I've been looking for the culprit.
> Did you?
Greg wrote
> Betty:
> Did you write this?
[text in question redacted]
Greegor
> accused of sexual abuse of a child and that child
> was removed from her home because of it?
Nope.
Removed without court order for three weeks.
For clutter.
Only later, scared that they didn't have diddly
for a case, did a caseworker commit perjury
by swearing that I had a sex abuse history.
Did you write this one Betty?
From: Dragon's Girl Date: Tues, May 2 2006 11:24 pm
...
Everyone on usenet knows that my name is Betty Wirsen and I live in
Springfield Missouri. I even gave Greg my cell phone number before I
changed cities last year, and invited him to call me to verify my
identity.
...
BrentB
"YOU DISGUSTING FAT, UGLY PIGFACE"
on the floor again
in case taken wrongly those who follow the banter in mha understand it
gets hot now and then. It's usenet after all. you are merely showing us
some very good flames. funny at least to me... in the future could you
cite the source?
dragonsgirl
"BrentB" <borger...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150039173.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Happy to.
There you will see many of the other quotes.
I certainly don't think they are 'good flames'.
These comments are, to me, akin to the head of the Black Lung association
asking a victim if he want's lump of coal in his Christmas stocking.
Very off color, unprofessional, and exceptionally vile and vicious.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.breast-implant/msg/50f2df260588d975?dmode=source&hl=en
If you are in doubt of the statements, please do look up the complete thread
and note that Ilena Rosenthal admits that she sent this message privately to
the recipient.
She states that it was after so much torment, etc and she was sick of the
harassment as her excuse for her statements....as if her 'killfile' doesn't
work, eh?
>
0:->
> Betty wrote
>> accused of sexual abuse of a child and that child
>> was removed from her home because of it?
>
> Nope.
> Removed without court order for three weeks.
> For clutter.
>
> Only later, scared that they didn't have diddly
> for a case, did a caseworker commit perjury
> by swearing that I had a sex abuse history.
Then who don't you and Lisa drive right over there and pick that little
girl up and bring her back to her mother?
>
>
> Did you write this one Betty?
> From: Dragon's Girl Date: Tues, May 2 2006 11:24 pm
> ...
> Everyone on usenet knows that my name is Betty Wirsen and I live in
> Springfield Missouri. I even gave Greg my cell phone number before I
> changed cities last year, and invited him to call me to verify my
> identity.
> ...
>
Did you check the headers?
By the way, what has this to do with the subject?
0:->
BreastImplantAwareness.org
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/betty-wirsen.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#WitchWirsen
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/PropagandistProbert.htm
Wirsen continues to spread Probert's lie that he was never a lawyer
and thus never disbarred. Two pees in a pod.
dragonsgirl
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:gfko821jp1461vqpv...@4ax.com...
Greegor
I notice that you didn't deny what the post said.
Do you deny the Lesbo affair and having Herpes?
Why haven't you filed a libel/slander suit?
Wouldn't your SLAPP friends help?
Is it true you said you resemble Marilyn Monroe?
dragonsgirl
I told you that I did not write the post.
Need I pick out, point by point, things that I did not say and explain them
to you?
Are you that childish, or would you prefer I lead you by the hand because
you are mentally incapable of discerning (given that you have been pointed
to BOTH posts, and shown which is written by me and which is not) what I did
and did not write?
Is it my job to educate you?
I've tried for over a year to show you how you could have handled your
issues with DFS better, as have others, yet you refuse to 'hear' and instead
choose to allow your 'paramour's' child to remain in the custody of a
grandmother who you tell us is insane and unfit under the guise of
protecting your rights.
To hell with the rights of the child, right Greg?
If you would like to pursue discussions I think it would be wise for you to
investigate issues and comments before making issues and comments of your
own.
That way you don't come off looking like such a fool.
>
Greegor
> I told you that I did not write the post.
> Need I pick out, point by point, things that
> I did not say and explain them to you?
Nope. I picked them out and asked.
Do you deny the Lesbo affair?
Do you deny having Herpes?
Why haven't you filed a libel/slander suit?
Wouldn't your SLAPP friends help?
Is it true you said you resemble Marilyn Monroe?
(That last one wasn't IN the post in question.)
Peter Bowditch
>Two pees in a pod.
That would be a very wet and smelly pod.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
dragonsgirl
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150069040....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Betty wrote
> > I told you that I did not write the post.
> I acknowledged that assertion already.
>
> > Need I pick out, point by point, things that
> > I did not say and explain them to you?
>
> Nope. I picked them out and asked.
>
> Do you deny the Lesbo affair?
I am married...to a man.
I have five children, all of which I gave birth to.
Is this typical 'lesbo' behavior?
Can you do math?
I've never had an affair with a 'lesbo', to answer your question directly.
Have you?
>
> Do you deny having Herpes?
LOL
Yes.
I most certainly deny having herpes.
But, just out of curiousity, if I did, what difference would it make?
