Arkansas - Attorney for Alamo parents rips judges
Greegor
Publication:Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Date:Mar 6, 2009;
Section:Front Section; Page Number:1
Attorney for Alamo parents rips judges
BY ANDY DAVIS ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
An attorney hired to handle the appeals for parents in the child-
welfare cases involving the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries called it
“appalling” that judges have spoken publicly about the cases, and he
said most of the parents are guilty of little more than attending the
wrong church.
“To take children away from people who go to the wrong church, I
really thought that even in Arkansas that was forbidden,” the
attorney, Clay Conrad of Houston, said.
Conrad, a partner in the law firm Looney & Conrad who specializes
in criminal appeals, said he was recently hired by the church to
challenge several of the rulings that have upheld the removal of 36
children from the ministry. He declined to say how much he is being
paid, but said that it is only a fraction of his usual fee — $15,000
to $120,000 per case, depending on the complexity and the amount of
time involved.
In phone interviews this week, Conrad said he hasn’t decided what
issues he will argue in the appeals but he believes the parents’
religious freedoms were violated when their children were taken and
when they were ordered to establish financial independence from the
ministry if they hoped to get the children back. He also said it was
“offensive” for Miller County Circuit Judge Joe Griffin to have
briefed reporters on the case while issuing a gag order barring
parents from giving their side of the story.
“I don’t know what the judge thinks he’s doing giving press
conferences when there’s a gag order,” Conrad said. “If he expects
other people to respect it, he should respect it.”
He added, “I practice in a lot of different states. In most of
them it is considered sanctionable conduct for a judge to discuss a
case that is before him.”
Griffin responded Thursday, “This lawyer hasn’t talked to me, and
he doesn’t have a clue what went on up here in Texarkana. He’s made no
appearance, and anything that he knows is hearsay.”
He said he only reported the hearings’ results, “which are a
matter of record.”
“That’s different from commenting on the evidence or commenting as
to what witnesses said,” Griffin said.
The Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from making
“any public comment [on a proceeding] that might be reasonably
expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness.”
David Stewart, director of the Judicial Discipline and Disability
Commission, said the rule bars judges from giving their opinions about
a case while it’s under litigation, but it doesn’t prohibit them from
briefing reporters on the proceedings.
“If he’s made that part of the public record, then all he’s
commenting on is what was maybe said in open court or that has been
reduced to an order,” Stewart said.
He said it’s unusual for judges to give briefings “in the sense
that most cases don’t draw that kind of public attention.”
“If you have a high-profile case where there are questions and
there are reporters that are inquiring as to what happened, then it’s
not unusual to have public commentary,” Stewart said.
Miller County Circuit Judge Jim Hudson, who also handled some of
the cases, has also briefed reporters and allowed them to attend some
of the proceedings. Proceedings in child-welfare cases are usually
closed to the public.
“Any public statements made by this court were in accordance with
Arkansas law and judicial conduct standards,” Hudson said Thursday. He
said he has shared some information about the case “because the public
has a right to know that the business of its courts are being handled
properly, when that can be done consistent with the rights of the
parties to privacy and a fair trial.”
Sebastian County Circuit Judge Mark Hewett, who handled the case
of six of the children, has declined to speak with reporters. He has
also issued a gag order barring participants from discussing the
case.
Federal and state authorities investigating allegations involving
the physical and sexual abuse of children raided the ministry’s
compound in Fouke on Sept. 20. Tony Alamo, the group’s 74-year-old
leader, was arrested five days later and is awaiting trial on charges
that he transported five underage girls across state lines for sex
over the past 15 years.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services contends ministry
children are endangered by practices that include underage marriages
and beatings for violations of church rules. The judges in Miller and
Sebastian counties have upheld the children’s removal and required any
parents associated with the ministry to move off church property and
find jobs outside the ministry if they hope to regain custody of their
children.
Conrad, a former theatrical lighting engineer and the author of a
1998 book about the concept of “jury nullification,” the power of
juries to ignore the law in certain instances, said he was contacted
by a representative from the ministry less than a month ago and went
to the ministry’s compound in Fouke, where he spent several hours
meeting with parents and looking at court records. He said he has been
hired to handle the appeals for five or six of the cases, but he
declined to say which families or how many children the cases involve.
