Idea For An iPhone Type Application
Onideus Mad Hatter
Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
before?
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm � x �
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.uncensored-inter.net
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Freedom, true freedom, is nothing more than intellectual advantage over others."
"When I listen to people I don't really listen to what it is they're
saying, so much as what they're saying it for."
"Don't ever fuck with someone who has more creativity than you do."
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."
"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"
"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."
"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."
"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"
"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Rev Turd Fredericks
> Okay, you know how they have those like "Amber Alert" thingies, right?
> Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
> So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
> picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
> had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
> before?
>
with it. 1) if a child goes missing in the middle of the night, you
don't want to get a phone call telling you as you are in no position to
act on it. 2) every time you get a call, it takes 1 minute off your
quota. It's fine if you have unlimited, but you don't want to lose 233
(according to wikipedia) minutes a year due to Amber alerts that you are
unlikely to be able to do anything about. 3) many cell phone providers
already have an opt in free text list where you can receive amber alerts
for free and I presume if it's for your area you can go to a website to
see the picture. That said, you could deign an app whereby if you did
receive the text message, you could hit the app button and it would take
you to the picture. I doubt anyone would pay for such an app though.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> > Okay, you know how they have those like "Amber Alert" thingies, right?
> > Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
> > So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
> > picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
> > had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
> > before?
> >
> In principle, it's a good idea.
Most missing children are with the other parent. The initial idea with
Amber alerts on highways was to spot the rare cases of stranger
abduction in the first minutes of abduction while the abductor was
driving away with the child. Looking at pictures on cell phones and
driving don't work really well.
Amber alerts were one of those feel good ideas that initial made some
vague sense when they were electronic billboards on highways. Once they
became a web-based program/email program, they were essentially
pointless (point being to catch perps as they were driving away with the
victims, before anything bad happened).
Rev Turd Fredericks
> In article <bKZZl.217187$4p1....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>>> Okay, you know how they have those like "Amber Alert" thingies, right?
>>> Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
>>> So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
>>> picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
>>> had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
>>> before?
>>>
>> In principle, it's a good idea.
>
> Most missing children are with the other parent. The initial idea with
> Amber alerts on highways was to spot the rare cases of stranger
> abduction in the first minutes of abduction while the abductor was
> driving away with the child. Looking at pictures on cell phones and
> driving don't work really well.
A non-custodial parent making a run for the border with a kid can be
just as serious as stranger abduction.
>
> Amber alerts were one of those feel good ideas that initial made some
> vague sense when they were electronic billboards on highways. Once they
> became a web-based program/email program, they were essentially
> pointless (point being to catch perps as they were driving away with the
> victims, before anything bad happened).
Or catch them at the supermarket, or a gas station, or stuck at the side
of the road or...
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > In article <bKZZl.217187$4p1....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> >>> Okay, you know how they have those like "Amber Alert" thingies, right?
> >>> Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
> >>> So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
> >>> picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
> >>> had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
> >>> before?
> >>>
> >> In principle, it's a good idea.
> >
> > Most missing children are with the other parent. The initial idea with
> > Amber alerts on highways was to spot the rare cases of stranger
> > abduction in the first minutes of abduction while the abductor was
> > driving away with the child. Looking at pictures on cell phones and
> > driving don't work really well.
>
> A non-custodial parent making a run for the border with a kid can be
> just as serious as stranger abduction.
Bullshit. Stranger abduction is always about either (a) female
snatching a child to raise, or (b) male snatching a child to rape.
First is rather rare and generally fairly obvious. Second generally
kills the kid in the first three hours.
The original intention was NOT to have custody dispute cases be Amber
Alert cases.
Try Wikipedia's article on Amber Alerts. Crime Theatre, really.
I don't believe either parent if the divorce is nasty. A crazy chick in
NC poisoned her kids when the cops were chasing her boyfriend and her as
they drove off to hide out and fight race war in the Virginia
countryside. Then the boy friend and the crazy bitch blew themselves up
rather than get captured. The custodial parent. If her husband had kept
the kids from the bitch, they'd still be alive today. The crazy bitch's
lover murdered her mother-in-law for suggesting something was wrong with
her, and then murdered some kin of hers for wondering if the boys
wouldn't be better off with the father. Jerry Bledsoe wrote about it:
_Bitter Blood_.