I don't have HIV, Hepatitis, Herpes, or any other sexually transmitted
disease.
I, quite frankly, am not 'friendly'...am not a whore...wish we could all say
the same, huh?
>
> Why haven't you filed a libel/slander suit?
Against whom?
>
> Wouldn't your SLAPP friends help?
What are 'slapp' friends?
I have no friends who go by any such definition.
I have friends who are 'vets', friends who are 'DAR', friends who are 'cpa',
'rn' etc...
I have no idea what a 'slapp' friend is.
>
> Is it true you said you resemble Marilyn Monroe?
Bette Midler.
>
> (That last one wasn't IN the post in question.)
Dennis and his ever popular wit, I see.
>
free_...@cpswatchlive.com
"Let me tell you something about 'overweight'...
I'm about 60 pounds overweight and when I walk into a social gathering I am
the focus of ALL male attention.
I can go to clubs for college students and my younger brothers marvel at
how the college boys want to dance with me, want to talk to me, want to buy
me drinks, etc.
I can even go into a strip club and men there will totally ignore women on
the stages to talk to me.
I guess one could say I am pretty hot.
Now, my husband, I think is handsome to no end, but there have been many
rude individuals who have said things like 'What is a woman like you doing
with someone that looks like him?' and even he has made comments about how
he flashes my picture at work and all the guys on the job site want to know
how he caught me."
-----------------------
http://tinyurl.com/naac7
http://tinyurl.com/naac7
------------------------
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha
Coleah
who was allegedly up on child molestation was guilty as sin.
He seems to have a fascination with things of a sexual nature
(besides have an ilk of the same propensity). Shivers............
<free_...@cpswatchlive.com> wrote in message
news:20060612071435.172$u...@newsreader.com...
dragonsgirl
Hmmmm, and yet there is no reference in this post to sexually transmitted
diseases, lesbians, or Marilyn Monroe.
BreastImplantAwareness.org
BreastImplantAwareness.org <B...@mundo.com> wrote:
>Two pees in a pod.
Peter Bowditch - wrote:
That would be a very wet and smelly pod.
Indeed it is ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm#Ratbags
dragonsgirl
"Coleah" <col...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:128qsh0...@corp.supernews.com...
> Betty, it's becoming more obvious that this Greg poster guy
> who was allegedly up on child molestation was guilty as sin.
> He seems to have a fascination with things of a sexual nature
> (besides have an ilk of the same propensity). Shivers............
>
>
It's a 'family rights' group, but in all honesty, I believe that most of the
family rights groups are really 'parents do what they want to with their
kids' groups.
I believe that most of them do not agree with parents being held accountable
for abuse and neglect of their children.
They don't believe that DFS should interfere with the rights of parents to
raise their children any way they see fit...even if their philosophies
include sexual abuse, withholding of food, maintaining children in filthy
cockroach infested homes, drug abuse, etc.
They, apparently, see absolutely nothing wrong with substance abuse in
pregnancy.
They simply don't believe that DFS should interfere with the rearing of
children, no matter what the reason.
No rights for the children in question, only the parents who abuse them.
To them, I am a mythical creature...I gained court ordered custody of a
grandchild that was in foster care via Greene County Missouri courts.
They don't believe that could ever happen because they have dubbed Greene
County Missouri one of the planet's most corrupt counties.
They cite insufficient cause for removals, improper handling of cases,
rubber stamping by judges, and more.
They claim that DFS covers their asses when they do wrong...even if you
point out case after case of DFS and it's employees being held accountable
in the media and in court charges around the country.
They claim that DFS never follows it's own mandates, and 'makes up the rules
as they go along'.
They say that families with open DFS cases are made to jump through hoops.
When I dispute all of the above they have little hissy fits.
They simply cannot believe that I went to court, got custody of my grandson,
and started adoption with little more than several weeks of a reunification
program by DFS...which I enjoyed and was sorry to see end.
They say that caseworkers 'drive' around neigborhoods looking for kids to
'snatch'.
I say that I thought most of the workers that I have dealt with are pretty
nice ladies...in fact, I pointed out that one, when my grandson was
originally removed from my care, looked more upset about it than I was.
A foster worker was so happy that my grandson was leaving foster care that
she bought him a bag full of 'coming home' gifts...one of which is the blue
and red Polo outfit you see him wearing in his first year photos.
I dispute much of what they say about DFS, and believe that when families
are in DFS crisis some of them attempt to lead the families down a road of
distruction by convincing them that 'they have rights' and that they don't
have to allow a worker to look at and talk to their kids, they don't have to
comply with court orders, they don't have to do anything because this is a
free country, and they have rights.
Unfortunately, those who have followed have come to disasterous
results...the loss of their children, some jailed, etc.
They fail to understand that it's not about 'parental rights', it is about
'children's rights.'
I was very pleased to see an activist talk, in the ASCPS, the other day
about protecting the rights of INNOCENT parents, those who have been accused
of abuse or neglect who comitted none.