He said he plans to ask to be officially recognized as the appellate
attorney for the cases next week.
He said the parents have a First Amendment right to devote
themselves to the ministry, and that a “boilerplate” order requiring
them to change their lifestyle infringes on their freedoms.
“Any court order that relies in whole or in part on church
domicile, church employment, on church participation, on church
membership or on church attendance is unconstitutional from the
beginning,” Conrad said.
He added that, in most cases, the parents face only “trivial”
allegations, such as failing to register their children as being
homeschooled.
“We’ve got kids who were performing well academically, healthy,
well-fed, kept clean, all that stuff,” Conrad said. By themselves, the
allegations “would probably not merit any more than requiring a
parenting class and annual visits to make sure that whatever was done
wrong was done right in the future, if anyone ever thought it merited
state involvement at all.”
“These are trivial little molehills they’re making into mountains
in order to disguise the fact that the majority of the allegations,
the lion’s share of the allegations, is going to the wrong church,”
Conrad said.
Julie Munsell, a spokesman for the Human Services Department, said
the risk of abuse is sufficient grounds to remove a child.
“We would be remiss in any situation if we waited for every child
to be abused prior to taking a step to protect them,” Munsell said.
whitevamp
> http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=QXJEZW1vY3JhdC8yMDA5...
Typical Greg. totally forget that the reason why the children were
taken away was the physical abuse of children in the CULT and that
Alamo was all for female children marrying at age 12. IOW child sexual
abuse
Both things Greg approves of.
Greegor
Kind of like the FLDS fiasco, right?
Did these parents actually violate or
is the whitewash all you've got?
whitevamp
Ever actually look at the Alamo cult history Greg, or are you just
mouthing off in your ignorance as usual?
FYI dumbass, the " enforcer" of the Alamo cult was in hiding after
some young teenage men came forward with accounts or their seriously
being physically abused. Not that you give a damn, OC, because you
want to molest young girls. And once again you conveniently forget to
mention that in the FDLS " fiasco", the basis for the taking the
children away was because of previous reports BY young women who were
forced into marrying "men" over 50 while they were 12 years old, In
fact two of them wrote books in it, both, BTW reaching the bestseller
list.
And Tony Alamo was grooming the girls to "accept" being " married to
adult males by age 12.
Tell me Greg, do you think 11 and 12 year old girls are capable of
having sex with adult males and want to?
And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
sex with a girl just entering puberty?
As usual for you, you don't show concern for the children being
victimized.
As you know I am a female. I remember when I was the same age as the
young girl you fondled in the bathroom with the excuse of " washing
the pee" off of her. You damn well know you were testing her to see if
you cold go further with her. And how about that story of the young
girl being sexually assaulted in the motel room next door , huh Greg?
Do you remember your response to that, by any chance?
You got caught before you could further your molestation. Scum like
you make excuses for what they did and act the victim while the ACTUAL
victims suffer.
In the CURRENT Alamo case things are more complex than you
deliberately forgot to include. The Alamo cult is hardly clean in a
number of areas. Some years back word got out that Tony Alamo had his
workers work for pennies per hour making those decorated denim jackets
that sold for big buck to start like Stallone and Dolly Partin. And
they worked under physical abuse if they did not work fast enough.
The Tony Alamo " Church" is a cult, plain and simple. Even the local
people in the town where his " church" compound is are critical of
him.
That reminds me, Glen. What " church" HAS to have GUARDS at every
exit like the Alamo " church" has?
Oh right. You "forgot "to add that detail in your C&P. That came form
the same newspaper, Greg.
Your dishonesty and deception again, Greg.
Let's see, you're in your 50s and you hear about the FDLS story and
this one. Are you looking for a " young" girlfriend you can train far
better than the adult women you've been abusing?
The grandfather should have done more than break your glass jaw Greg.
I sure would have if you did that to MY child.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Dragon's Girl
FYI, we've had the conversation about the practice of girls marrying
so young when the FDLS fiasco started.
Greg claimed that back in the times of the 'quaker oats guy' girls got
married that young all the time, and they were considered old maids if
they were yet unmarried at the age of 14 or 15.