Custodial parents can be as abusive and dishonest as the non-custodial
parents. The kids in NC would be alive today if their father had been
willing to break the law (and the two boys asked him to let them stay
with him but the crazy bitch in NC was politically connected).
I don't think anyone can figure out which parent is going to murder the
children to keep them away from the other parent -- and that's rather
rare but not uncommon with women (see Medea), who are likely to be the
custodial parent.
>
> >
> > Amber alerts were one of those feel good ideas that initial made some
> > vague sense when they were electronic billboards on highways. Once they
> > became a web-based program/email program, they were essentially
> > pointless (point being to catch perps as they were driving away with the
> > victims, before anything bad happened).
>
> Or catch them at the supermarket, or a gas station, or stuck at the side
> of the road or...
Most of the time, if it's one of those really bad abductions, the kid is
dead before the Amber alert goes out. Getting kids back from
non-custodial parents is generally fairly simply unless they have reason
to really run (abusive custodial parent or sociopathic lying child).
You need to read this:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/abducted/
In Philly, if the car wasn't retrieved in the first 30 minutes, it was
gone. Kids are much easier to hide and softer to cut up.
If the Amber Alerts get a kid killed fast rather than tortured slowly
over days, they might be doing some good, otherwise, not so much.
Rev Turd Fredericks
Either case deprives the custodial parent of their child and the child
of their rightful parent(s)
>
> The original intention was NOT to have custody dispute cases be Amber
> Alert cases.
>
> Try Wikipedia's article on Amber Alerts. Crime Theatre, really.
Yes I read that yesterday. It makes no difference. Both scenarios
involve stealing a child.
>
> I don't believe either parent if the divorce is nasty. A crazy chick in
> NC poisoned her kids when the cops were chasing her boyfriend and her as
> they drove off to hide out and fight race war in the Virginia
> countryside. Then the boy friend and the crazy bitch blew themselves up
> rather than get captured. The custodial parent. If her husband had kept
> the kids from the bitch, they'd still be alive today. The crazy bitch's
> lover murdered her mother-in-law for suggesting something was wrong with
> her, and then murdered some kin of hers for wondering if the boys
> wouldn't be better off with the father. Jerry Bledsoe wrote about it:
> _Bitter Blood_.
So you are saying that non-custodial parents should be able to deprive
custodial parents of custody rather than going through the courts?
>
> Custodial parents can be as abusive and dishonest as the non-custodial
> parents. The kids in NC would be alive today if their father had been
> willing to break the law (and the two boys asked him to let them stay
> with him but the crazy bitch in NC was politically connected).
If the situation was that dire the father could have broken the law.
Fact is he didn't so he probably didn't really care about his kids.
Because in this case "the bitch" was politically connected, is not a
reason to change a policy for the rest of us. I wouldn't blame the amber
alert system for this travesty.
>
> I don't think anyone can figure out which parent is going to murder the
> children to keep them away from the other parent -- and that's rather
> rare but not uncommon with women (see Medea), who are likely to be the
> custodial parent.
>
In the vast majority of cases no parent kills the kids, and they don't
kidnap them either. But the Amber alert system can help reunite
custodial parents with those who would, for example, take the kids to
Mexico never to be seen again.
>
>
>>> Amber alerts were one of those feel good ideas that initial made some
>>> vague sense when they were electronic billboards on highways. Once they
>>> became a web-based program/email program, they were essentially
>>> pointless (point being to catch perps as they were driving away with the
>>> victims, before anything bad happened).
>> Or catch them at the supermarket, or a gas station, or stuck at the side
>> of the road or...
>
> Most of the time, if it's one of those really bad abductions, the kid is
> dead before the Amber alert goes out. Getting kids back from
> non-custodial parents is generally fairly simply unless they have reason
> to really run (abusive custodial parent or sociopathic lying child).
So why take away one of the only chances of catching the abductors?
>
> You need to read this:
>
> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/abducted/
>
> In Philly, if the car wasn't retrieved in the first 30 minutes, it was
> gone. Kids are much easier to hide and softer to cut up.
>
> If the Amber Alerts get a kid killed fast rather than tortured slowly
> over days, they might be doing some good, otherwise, not so much.
With the Amber alert system there are more eyes looking out for the
abducted child. Because there are isolated incidents where it didn't
work out so well is no reason to criticize it.
Onideus Mad Hatter
wrote:
>In article <gzg_l.166762$Xo1....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> Rebecca Ore wrote:
>> > In article <bKZZl.217187$4p1....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>,
>> > Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
>> >>> Okay, you know how they have those like "Amber Alert" thingies, right?