Those are the people who have rights.
The parents who abuse and neglect do not have rights.
We can take Greg Hanson for example...living with his GF, he was sole
caretaker of his GF daughter while she worked every day.
He says that he gave her a cold shower as punishment for wetting herself.
He says that at the age of six or seven, he was attending to the child while
she showered.
He says that he did nothing wrong.
He said that he has rights.
He said that he does not have to comply with DFS demands, he's not jumping
through any hoops, and he asks over and over again about 'his' case...not
realizing that HE had no case with DFS...he had no child in which he was the
legal guardian, and so, no case exists for him.
He doesn't think that he did anything wrong.
And neither do his cronies...forcing a child to take cold showers as
punishment is child abuse. Sorry. It's a fact.
You just can't tell these people that. They think they are above the law,
and if you look at things with an unbiased eye, then you are 'one of them'.
Utterly ridiculous.
dragonsgirl
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:cn3r82dv1ds5lsjov...@4ax.com...
0:->
I never stop marveling at the studious and valuable contributions you
make to this ng.
Jan Drew
He said.. (addressing rednecks) think about it before you get a tattoo.
Mommy, Mommy, I don't want to go to stay with Grandma, she has
a nasty mean bird on her shoulder.
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:cn3r82dv1ds5lsjov...@4ax.com...
>
>
Jan Drew
"dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wugjg.44349$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal.htm
Isn't that just too precious? After all the squawking about IIena's
websites!!!!
Greegor
does it look like THIS?
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
How could you possibly compare your obese
self to this picture of Bette Midler?
http://www.bradleycenter.com/image/bette03.jpg
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
v
http://www.bradleycenter.com/image/bette03.jpg
dragonsgirl
> Betty, When your husband shows off your picture
> does it look like THIS?
>
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
>
> How could you possibly compare your obese
> self to this picture of Bette Midler?
> http://www.bradleycenter.com/image/bette03.jpg
Same way you compare yourself to a parent???
Will Ketcher
website pages. The abuse and libel didn't seem to make you flinch one
bit!
You wouldn't be complaining about retaliation would you?
Jan Drew
dragonsgirl
Is Jan complaining?
Well ain't that a bitch?
Never a word from her lips on the lies and deceit passed along for 'facts'
by certain other web pages, and then when one posts pages that actually show
quotes and nothing more than opinion, a 'squalking' starts?
Off to google...this I GOTTA see.
"Will Ketcher" <will_k...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150154170....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dragon's Girl
Jan Drew wrote:
> "dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:wugjg.44349$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal.htm
>
> Isn't that just too precious? After all the squawking about IIena's
> websites!!!!
> >
I'm sorry Jan...someone had to tell the truth, and it obviously wasn't
going to be YOU!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Interesting read, is it not?
Never mind, don't bother answering, I'm not coming back to google
groups to check for your reply, you aren't worth all that effort.
Greegor
Would fake boobs help this female?
www.exploretravel.com/upperlevel/slides/Namibia_Web/NamibiaImages/TalaPhoto0007.jpg
or this one?
http://www.chaosproject.com/Humour/showme.jpg
or these?
http://www.disturbingauctions.com/thumbnails/campbells.jpg
0:->
I take it that you think this is your personal message service.
dragonsgirl
all.
BTW, I didn't look at the links...I imagine they are more drivel LOL
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150235615....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Greegor
> Pretty sexist of you to assume that breast
> implants can 'help' anyone at all.
I thought I was more specific than that.
Your photo for example.
Or a Rhinocerous?
0:->
a porno movie of a little girl.
No?
Tell me, who bring it up, unless you are willing to support your claim?
Insinuation again?
Baseless nonsense accusations?
Feel free to not respond as I'll feel free to point out you haven't.
0:->
--
dragonsgirl
Hey!
That's some pretty big talking shit for a guy who's embarrassed to show HIS
face on the internet (and a few other places, I'm sure)
LOL
>
>
dragonsgirl
Oh yeah, forgot to mention, the fat jokes? Don't bother me a bit...know
why?
I'm chunky because I have thyroid disease.
Makes my hair fall out in clumps from time to time, as well as causing me
not to be hungry for days on end, swelling, menstrual irregularities, etc.
It's, quite simply, not because I'm a glutton or lazy, it's because I have a
disease, so fat jokes don't bother me in the least.
Apparently YOU think that everyone who is over weight is because of some
fault of their own.
Sad.
You are one of the most biased people I have ever had the displeasure of
knowing.
LOL
>
>
Coleah
You tell him Betty!
0:->
He has studiously avoided answering my question about what the two women
that tried to steal children being or not being lesbians had to do with
kidnapping or selling children.
Do you suppose he's sitting the contemplating that he could indeed have
been a bigoted fool all his life?
Will he reform?
Naw, that takes work. He won't even go to the trouble of attributing,
fully, those remarks of others he is responding to.