He made mention that that was about 100 years ago.
I said he really needed to check his history.
I also explained to him that there was a time when this was acceptable
because of the differences in how children were raised then, and now
they are raised now.
Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
old girl now.
I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
girls of 130+ years ago.
And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
approval of probate or family courts.
>
> And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> sex with a girl just entering puberty?
That's a good question.
Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
breasts and maturity.
Most 12 year olds would lack both.
So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
whitevamp
> On Mar 12, 10:52 am, whitevamp <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Then was also a high child mortality rate. Also women then had no
rights and were the property of their husbands or their fathers.
If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
"old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like when
Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even entering
puberty.
Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant self-
serving skuzz he is.
> Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> old girl now.
The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
> I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> girls of 130+ years ago.
Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
that the children were work hands as well.
> And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> approval of probate or family courts.
Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
wouldn't have survived to his forties.
>
>
>
> > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
>
> That's a good question.
> Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> breasts and maturity.
> Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
another male yet.
Some months back in a chat room I was "talking" with a forty-
something guy who had a 19-year old girlfriend who damn near
worshipped him, He apparently " trained " her to be in "love" with him
when she was 15 and he gave her some bullshit about him being a Norse
god and her a Norse goddess where she is to be beneath him and submit
to his will. Being Pagan and knowing some of Nordic mythology I
objected to his sky male god earth female goddess submit to him crap
and told him so and also told her that there were Nordic goddesses
that were far from submissive. She was way too brainwashed to realize
he was using her.
Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
knows about personally.
> My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
> interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
> right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
> and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
Maybe a NAMBLA guy who doesn't want to admit being gay-ish?
krp
"whitevamp" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a3c0636-9ccd-42f9...@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
MOE> Then was also a high child mortality rate. Also women then had no
MOE> rights and were the property of their husbands or their fathers.
A simplistic feminist view of history, but for a change not entirely
inaccurate.
MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like when
MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even entering
MOE> puberty.
She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
self-serving skuzz he is.
I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
largely Hindu India.
> Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> old girl now.
MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality as
you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
sexuality. And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
(Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the girls,
but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to BLAME
MEN for the practice.
> I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> girls of 130+ years ago.
MOE> Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
MOE> children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
MOE> had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
MOE> children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
MOE> that the children were work hands as well.
I LOVE ther ultra-simplistic RADICAL FEMINIST interpretations of
history. Feminists rubbing both IQ points together trying desperatelky to
start a fire. HON - the reason that females were married young in history
was simple. Preservation or expension of the species. You see for a long
time PEOPLE died off by age 30. You were considered a extremely OLD man by
35. Humans had to get their baby making in quick. Divisions of labor
happened out of necessity too.There was always a surplus of females because
when UG left the cave to hunt for food - there was a 2 to 1 chance that HE
would wind up on the dinner plate of some other critter. So for human
society to survive it needed as many females as possible making babies.
Nothing sinister, no MALE CONSPIRACY to hold females down.
Just necessity.
> And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> approval of probate or family courts.
MOE> Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
MOE> wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
MOE> wouldn't have survived to his forties.
Well Moe - we BELIEVE now that slavery is wrong. Even though it persists
tp this day in many parts of Africa and the middle east. We just agree not
to talk about it. We agree to bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND it
doesn't exist. It also still exists in China.
> > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
> That's a good question.
> Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> breasts and maturity.
> Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
MOE> Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
another male yet.
Well - in some cases there ARE pedophiles and Ephebophiles. It is
considered by academics to be deviant. It is considered by most of society
as deviant. I don't understand it myself to be frank. I simply can't find a
female under 40 worth wasting time on. I am not sure that brain development
begins in the fame until she's about 40. That's when women start getting
very interesting. (SOME EXCEPTIONS in present company noted.) I suspect some
of the reasons that 50 year old men chase after 17 year old girls is for
reasons saimilar to why they drive a Corvette. In psychology it is called
"COMPENSATION."
MOE> Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
MOE> knows about personally.
Moe baby THIS is what makes you SOOOOO attractive to men. I'd find it so
utterly fascinating, sitting in a livingroom with you next to a crackling
fire listening to the DRONE of your constant BITCHING ABOUT MEN. I can't
think of anything I'd rather be doing.