>> >>> Well, what if they had something like that for cell phones in an app?
>> >>> So like if a child went missing you would get a phone call and the
>> >>> picture of the child would pop up on your cell phone for everyone who
>> >>> had the application. What do you think? Or has it already been done
>> >>> before?
>> >>>
>> >> In principle, it's a good idea.
>> >
>> > Most missing children are with the other parent. The initial idea with
>> > Amber alerts on highways was to spot the rare cases of stranger
>> > abduction in the first minutes of abduction while the abductor was
>> > driving away with the child. Looking at pictures on cell phones and
>> > driving don't work really well.
>>
>> A non-custodial parent making a run for the border with a kid can be
>> just as serious as stranger abduction.
>
>Bullshit. Stranger abduction is always about either (a) female
>snatching a child to raise, or (b) male snatching a child to rape.
>First is rather rare and generally fairly obvious. Second generally
>kills the kid in the first three hours.
...you uh...you really have no idea at all what you're talking about.
The last time I was in Wal*Mart and looked at the list of missing kids
and suspected adults...yeah, guess what?! Nearly ALL OF THEM were
female (the suspected/wanted adults).
And if you don't think females are into raping children...yeah, yer
livin in a fuckin bubble, Kiddo. You're the product of a fucked
society that condemns men for sexual deviency and yet praises and
supports women for doing it (Mary Kay Letourneau being the best
example).
Too often in this day in age people like you have the fucked mentality
that a woman couldn't ~possibly~ ever hurt, or rape, or murder a
child, often you're so completely fucked in the head that you'll
actually actively block out news stories that are about women child
killers/abducters. Absolutely convinced that there's just "no way" a
woman could ~possibly~ do such a thing.
To put it bluntly...yer a female chauvinistic pig on all accounts.
Rebecca Ore
One of the accounts I mentioned of a woman doing something really bad to
her custodial children was in the post. I didn't mention the woman in
SC who drowned her kids and blamed it on the blacks, but I did mention
Medea somewhere in all that.
Basically, the Amber Alerts are not something that is particularly
useful. Creates kids who go hide when they get lost because strangers
are dangerous kills more kids than stranger rape.
Amber Alerts -- Very much like all those "missing kids" bulletins in
Walmart -- they're taken by the non-custodial parent and what that means
is anyone's guess absent serious investigation, which tends to be
missing more than the children even in out and out abuse cases.
Since most of the custodial parents are women, you're supporting them
against their husbands who may have legitimate reasons for snatching the
kids.
The Amber Alerts were not supposed to be about putting the public in the
middle of a custody battle, but whiny people with agendas and salaries
from gigs as protectors of children changed that. Genuine stranger
snatching are rare and haven't change much over time, according to the
article I linked to.
You're the one supporting the women who have custody against the guys
who don't, which is the average for things like that. The bitch who
poisoned her sons to keep them from their father was the custodial
parent.
Assuming that the courts must have made the best adjudication as to who
was the fittest custodial parent really isn't necessarily so, so you
must be a flag-wagging no-authority doubting conservative if you believe
that.
Stranger abduction is very rare. A child surviving the first three
hours of stranger abduction is also rare. Amber Alerts aren't posted
that fast.
Amber Alerts are more fantasy wank material for such who just get off on
all the hot drama about a child being molested than they are anything
useful.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Either case deprives the custodial parent of their child and the child
> of their rightful parent(s)
The custodial parent is generally the one who looks best to the court
who doesn't really spend a whole lot of time investigating. To compare
having a child taken by the non-custodial parent for a week (average
time for resolution for this according to the people who actually
researched the matter) to the rare cases of stranger abduction where the
child is tortured and killed is to lack moral perspective.
The whole thing has very obviously been dragged the public into squalid
custody battles where the best result would probably be to take the
child away from both of them. Two of my sibs with children have gotten
divorced and in one case, my sister left the adolescent boys with her ex
and in the other, my brother arranged for joint custody and moved to
stay in the same town with his ex-wife -- people who don't work out
civil arrangements for their children probably are too broken to raise
children -- either parent -- and don't really care about the children
except as a way to get their ex.
We have plenty of cases where children were brutalized by their parents,
divorced or not, and the social system failed to save those children and
they were not separated from their families until they were dying.