A classic passive aggressive. No wonder he's shit scared of a psych
eval. He might learn the terribly truth and be faced with the horrendous
task of WORKING HIS WAY OUT OF HIS SOCIAL DYSFUNCTIONS.
It would explain his loser status.
0:->
--
Greegor
about problems with breast implants?
You do not and will not be a candidate for
breast implants, so why harass the people
who have leaking implants?
Are you Bipolar?
There seems to be a strong correlation
between Bipolar Manic Depression and
Thyroid problems.
dragonsgirl
> Betty, Why do you harass the people speaking out
> about problems with breast implants?
Harass?
I believe I have asked you already, and you failed to answer...
How does one go about harassing when they have no contact with
individuals?
If you don't call by telephone, write by postal mail, write by email,
go to their home, contact persons in the same manners described
above who are relative or friends of same then how, exactly, have you
'harassed'
someone?
And who, exactly, would you be referring to?
You can, most assuredly, search out Usenet archives for my 'harassment',
which is
really nothing more than expressing my opinion...and find that I have
harassed no one.
If you can, please provide the proof.
>
> You do not and will not be a candidate for
> breast implants, so why harass the people
> who have leaking implants?
I have harassed people with breast implants?
When did I do that?
If I recall correctly, and I am *MOST* certain that I do,
I have never so much as written a harsh word to a breast
implanted woman.
Some people that I am familiar with have not only harassed them,
but tried to make them lose their jobs, contacted their families, and
wrote vicious words to them publicly.
I have done none of the above.
Please outline this 'harassment' of people with breast implants.
And while you are at it, please explain to us what your
sudden interest in breast implants, breasts, lesbians, and all things
sexual related is of late.
I would be interested in knowing.
>
> Are you Bipolar?
Hardly.
Do you have CD?
> There seems to be a strong correlation
> between Bipolar Manic Depression and
> Thyroid problems.
Where?
I would certainly like to see the evidence of this.
Please provide it at your earliest convenience.
Thanks in advance.
>
0:->
Why is it you have so much curiosity, at the moment but not before, in
anything BUT the challenges I made to you recently?
Want to be seen as a coward?
Okay. Keep dodging.
dragonsgirl
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h9OdncXSvLxjEhLZ...@scnresearch.com...
Tell me, Kane, since I respect your opinion...
what, exactly, is the definition of 'harassment'?
Legal or moral definition would suffice.
Before you lay it on me, I would like to state that it's been
my experience that 'harassment' has to include some kind of person to person
contact...personal emails, postal letters,
telephone calls, actual face to face contact, you know...that kind of thing.
I've not done any of the above with ANYONE.
I'm curious to know how I have managed to 'harass' someone without comitting
acts of harassment.
Can you explain that to me, as you have been so kind in the past with
explaining things that I did not completely understand.
Thanks in advance, I look forward to your reply.
Have a good day OS.
Betty
0:->
MMMmmm....interesting question. Thank you for your trust, by the way.
Unless you have knowingly with intent threatened, abused, or otherwise
attacked the people of the target group, I do not think you are guilty
of "Harassment."
I do think that one of the prime harassers in this group though is
confused about which posts and comments are yours. Seems he has a little
trouble with attributions.
Probably a result of his lack of familiarity with them from continuously
aborting them in his replies to others. He even dumps his own comments
from prior posts so, I presume, he won't be so easily seen as harassing.
He'll lie about you and what you said...no kinder term is deserved. It's
deliberate lying, obviously.
He looks right AT one's words, then starts a fresh post and re-frames
your words into intentions NOT apparent by any means in your actual
words and the full context of them.
That would be an example of low level harassment.
Harassment would be, when verbal, after being told to stop posting
deliberately endangering information to continue to do so.
You don't harass.
I haven't followed all your posts that involve or respond to the breast
implant involved people, but the few I've seen don't constitute harassment.
Now we'll wait and see if, after your second request, he finally gets
around to posting something to support his insinuating question.
The classic, "When did you stop beating your spouse." one.
If he can point to a post, NOT re frame it, and NOT quote it out of
context, and ask you to explain it as not being harassing, then he might
have something.
I'm sure if he did you'd admit to it. As would I.
I have harassed him from time to time. Most deliberately. And for cause.
He leaves others, with his lying and dodging, little choice but to
engage in long running repetition of the same question/theme until he
answers, or shows what he is by not answering.
I ran one for two years before he finally answered straight forward to
the question I had asked.
In a way, HE was harassing by not answering such a simple but vital
question.
But I don't back off from being exact in my language. I did in fact
deliberately harass of a single issue, until he answered.
Others might not consider it harassment. But I'm not shy.
Of course He'd never admit his postings consist nearly entirely of
calculated harassment.
And done NOT to get important information (his questions to you are
ludicrously stupid and empty of meaning) but simply to avoid the other
challenges he's faced in these ngs that he cannot answer without
revealing what low life scum he really is.