> My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
> interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
> right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
> and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
MOE> Maybe a NAMBLA guy who doesn't want to admit being gay-ish?
I dunno. My date to my Senior prom when I was 18 she was 20. Don't know
about this NAMBLA shit. I wasn't interested in 17 or 18 year old girls even
when I was 18. I WAS however very interested in them when I was 14 and 15.
> > As usual for you, you don't show concern for the children being
> > victimized.
> > The Tony Alamo " Church" is a cult, plain and simple. Even the local
> > people in the town where his " church" compound is are critical of
> > him.
Absolutely NO disagreement with that at all.
Dragon's Girl
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Absolutely no inaccuracy.
>
> MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
> MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like when
> MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even entering
> MOE> puberty.
>
> She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
> uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
Our discussion, and Moe can correct me if I'm wrong, was centered
around US customs and laws.
Not Islamic customs and laws.
>
> MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
> self-serving skuzz he is.
>
> I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
> historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
> Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
> largely Hindu India.
Greg wasn't 'discussing the issue in a historical perspective'.
He was pointing out that it used to be acceptable, so why not now?
And, again, the conversation, then, and now, centered around US laws
and customs.
>
> > Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> > contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> > of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> > old girl now.
>
> MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
> MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
>
> I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality as
> you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
> sexuality. And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the girls,
> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to BLAME
> MEN for the practice.
Girls may have been well versed in 'life', but probably not in
sexuality.
It was almost '100 years ago' that my grandmother was a young girl,
and I do, VERY WELL, recall the secretive nature of all things
'sexual' with the people of her generation. My older cousin had gone
into labor, 1983, and I mentioned that her water had broken and that
it wouldn't be long before the baby came. My grandmother and her
friends were horrified that I would say such a thing in 'mixed
company'. Modesty was a big thing, and sexuality was not something
that was openly discussed even thirty years ago in some societies in
America.
Forty six years ago my mother had to quit school to work and help take
care of the family. Forty two years ago she was a virginal eighteen
year old girl who had no idea what was going to happen on her wedding
night.
I highly doubt that '100 years ago' sexuality was as openly discussed
as you would make one think.
Those who grew up in rural areas definitely knew what procreation was,
but knew very little of sexual behaviors, as it was kept in the closet
along with infidelity, children out of wedlock, and a host of other
taboos.
>
> > I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> > fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> > girls of 130+ years ago.
>
> MOE> Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
> MOE> children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
> MOE> had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
> MOE> children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
> MOE> that the children were work hands as well.
>
> I LOVE ther ultra-simplistic RADICAL FEMINIST interpretations of
> history. Feminists rubbing both IQ points together trying desperatelky to
> start a fire. HON - the reason that females were married young in history
> was simple. Preservation or expension of the species. You see for a long
> time PEOPLE died off by age 30. You were considered a extremely OLD man by
> 35. Humans had to get their baby making in quick. Divisions of labor
> happened out of necessity too.There was always a surplus of females because
> when UG left the cave to hunt for food - there was a 2 to 1 chance that HE
> would wind up on the dinner plate of some other critter. So for human
> society to survive it needed as many females as possible making babies.
> Nothing sinister, no MALE CONSPIRACY to hold females down.
> Just necessity.
Leave it to Ken to go waaaaaay out there on a limb and point out the
habits of cavemen.
There's no 'conspiracy' about it. Just as women married young and had
children and matured quickly, so did men.
It was not uncommon in frontier days for boys as young as twelve to be
in charge of caring for all the animals on the farm.
Not uncommon for them to have their own livestock and begin starting
up their own homesteads by the time they were fifteen.
I would bet money that by the time my uncles were seven or eight (and
that was nowhere near 100 years ago) they knew how to tend to the hogs
and chickens, and 'work the field' (as my grandmother used to call
tending the garden).
Far, far less than 100 years ago, I, myself, was taught to 'work the
field' and can food at harvest. (thank God I never had to kill a
chicken, or slaughter a hog, I don't think I could have done that, I
like my meat on styrofoam).
It's a societal issue, Ken, not a sexist issue.
I know you want it to be a sexist issue, but really, it's not.
>
> > And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> > require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> > approval of probate or family courts.