This happens far more than stranger abduction, and probably happens as
much if not more than the more abusive non-custodial parental
abductions, but most of those kids are from poor families, so they don't
get the national or international publicity that the Scottish morons who
were too cheap to hire a babysitter got when their 3 year old child
didn't stay in the hotel room while they went out to have dinner.
Custodial parents are the ones with the most money, better social skills
in front of a judge (often something sociopaths are good at) or best
legal team.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> So you are saying that non-custodial parents should be able to deprive
> custodial parents of custody rather than going through the courts?
I'm saying that if parents can't be thoughtful enough of the children to
work out joint custody, both of them should lose the child and both
should be sterilized so they don't have more children.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> But the Amber alert system can help reunite
> custodial parents with those who would, for example, take the kids to
> Mexico never to be seen again.
That wasn't the intention of the original Amber Alerts, at all. Amber
Alerts were for situations where children were abducted by strangers and
in immediate need of rescue from serious bodily harm, not to drag the
public into squalid custody battles.
If the children were treated well in Mexico and grew up okay, what's the
fuss?
The Amber Alerts were created for one thing and got dragged into the
custody battle mess because it's hard to get contributions to something
that only saves a child a year. The interest in expanding the Amber
Alerts was financial, not humanitarian.
Rev Turd Fredericks
That may be true but it's not very realistic.
Rev Turd Fredericks
But we are talking about the Amber alert system, a way to try and catch
someone fleeing with a child they don't have legal custody of. I can't
say I disagree with some of your points, but they stray from the topic
at hand, and I really don't feel like debating them. I say that any
resource that can help catch a child which has been abducted (parental
or not) is useful on some level. Having lived close to the Mexican
border for 13 years, parents or other abducting children and fleeing the
country was a fairly common occurrence (I would say that at least twice
a month such incidents make the news in the LA area), some became Amber
alerts some did not. Either way, if the public has the information they
can help.
Rev Turd Fredericks
> In article <%Ch_l.198528$6p1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> But the Amber alert system can help reunite
>> custodial parents with those who would, for example, take the kids to
>> Mexico never to be seen again.
>
> That wasn't the intention of the original Amber Alerts, at all. Amber
> Alerts were for situations where children were abducted by strangers and
> in immediate need of rescue from serious bodily harm, not to drag the
> public into squalid custody battles.
Sometimes systems are designed for one purpose and it's found they work
better for another.
>
> If the children were treated well in Mexico and grew up okay, what's the
> fuss?
Because the other parent is deprived of their child and the child is
deprived of their parent. Custody of children is not a unilateral decision.
>
> The Amber Alerts were created for one thing and got dragged into the
> custody battle mess because it's hard to get contributions to something
> that only saves a child a year. The interest in expanding the Amber
> Alerts was financial, not humanitarian.
It's got nothing to do with custody battles, it has to do with the law
being broken. I haven't looked into it enough to dispute your claim. But
one could also say that the fire department occasionally puts out
destructive fires, but it's really just a way to keep firemen employed.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > In article <%Ch_l.198528$6p1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,
> > Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> But the Amber alert system can help reunite
> >> custodial parents with those who would, for example, take the kids to
> >> Mexico never to be seen again.
> >
> > That wasn't the intention of the original Amber Alerts, at all. Amber
> > Alerts were for situations where children were abducted by strangers and
> > in immediate need of rescue from serious bodily harm, not to drag the
> > public into squalid custody battles.
>
> Sometimes systems are designed for one purpose and it's found they work
> better for another.
>
Raising funds for fund raisers.
> >
> > If the children were treated well in Mexico and grew up okay, what's the
> > fuss?
>
> Because the other parent is deprived of their child and the child is
> deprived of their parent. Custody of children is not a unilateral decision.
Um, see Bitter Blood again. And don't be so flip about what a
law-abiding man who had a profession could and couldn't do when faced
with a politically connected sociopathic bitch (the man was going back
to court). Nobody really expects their ex to poison the kids and blow
herself up rather than be taken by an integrated police force.
Also, you trust the courts far far more than I do. Lots of gay women
have lost custody in crap states just because they were gay. Ditto gay
fathers.
I tuned out on the PO brochures when it became obvious that they were
about custody battles.
> >
> > The Amber Alerts were created for one thing and got dragged into the
> > custody battle mess because it's hard to get contributions to something
> > that only saves a child a year. The interest in expanding the Amber
> > Alerts was financial, not humanitarian.