Greegor
> He's also avoided my question about 'harassment'.
It was a tense 4 minutes there between 1:10 PM when
you asked that question and 1:14 PM when you
asserted that I avoided it.
What IS your involvement with the breast implant
survivors group, exactly? Why do you hang out there?
dragonsgirl
> Betty wrote
> > He's also avoided my question about 'harassment'.
>
> It was a tense 4 minutes there between 1:10 PM when
> you asked that question and 1:14 PM when you
> asserted that I avoided it.
I asked the question, whether phrased exactly so or somewhat differently
comes out to the same, before.
You did not address my question then either, just as you are not addressing
it now.
If you make the claim that I am harassing breast implanted women could you
be so kind as to state HOW I have harassed them, and provide links to the
statements I have made in harassment of breast implanted women?
>
> What IS your involvement with the breast implant
> survivors group, exactly? Why do you hang out there?
You are posting there as well.
Not only are you posting there, but you are posting there without having,
obviously, a clue as to the nature of the group...you say 'breast implant
survivors group'.
Guess what?
It's 'breast implant support'...the group is not for only survivors.
So, back to your question...
I am QUITE certain you know why I post there...
What is YOUR reason?
>
BreastImplantAwareness.org
Good Day all ...
Responses to BJ's constant obsessive libelous statements at:
dragonsgirl
And then after you read that drivel with no foundation in fact go to
http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal9.htm
and
http://www.bettywirsen.com/ilena%20rosenthal.htm
to read about the advocacy work of one woman (and I use the term 'woman'
loosely)
0:->
> Betty wrote
>> He's also avoided my question about 'harassment'.
>
> It was a tense 4 minutes there between 1:10 PM when
> you asked that question and 1:14 PM when you
> asserted that I avoided it.
It was not a tense, but noticed two years when I asked you a question,
and continued to, until you answered it. 0:->
And I can tell you I'm just on tenterhooks waiting for you to resolve
this intense research on Betty and her involvement with the ills of
breast implant surgery, and can get back to some of my more recent
challenges to you.
> What IS your involvement with the breast implant
> survivors group, exactly? Why do you hang out there?
Fuck you.
Greegor
I'm just glad that I could repay you just
a little for the kindness you have shown me
over the last 5 years. :)
0:->
What has a conversation with Betty to do with your or my kindly exchanges?
Greegor
Did you know that Federal stats counting abused children
are not based on actual abuse but "At Risk Of" abuse?
Whenever the system suck goons throw around the
numbers for abuse they are extending a LIE.
Those kids they throw around in propaganda?
Not actual abuse.
Mostly "At Risk of Abuse" based on US DHHS standards.
And that's without the neglect stats.
Pro system propagandists often lump the
abuse category right in with the neglect category.
If the "abuse" category is that sleazy, can you
guess how the much larger slippery slope
of neglect is inflated by the "at risk of" net?
You seem to know the difference between
actual abuse and actual neglect.
Did you think the US DHHS (Funding) definition
of abuse and neglect are NOT using a common
sense definition of those two things?
Keep in mind that with your family history
and your own record, the goons could easily
find you guilty of anything they wanted under
the "AT RISK OF" umbrella.
I even recall seeing you justifying your
assault on a child? Sure makes you RISKY!
Participating in group harassment of somebody
on the internet? Hmm..
Have you had many false accusations through CPS?
Did you know that in cases where people start
making lots of false reports to the hotline,
sheer numbers will force CPS to remove children?
(Didn't you notice how bad it looks when something
goes wrong and the newspaper article reports
that they got many calls but never removed?)
Whatcha gonna do when the witch hunt
comes to get you, witchwirsen?
Remember you only have to be AT RISK OF being a witch.
dragonsgirl
> Betty:
> Did you know that Federal stats counting abused children
> are not based on actual abuse but "At Risk Of" abuse?
>
> Whenever the system suck goons throw around the
> numbers for abuse they are extending a LIE.
>
> Those kids they throw around in propaganda?
>
> Not actual abuse.
>
> Mostly "At Risk of Abuse" based on US DHHS standards.
>
> And that's without the neglect stats.
>
> Pro system propagandists often lump the
> abuse category right in with the neglect category.
>
> If the "abuse" category is that sleazy, can you
> guess how the much larger slippery slope
> of neglect is inflated by the "at risk of" net?
>
> You seem to know the difference between
> actual abuse and actual neglect.
>
> Did you think the US DHHS (Funding) definition
> of abuse and neglect are NOT using a common
> sense definition of those two things?
>
> Keep in mind that with your family history
> and your own record, the goons could easily
> find you guilty of anything they wanted under
> the "AT RISK OF" umbrella.
Ahhhhhh, but see, Greg, that's where you are way offfffff. way off.
I had DFS ever present for quite some time.
I have no record what so ever, I have no open cases with DFS, and my
lifestyle has changed considerably from several years ago.