>
> MOE> Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
> MOE> wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
> MOE> wouldn't have survived to his forties.
>
> Well Moe - we BELIEVE now that slavery is wrong. Even though it persists
> tp this day in many parts of Africa and the middle east. We just agree not
> to talk about it. We agree to bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND it
> doesn't exist. It also still exists in China.
We don't live in Africa and China, Ken, and we weren't discussing
other countries.
>
> > > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
> > That's a good question.
> > Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> > breasts and maturity.
> > Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> > So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> > sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
>
> MOE> Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
> another male yet.
>
> Well - in some cases there ARE pedophiles and Ephebophiles. It is
> considered by academics to be deviant. It is considered by most of society
> as deviant. I don't understand it myself to be frank. I simply can't find a
> female under 40 worth wasting time on. I am not sure that brain development
> begins in the fame until she's about 40. That's when women start getting
> very interesting. (SOME EXCEPTIONS in present company noted.)
Always with the personal insults. Why did I start out reading this
thinking that Ken was actually going to have an intelligent and fair
discussion?
I should have known better.
I suspect some
> of the reasons that 50 year old men chase after 17 year old girls is for
> reasons saimilar to why they drive a Corvette. In psychology it is called
> "COMPENSATION."
>
> MOE> Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
> MOE> knows about personally.
>
> Moe baby THIS is what makes you SOOOOO attractive to men. I'd find it so
> utterly fascinating, sitting in a livingroom with you next to a crackling
> fire listening to the DRONE of your constant BITCHING ABOUT MEN. I can't
> think of anything I'd rather be doing.
I, personally, don't feel that the customs and laws of '100 years ago'
were created to control women.
I think they were created out of necessity. Many of them did end up
putting a measure of control on women, but that was long ago, and
equal rights put a stop to many inequalities between the sexes.
And, again, to make my point, as I did when discussing this with Greg,
for women to be married at 12 years old in 'the days of the quaker
oats guy' was necessity, but now, it is not.
Greegor
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/a5941ec80d974267
Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
as being from advocates kiddy sex.
You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
So WHY do you resort to similar BS?
Was it just the BS of convenience for you?
Are you afraid to discuss the real issues, Betty?
After your own dishonesty and personal insults
you dare to protest personal insults?
What Maureen and you seem to be advocating
is that the members of this religious group
should all be presumed guilty and all have
their children removed for no other reason.
Do you know who historically did stuff like that?
Do you advocate targeting people for their religion?
Maureen is a self declared Wiccan.
For her to be vitriolic about a religion is absurd.
What is your religious position, Betty?
This news story was about grabbing kids ONLY
because of their family's religious affiliation.
And WHY is it that in a cross posted thread, you
addressed Moe yet posted only to ascps?
Betty, What kind of feminist do you consider
yourself? Which faction of feminism?
Moe? (same questions)
Betty:
Do you subscribe to the observation that women
who poach on teens or little kids are given
much lighter punishments than males who
do the same?
Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
has sex with a 5 year old?
How would you rank these?
female school teacher 26 has sex with a 5 ear old boy
F26 M5
F26 M14
F26 M17
F26 F5
F26 F14
F26 F17
M26 M5
M26 M14
M26 M17
M26 F5
M26 F14
M26 F17
F35 M5
F35 M14
F35 M17
F35 F5
F35 F14
F35 F17
M35 M5
M35 M14
M35 M17
M35 F5
M35 F14
M35 F17
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8939827f-23b9-43ab...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/7b4298c2746d0044
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/a5941ec80d974267
>
> Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
> and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
> as being from advocates kiddy sex.
>
> You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
> since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
>
> From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
> stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
The perceived sexual crap (it may not be sexual to you, grag, it may be
sadistic) is what YOU used on Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter.
Why do you think the authorities have kept the not-so-little girl away from
the custody of her mother for more than eight years, grag?
Because of a cluttered mobile home, which she hasn't lived in in seven
years???
OR because the mother is still with you?
whitevamp
Simplistic, No. Accurate, yes. The Church during the middle ages said
if a husband had to beat his "disobedient" wife to death, that was
justifiable. Also there was a practice in Europe where a peasant woman
who is about to be married can be " passed on down" from the leading
ruler on down his court sexually ( that is serially raped) the eve
before her marriage, as to them she was property, not a human being.