>
> It's got nothing to do with custody battles, it has to do with the law
> being broken. I haven't looked into it enough to dispute your claim. But
> one could also say that the fire department occasionally puts out
> destructive fires, but it's really just a way to keep firemen employed.
I still think it's really about getting kids to hide from strangers if
they get lost so they will die of exposure.
Rebecca Ore
The point of Amber Alerts was to catch people who had just snatched a
child they were going to murder. The saner members of the general
public will ignore Amber Alerts that are obviously custody battles
because we just don't know the details and the courts generally don't
either.
The real danger from all the hysteria is creating fear in children about
strangers (who are generally not child rapist and killers), which means
that lost children (and I was lost twice as a child) won't seek help
from strangers as I did. Most real problems for children come from
relatives and people who aren't strangers.
I'd help a lost child find home; I won't bother with a custody fight
because I don't know the details and I don't believe courts really put
forth enough effort to figure it out either, and sociopaths are very
convincing, and even criminals can be good parents (saw that with my
next door neighbors in Virginia).
Rev Turd Fredericks
> In article <rED_l.177975$Xo1....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> But we are talking about the Amber alert system, a way to try and catch
>> someone fleeing with a child they don't have legal custody of. I can't
>> say I disagree with some of your points, but they stray from the topic
>> at hand, and I really don't feel like debating them. I say that any
>> resource that can help catch a child which has been abducted (parental
>> or not) is useful on some level. Having lived close to the Mexican
>> border for 13 years, parents or other abducting children and fleeing the
>> country was a fairly common occurrence (I would say that at least twice
>> a month such incidents make the news in the LA area), some became Amber
>> alerts some did not. Either way, if the public has the information they
>> can help.
>
> The point of Amber Alerts was to catch people who had just snatched a
> child they were going to murder. The saner members of the general
> public will ignore Amber Alerts that are obviously custody battles
> because we just don't know the details and the courts generally don't
> either.
>
> The real danger from all the hysteria is creating fear in children about
> strangers (who are generally not child rapist and killers), which means
> that lost children (and I was lost twice as a child) won't seek help
> from strangers as I did. Most real problems for children come from
> relatives and people who aren't strangers.
This is true. However I was not scared of strangers when I was a kid and
I don't know any kids who are so afraid of strangers that if lost they
wouldn't seek help. I just don't see that.
>
> I'd help a lost child find home; I won't bother with a custody fight
> because I don't know the details and I don't believe courts really put
> forth enough effort to figure it out either, and sociopaths are very
> convincing, and even criminals can be good parents (saw that with my
> next door neighbors in Virginia).
What would you do if a kid on your street, maybe a kid who you had seen
around but didn't actually know, came to our door and said "my dad is
trying to take me to mexico and mommmy told me not to talk to him."
would you let the kid in and call the cops? or would you tell the kid to
get lost?
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > The point of Amber Alerts was to catch people who had just snatched a
> > child they were going to murder. The saner members of the general
> > public will ignore Amber Alerts that are obviously custody battles
> > because we just don't know the details and the courts generally don't
> > either.
> Or just to catch somebody who snatched a child for some other purpose.
Look at the international search for one little three year old who
wouldn't have gone missing if her parents had hired a babysitter when
they went out to eat. Couldn't have been more posters out, couldn't
have been more hysteria. Didn't find her. I remember someone spamming
the world because some 19 year old woman went missing in Japan.
Likewise, no results.
> >
> > The real danger from all the hysteria is creating fear in children about
> > strangers (who are generally not child rapist and killers), which means
> > that lost children (and I was lost twice as a child) won't seek help
> > from strangers as I did. Most real problems for children come from
> > relatives and people who aren't strangers.
>
> This is true. However I was not scared of strangers when I was a kid and
> I don't know any kids who are so afraid of strangers that if lost they
> wouldn't seek help. I just don't see that.
Most real problems for children come from relatives and people who are
not strangers.
> >
> > I'd help a lost child find home; I won't bother with a custody fight
> > because I don't know the details and I don't believe courts really put
> > forth enough effort to figure it out either, and sociopaths are very
> > convincing, and even criminals can be good parents (saw that with my
> > next door neighbors in Virginia).
>
> What would you do if a kid on your street, maybe a kid who you had seen
> around but didn't actually know, came to our door and said "my dad is
> trying to take me to mexico and mommmy told me not to talk to him."