Maybe, at that point in time, there was a 'risk of harm'...but that no
longer exists...and I think DFS is smart enough to know that.
I also think they are smart enough to know when it does.
>
> I even recall seeing you justifying your
> assault on a child? Sure makes you RISKY!
I did not 'justify'.
I admitted my wrong.
I did feel threatened.
I did react instinctively.
That is not a justification.
Well, maybe if it were you it would be.
>
> Participating in group harassment of somebody
> on the internet? Hmm..
Now you wouldn't be trying to threaten me would you Greg?
>
> Have you had many false accusations through CPS?
Have you?
>
> Did you know that in cases where people start
> making lots of false reports to the hotline,
> sheer numbers will force CPS to remove children?
Another threat Greg?
>
> (Didn't you notice how bad it looks when something
> goes wrong and the newspaper article reports
> that they got many calls but never removed?)
Well now, I think that might be where DFS gets some people...see, some don't
understand that to make a DFS report they have to give some ACCURATE
information...say, for instance, they would have to say 'Jane Doe was having
a party and smoking pot with her ten year old'.
Then when DFS looks into it, they quickly find out that Jane doesn't even
have a ten year old TO smoke pot with.
There is a vast difference between giving information that is contrived and
giving information that is ...well, simply there for the sake of harassment.
They do know the difference.
>
> Whatcha gonna do when the witch hunt
> comes to get you, witchwirsen?
Hmmmmm. Sounds like yet ANOTHER threat.
Good.
Keep making them.
I'll just keep saving them for future reference.
>
0:->
> Betty:
> Did you know that Federal stats counting abused children
> are not based on actual abuse but "At Risk Of" abuse?
Did you know that nearly every single one of those arises out of a case
of actual abuse? Routinely when police investigators, for instance, turn
children over to CPS for placement, it's based on the officer's judgment
that the child would be at risk of further abuse if left in the home?
Do you find it illogical to assume that if ONE child is abused in a
home, his or her siblings are then At Risk of Harm as well?
> Whenever the system suck goons throw around the
> numbers for abuse they are extending a LIE.
No, I'm afraid it's you that is lying. And there are not "system suck
goons" here. That's just your sad little attempt at insinuating what is
not true. Every single person here with a few notable exceptions are
more balanced and fair and refuse to get on YOUR bandwagon...hence you
wish to presume they are for CPS and against your little personal war.
> Those kids they throw around in propaganda?
No kids are thrown around. Did you bother to read, since you are so fond
of claiming I claimed the data lies (I made NO such claim) my post to
Doug who reckoned that CPS Oregon had data showing reductions in death
and abuse in that state that in fact it was exactly the opposite?
The have had a 10 year trend upward. And last year to this a decided
increase.
It's not propaganda. It's injured and dead children.
> Not actual abuse.
Risk of harm is defined by law as abusive. If a child, for instance, is
afraid they are going to be injured, abused, then they have been. It
works just like assault laws. If someone threatens to harm you and you
have reason to believe they have both means and intent and you are
afraid they will....they HAVE BY LAW ASSAULTED YOU.
A child that has to live in fear of their caregiver is in fact abused.
That's why we speculate in this newsgroup that YOU are in fact a child
abuser.
> Mostly "At Risk of Abuse" based on US DHHS standards.
Which is as I just stated. Look it up, dummy.
> And that's without the neglect stats.
Yes, that's without the neglect stats. Which would seriously ADD to the
abuse outcomes because "neglect" is responsible for more fatalities to
children than "physical abuse."
> Pro system propagandists often lump the
> abuse category right in with the neglect category.
For very good reason. They are all injurious to children. Do you think
neglect is just "not paying attention?"
It's "not paying attention," to things that ignored can result in injury
and death to the child.
> If the "abuse" category is that sleazy, can you
> guess how the much larger slippery slope
> of neglect is inflated by the "at risk of" net?
Since neglect is, and has been told to and proven to you with citations
likely dozens if not hundreds of times in these ngs, I would suggest
that "neglect" does not inflate anything at all, other than to add an
even more dangerous condition to children at risk.
> You seem to know the difference between
> actual abuse and actual neglect.
I venture Betty knowns more than just that. She knows potential. She
knows that living in neglectful circumstances alone and by itself is
debilitating to children. They live with dread, fear, hunger,
loneliness, hopelessness, and often pee themselves out of fear of sick
caregivers that then set up more fear and aversive punishments for the
child.
> Did you think the US DHHS (Funding) definition
> of abuse and neglect are NOT using a common
> sense definition of those two things?
Your insinuation is based on your own farts, child.
The definition has nothing to do with funding.
It has everything to do with outcomes for children, and later by
extension, to the larger society when the child becomes an adult, or
even a teen.
Your definitions seem to be crying for the law and society to ignore at
risk children until enough harm is done that it falls under a single
category...abuse.
The problem is these events and circumstances in a child's life ARE
abusive by their very outcomes.