Nasty bits of history they don't teach you in public school.
>
> MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
> MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like when
> MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even entering
> MOE> puberty.
>
> She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
> uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
Doesn't make it right , does it Ken?
Also in many of these same Islamic countries a woman can be murdered
based on "honor killings" where she supposedly shamed the family by
being raped or even talking with a male.
>
> MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
> self-serving skuzz he is.
>
> I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
> historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
> Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
> largely Hindu India.
Ken, explain what he did to the seven-year old girl while they were
in the bathroom alone. That stunk of sexual abuse.
>
> > Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> > contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> > of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> > old girl now.
>
> MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
> MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
>
> I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality as
> you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
> sexuality.
Bullshit and you know it. So the Puritans were great sex ed teachers?
How about the Victorian era where sexuality was so constrained that
pianio legs had to be covered, for crying out loud!
And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the girls,
> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to BLAME
> MEN for the practice.
Like you give a damn, right Ken? Great human rights advocate you are,
huh? Quit your posturing. You aren't fooling anyone.
To put your claim in another way, during the Civil War some slaves in
the South defended their plantations and even fought as Confederate
soldiers. That was certainly contrary to their best interests, wasn't
it?
You know as well as I do that when someone is brainwashed or
threatened into submission ( like the battered woman syndrome) they
will do as their "master" says, even if they know it is wrong.
But as usual you conveniently forget about the facts to do your
little hatred CAPITAL LETTERS act. Your hissy fits get old after
awhile Kenny.
Grow up.
>
> > I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> > fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> > girls of 130+ years ago.
>
> MOE> Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
> MOE> children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
> MOE> had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
> MOE> children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
> MOE> that the children were work hands as well.
>
> I LOVE ther ultra-simplistic RADICAL FEMINIST interpretations of
> history. Feminists rubbing both IQ points together trying desperatelky to
> start a fire. HON - the reason that females were married young in history
> was simple. Preservation or expension of the species. You see for a long
> time PEOPLE died off by age 30. You were considered a extremely OLD man by
> 35. Humans had to get their baby making in quick. Divisions of labor
> happened out of necessity too.There was always a surplus of females because
> when UG left the cave to hunt for food - there was a 2 to 1 chance that HE
> would wind up on the dinner plate of some other critter. So for human
> society to survive it needed as many females as possible making babies.
> Nothing sinister, no MALE CONSPIRACY to hold females down.
> Just necessity.
Speaking of simplicity.....
Somehow I doubt that you would be a good hunter or provider. Like
your butt-kissing buddy Greg, your life pretty much shows even lazy-
ass bums survive when they mooch off of others.
Your version of human survival is overly simplistic. You can call me
a " radical feminist" all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The "
aways a surplus of females" claim has no scientific data to back it
up. IOW you got that from the same place you get most of your views--
from your anus.
BTW " Ug" wouldn't have known that pregnancy came from screwing if he
was just in the hunter-gatherer stage. Oh you forgot the GATHERER
part, didn't you? Did you think they ate only meat? Gee, who dug and
gathered the food, by any chance? By the time humans started herding
animals and breeding them, the mystery of reproduction was becoming
clearer.
>
> > And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> > require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> > approval of probate or family courts.
>
> MOE> Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
> MOE> wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
> MOE> wouldn't have survived to his forties.
>
> Well Moe - we BELIEVE now that slavery is wrong. Even though it persists
> tp this day in many parts of Africa and the middle east. We just agree not
> to talk about it. We agree to bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND it
> doesn't exist. It also still exists in China.
And you, OC are doing something about it, right Kennie? And you care
so damn much right?
Nice posturing. But of no substance, as usual.
>
> > > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
> > That's a good question.
> > Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> > breasts and maturity.
> > Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> > So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> > sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
>
> MOE> Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
> another male yet.
>
> Well - in some cases there ARE pedophiles and Ephebophiles. It is
> considered by academics to be deviant. It is considered by most of society
> as deviant. I don't understand it myself to be frank.
Ask your buddy Greg. He seems to like little girls.