> would you let the kid in and call the cops? or would you tell the kid to
> get lost?
My grandmother shut the door on a woman who was screaming that her
husband was going kill her. My grandmother knew that the woman had been
sleeping with another man and didn't give a damn. Never heard whether
the woman was killed or not. My grandmother certainly didn't let
adulteresses into her house.
I also know that kids can lie -- people have been jailed for years
because some kids and a demented social worker made up bullshit about
child molestations that were physiologically impossible (you can't rape
a six year old without doing damage). Little sociopathic brat -- who
knows what the real story is.
See, I don't believe that children are all that stupid or all that
innocent.
Rev Turd Fredericks
> In article <axW_l.42233$op1....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
>
>> Rebecca Ore wrote:
>
>>> The point of Amber Alerts was to catch people who had just snatched a
>>> child they were going to murder. The saner members of the general
>>> public will ignore Amber Alerts that are obviously custody battles
>>> because we just don't know the details and the courts generally don't
>>> either.
>> Or just to catch somebody who snatched a child for some other purpose.
>
>
> Look at the international search for one little three year old who
> wouldn't have gone missing if her parents had hired a babysitter when
> they went out to eat. Couldn't have been more posters out, couldn't
> have been more hysteria. Didn't find her. I remember someone spamming
> the world because some 19 year old woman went missing in Japan.
> Likewise, no results.
>
bother, it's a matter between the parents and the abductor.
>
>>> The real danger from all the hysteria is creating fear in children about
>>> strangers (who are generally not child rapist and killers), which means
>>> that lost children (and I was lost twice as a child) won't seek help
>>> from strangers as I did. Most real problems for children come from
>>> relatives and people who aren't strangers.
>> This is true. However I was not scared of strangers when I was a kid and
>> I don't know any kids who are so afraid of strangers that if lost they
>> wouldn't seek help. I just don't see that.
>
> Most real problems for children come from relatives and people who are
> not strangers.
I don't dispute that.
>
>>> I'd help a lost child find home; I won't bother with a custody fight
>>> because I don't know the details and I don't believe courts really put
>>> forth enough effort to figure it out either, and sociopaths are very
>>> convincing, and even criminals can be good parents (saw that with my
>>> next door neighbors in Virginia).
>> What would you do if a kid on your street, maybe a kid who you had seen
>> around but didn't actually know, came to our door and said "my dad is
>> trying to take me to mexico and mommmy told me not to talk to him."
>> would you let the kid in and call the cops? or would you tell the kid to
>> get lost?
>
> My grandmother shut the door on a woman who was screaming that her
> husband was going kill her. My grandmother knew that the woman had been
> sleeping with another man and didn't give a damn. Never heard whether
> the woman was killed or not. My grandmother certainly didn't let
> adulteresses into her house.
Your grandmother must have been a hell of a good neighbor. A real good
christian, always willing to help her fellow man and all that.
>
> I also know that kids can lie -- people have been jailed for years
> because some kids and a demented social worker made up bullshit about
> child molestations that were physiologically impossible (you can't rape
> a six year old without doing damage). Little sociopathic brat -- who
> knows what the real story is.
>
> See, I don't believe that children are all that stupid or all that
> innocent.
They aren't all that powerful and are easily forced into a car. That's
why they need a little more care than full grown adults.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> So you are saying then that when a child goes missing, nobody should
> bother, it's a matter between the parents and the abductor.
> >
Nobody should bother except for the law and the parent that doesn't have
the child right then. I'm certainly not concerned about custody
battles. I had a neighbor whose lawyer told her the only way she could
get her child back would be to kidnap him. When she was caught, she
told the cops that her lawyer advised her to do it.
She was a hideously stupid person, but I'm not sure she was utter
disqualified as a mom.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> Your grandmother must have been a hell of a good neighbor. A real good
> christian, always willing to help her fellow man and all that.
She was helping the innocent party -- and probably didn't believe the
bitch.
Rebecca Ore
Rev Turd Fredericks <turd...@catholic.org> wrote:
> They aren't all that powerful and are easily forced into a car. That's
> why they need a little more care than full grown adults.
My favorite story about kids is a nine year old in Charlotte kicked a
pedophile who was trying to get him in a car. The pedophile ran.
Pedophiles go after children because they're chicken shit and a
sufficiently determined child can make them cry.