> Keep in mind that with your family history
> and your own record, the goons could easily
> find you guilty of anything they wanted under
> the "AT RISK OF" umbrella.
What are you suggesting?
> I even recall seeing you justifying your
> assault on a child? Sure makes you RISKY!
"Justifying?" Pointing out she was being attacked is "justifying?" Even
you can't be this callous, Greg, can you?
> Participating in group harassment of somebody
> on the internet? Hmm..
Your proof would be?
Just the ravings of a nut case claiming they were harassed.
> Have you had many false accusations through CPS?
Why would you ask such a leading question? Have you some intent to do
harm here, Greg?
> Did you know that in cases where people start
> making lots of false reports to the hotline,
> sheer numbers will force CPS to remove children?
That is a blatant lie and you have NO proof that this is so. In fact the
most it can do is trigger and investigation. Is that not logical and
sensible if they receive a number of calls?
> (Didn't you notice how bad it looks when something
> goes wrong and the newspaper article reports
> that they got many calls but never removed?)
Yep...which proves YOU are lying, when you say, "sheer numbers will
force CPS to remove children."
> Whatcha gonna do when the witch hunt
> comes to get you, witchwirsen?
Why, Greg, would it come to Betty? Who is going to see that it does?
I could understand if you were saying "if" it comes to her, but 'when it
comes?'
Greg, I believe you just threatened Betty with a flurry of calls to CPS.
> Remember you only have to be AT RISK OF being a witch.
And added this to try and instill fear in her.
You, Greg, only have to make certain threats to be at risk yourself.
dragonsgirl
And the funny thing about it is that, should a DFS worker pay me a visit on
'rataliation reports', they not only log those incoming calls (you know, for
just in case false reports are made for the sake of harssment), but we have
the name of the person who made the threat.
Silly.
It sure didn't make any sense for Greg to do that.
And in a public newsgroup to boot.
Now THAT, is harassment.
I KNEW Greg didn't need the definiitons that Mark Probert provided him.
0:->
Greg thinks it clever debate to demand answers to his questions, no
matter how pointless and no matter how much it should be HIS
responsibility to find the answers to, so as to avoid actually
responding to the challenges presented to him.
A standard ploy of his when he's been proven wrong is to just go off in
another direction as though the challenge was not made.
Especially if it involves claiming you made a statement that now needs
to be researched and explained in depth, such as, challenging him to
come up with proof of his allegations and him arguing what the 'g' in
allegations means.
Such a child.
And of course it's about harassment. He has nothing else to offer.
0:->
Jan Drew
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> Greg thinks it clever debate to demand answers to his questions, no matter
> how pointless and no matter how much it should be HIS responsibility to
> find the answers to, so as to avoid actually responding to the challenges
> presented to him.
>
> A standard ploy of his when he's been proven wrong is to just go off in
> another direction as though the challenge was not made.
> 0:->
Who was that...again?
A excellent account of Mark Probert.
Look it up, dummy.
Mark Probert
Again, you ascribe to me your own short comings.
>
> Look it up, dummy.
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150761855....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Doug
> actual abuse? Routinely when police investigators, for instance, turn
> children over to CPS for placement, it's based on the officer's judgment
> that the child would be at risk of further abuse if left in the home?
Hi, Kane,
You could not be further from the truth. The fact is that most "at risk"
determinations in a substantiated finding do not involve actual abuse or
neglect, but risk alone. And most substantiated findings are made on the
basis of risk.
The defining criteria for NCANDS data sets are really quite clear.
"Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes
that the allegation of maltreatment *OR* risk of maltreatment was
supported or founded by State law or State policy. This is the
highest level of finding by a State agency." http://tinyurl.com/cw4vk
"Or" not "And."
NCANDS records CPS dispositions alone, NEVER determinations or findings
made by police officers.
More pertinent to what we discuss in this newsgroup, an UNSUBSTANTIATED
finding by CPS means that there was NEITHER reason to suspect actual
maltreatment OR reason to suspect risk of maltreatment. In 2004, 71,000
children were forcibly removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for either
risk of or actual maltreatment.
"Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there is not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude OR
suspect that the child has been maltreated OR is at risk of being
maltreated."
http://tinyurl.com/cw4vk
Further, while removals are rarely done by police on the officer's
determination, the NCANDS data is based on CPS's finding of actual
maltreatment OR risk of maltreatment. (Police in almost all the states are
empowered to remove children without a court order -- as are physicians --
but it is rarely done. CPS workers have much less unilateral authority and
are supposed to get a court order before removal).
> Do you find it illogical to assume that if ONE child is abused in a home,
> his or her siblings are then At Risk of Harm as well?
Not illogical at all. In fact, in this situation, this is exactly what
happens. The siblings are substantiated as subjects of a substantiated
finding on the basis of risk of maltreatment. The maltreated child is the
subject of a substantiated finding on the basis of actual maltreatment.