I simply can't find a
> female under 40 worth wasting time on. I am not sure that brain development
> begins in the fame until she's about 40.
" fame?"
That's when women start getting
> very interesting. (SOME EXCEPTIONS in present company noted.)
You are not attractive to me Kennie, Give it up. You aren't near
Welling level.
I suspect some
> of the reasons that 50 year old men chase after 17 year old girls is for
> reasons saimilar to why they drive a Corvette. In psychology it is called
> "COMPENSATION."
If it was compensation they would be after 21 year olds, those of
legal age. You know as well as I do why they chase after girls. Young
fresh pussy.
>
> MOE> Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
> MOE> knows about personally.
>
> Moe baby THIS is what makes you SOOOOO attractive to men. I'd find it so
> utterly fascinating, sitting in a livingroom with you next to a crackling
> fire listening to the DRONE of your constant BITCHING ABOUT MEN. I can't
> think of anything I'd rather be doing.
Then put me on killfile. Bad ad hominen attack. BTW Kennie. I have a
BF. Fortunately I have no sexual interest in a bum like you.
I think Dan or someone in the aboutkenpangborn web site mentioned
your threats of rape. If you did THAT, then seems to me you're the
type of male I'm talking about. Not MAN, male. Real men don't behave
the way you do.
>
> > My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
> > interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
> > right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
> > and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
>
> MOE> Maybe a NAMBLA guy who doesn't want to admit being gay-ish?
>
> I dunno. My date to my Senior prom when I was 18 she was 20. Don't know
> about this NAMBLA shit. I wasn't interested in 17 or 18 year old girls even
> when I was 18. I WAS however very interested in them when I was 14 and 15.
The point was adult males and preteen " sex partners", Ken.
Short attention span problems?
>
> > > As usual for you, you don't show concern for the children being
> > > victimized.
> > > The Tony Alamo " Church" is a cult, plain and simple. Even the local
> > > people in the town where his " church" compound is are critical of
> > > him.
>
> Absolutely NO disagreement with that at all.
At least we agree on one thing.
Greegor
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8939827f-23b9-43ab...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
> > and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
> > as being from advocates kiddy sex.
>
> > You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
> > since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
>
> > From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
> > stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
>
> The perceived sexual crap (it may not be sexual to you, grag, it may be
> sadistic) is what YOU used on Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter.
>
> Why do you think the authorities have kept the not-so-little girl away from
> the custody of her mother for more than eight years, grag?
>
> Because of a cluttered mobile home, which she hasn't lived in in seven
> years???
>
> OR because the mother is still with you?
Puppet bear!
whitevamp
For GREG its US laws-- mainly out of self interest. Greg's little
excuse of " washing the pee off" of a seven-year old girl in the
bathroom was his little testing to see how far he can go with her.
Greg plainly wants to molest little girls and for him anything that
supports that view is fine.
>
>
>
> > MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
> > self-serving skuzz he is.
>
> > I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
> > historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
> > Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
> > largely Hindu India.
>
> Greg wasn't 'discussing the issue in a historical perspective'.
> He was pointing out that it used to be acceptable, so why not now?
> And, again, the conversation, then, and now, centered around US laws
> and customs.
See above as to why Greg wants it to be acceptable now.
>
>
>
> > > Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> > > contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> > > of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> > > old girl now.
>
> > MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
> > MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
>
> > I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality as
> > you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
> > sexuality. And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> > talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
> > (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the girls,
> > but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to BLAME
> > MEN for the practice.
>
> Girls may have been well versed in 'life', but probably not in
> sexuality.
> It was almost '100 years ago' that my grandmother was a young girl,
> and I do, VERY WELL, recall the secretive nature of all things
> 'sexual' with the people of her generation. My older cousin had gone
> into labor, 1983, and I mentioned that her water had broken and that
> it wouldn't be long before the baby came. My grandmother and her
> friends were horrified that I would say such a thing in 'mixed
> company'. Modesty was a big thing, and sexuality was not something
> that was openly discussed even thirty years ago in some societies in
> America.
Agreed. My mother was the same way.
> Forty six years ago my mother had to quit school to work and help take
> care of the family. Forty two years ago she was a virginal eighteen
> year old girl who had no idea what was going to happen on her wedding
> night.