Both are listed as victims in NCANDS data. The siblings are decidedly not
nonvictims or subjects of an unsubstantiated finding.
> No kids are thrown around. Did you bother to read, since you are so fond
> of claiming I claimed the data lies (I made NO such claim) my post to Doug
> who reckoned that CPS Oregon had data showing reductions in death and
> abuse in that state that in fact it was exactly the opposite?
Kane, you cut and pasted the following:
"In Oregon, 10,186 victims of child abuse and neglect were identified by
DHS/SCF in the year 2000 (a 9.4% decrease from the previous year.) There
were 35, 552 reports (up 2.5% from the previous year) of child abuse or
neglect made to DHS/SCF. The number of reports shows a 51% increase since
1991."
I pointed out that there was a decrease in number of child victims of abuse
and neglect of 9.4% from 1999. At the same time, there was an increase of
2.5% in reports of abuse and neglect over 1999.
Several forms of child maltreatment showed a marked decline nationwide in
2004, the most recent data available from NCANDS. http://tinyurl.com/r59pf
"Rates of substantiated sexual abuse dropped by 6 percent in 2004 compared
to the previous year, capping a 49 percent total decline since 1992. Rates
of physical abuse declined by 11 percent from 2003 to 2004, making for a
total 43 percent reduction since a peak in 1992. Neglect also declined 6
percent over the one year period."
The professor from UNH (the anti-spanking den) that you are so fond of
quoting finds the decrease in child maltreatment over the past few years an
actual decline and encouraging news.
"'These are very encouraging,' said David Finkelhor, professor of sociology
and director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the
University of New Hampshire, who has been studying these declines.
http://tinyurl.com/r59pf
"'For several years people thought these declines were statistical flukes or
they attributed them to changes in the way cases were being investigated or
reported.' But Finkelhor and his colleagues' investigation into the details
of the declines, in addition to their breadth and durability, have convinced
him that fewer children really are being maltreated.
"He said other sources of data have shown parallel declines, and other
related indicators like running away, delinquency, and teen suicide have
also improved.
"Particularly notable, according to Finkelhor, is the fact that the
year-to-year declines in 2004 were the largest since 1999, and that neglect
also went down. In the past, neglect did not decline along with other forms
of maltreatment. http://tinyurl.com/r59pf
"Finkelhor thinks that the declines are related to a variety of social
changes that have occurred in the last generation. He cites more awareness
about child maltreatment, improved parenting practices, and more effective
treatment for family and mental health problems, including psychiatric
medications.
"The data showing the decline come from state child protection agencies and
are aggregated by the federal government. They cover offenses against
children committed primarily by parents and other caretakers. They do not
cover most of the crimes against children committed by strangers and more
distantly related individuals." http://tinyurl.com/r59pf
Finkelhor is pulling his data from NCANDS, of course. Child Maltreatment
2004: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System" can be found on the web at: http://tinyurl.com/o9fdk
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm
Greegor
stats will come as a shock to many if not MOST
Family Rights advocates. I am certain that this
technicality about the stats never occurred to most.
I propose a PR campaign just to point out that detail.
It seems likely that the much larger Neglect
category also included this same sort of distortion.
Is there any way to devine how many kids
marked down in the Neglect category were
unreasonably included using the "at risk" loophole?
In the end, EVERY time some pro agency
propaganda says XXX kids were abused last year
they are actually telling a LIE as a result of this
wide net cast for FUNDING, right?
I knew the numbers were distorted, but
never imagined they were distorted in this
way or to this extent!
No wonder Kane is now suddenly turning
against the statistics! It's a riot!
Greegor
> Hmmmmm. Sounds like yet ANOTHER threat.
> Good.
> Keep making them.
> I'll just keep saving them for future reference.
Save your delusions all you want.
Maybe you can send them to Kane and
he can store them next to his "bodily fluids"
in jars on the shelf ala "Dr. Strangelove"..
0:->
Greegor, means and intent are not a "bodily fluids" concept, but in fact
a legal one.
Why not, for your own sake, do a little research...for a change, eh?
Instead of trying to bluff your way out of the fuck-up, as you have
tried in the past.
Didn't work then, isn't going to now.
You said "when" not if.
Your attitude is notorious about "evil CPS" so put the two together, and
the fact you mentioned the easy access to the phone and flurry of calls
to CPS, and IF BETTY OR I HAD SAID IT YOU'D BE SCREAMING YOUR HEAD OFF
WITH ACCUSATIONS.
You know it. I know it. The readers of these ngs know it.
Bluff is not going to work.
I'd suggest a straight out statement that you fucked up, didn't mean
that, and would never think of doing it, and were only trying to be
kindly to an Internet 'friend.'
Or you can continue to bullshit your way along. Your choice.
Greegor
"EACH CHILD in your family has a 1 in 25
chance of being the subject of a child
abuse/neglect investigation this year. On
the other hand the chances of getting a
flat tire on the family car is 1 in 70
(including Firestones)."