As many were in that era. Ignorant of the wedding night and
frightened as well, not excited and lusty in seeing their hubby's
erect penis as Ken would love to claim. And, as Ken forgets to mention
once again, some of those husbands forced themselves on the women. IOW
rape.
> I highly doubt that '100 years ago' sexuality was as openly discussed
> as you would make one think.
> Those who grew up in rural areas definitely knew what procreation was,
> but knew very little of sexual behaviors, as it was kept in the closet
> along with infidelity, children out of wedlock, and a host of other
> taboos.
Agreed.
>
>
>
> > > I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> > > fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> > > girls of 130+ years ago.
>
> > MOE> Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
> > MOE> children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
> > MOE> had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
> > MOE> children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
> > MOE> that the children were work hands as well.
>
> > I LOVE ther ultra-simplistic RADICAL FEMINIST interpretations of
> > history. Feminists rubbing both IQ points together trying desperatelky to
> > start a fire. HON - the reason that females were married young in history
> > was simple. Preservation or expension of the species. You see for a long
> > time PEOPLE died off by age 30. You were considered a extremely OLD man by
> > 35. Humans had to get their baby making in quick. Divisions of labor
> > happened out of necessity too.There was always a surplus of females because
> > when UG left the cave to hunt for food - there was a 2 to 1 chance that HE
> > would wind up on the dinner plate of some other critter. So for human
> > society to survive it needed as many females as possible making babies.
> > Nothing sinister, no MALE CONSPIRACY to hold females down.
> > Just necessity.
>
> Leave it to Ken to go waaaaaay out there on a limb and point out the
> habits of cavemen.
As if he knows firsthand. :-D
> There's no 'conspiracy' about it. Just as women married young and had
> children and matured quickly, so did men.
> It was not uncommon in frontier days for boys as young as twelve to be
> in charge of caring for all the animals on the farm.
> Not uncommon for them to have their own livestock and begin starting
> up their own homesteads by the time they were fifteen.
> I would bet money that by the time my uncles were seven or eight (and
> that was nowhere near 100 years ago) they knew how to tend to the hogs
> and chickens, and 'work the field' (as my grandmother used to call
> tending the garden).
Most people in rural settings had to know this, both males AND
females, in order to survive.
Bet Great Manly Hunter Kennie can't even come close to what they had
to do every day.
> Far, far less than 100 years ago, I, myself, was taught to 'work the
> field' and can food at harvest. (thank God I never had to kill a
> chicken, or slaughter a hog, I don't think I could have done that, I
> like my meat on styrofoam).
> It's a societal issue, Ken, not a sexist issue.
> I know you want it to be a sexist issue, but really, it's not.
Agreed. I lived in a rural area and we do plant, harvest and can
food. I also had to do some, ahem, " meat processing" of chickens and
one hog. Not very nice work, but it was food on the table.
Where do you think the Southerners thought to eat opposum and Cajuns
eat snapping turtles? Both animals are cuss ugly yet someone was
desperate enough to cook the critters.
>
>
>
> > > And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> > > require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> > > approval of probate or family courts.
>
> > MOE> Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
> > MOE> wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
> > MOE> wouldn't have survived to his forties.
>
> > Well Moe - we BELIEVE now that slavery is wrong. Even though it persists
> > tp this day in many parts of Africa and the middle east. We just agree not
> > to talk about it. We agree to bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND it
> > doesn't exist. It also still exists in China.
>
> We don't live in Africa and China, Ken, and we weren't discussing
> other countries.
Agreed but the attitude is prevalent in other countries. Fortunately
in America we've become aware of horrible things like battered women
syndrome and " domestic violence" and date rape so that women can be
freer that we used to be.
>
>
>
> > > > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > > > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
> > > That's a good question.
> > > Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> > > breasts and maturity.
> > > Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> > > So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> > > sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
>
> > MOE> Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
> > another male yet.
>
> > Well - in some cases there ARE pedophiles and Ephebophiles. It is
> > considered by academics to be deviant. It is considered by most of society
> > as deviant. I don't understand it myself to be frank. I simply can't find a
> > female under 40 worth wasting time on. I am not sure that brain development
> > begins in the fame until she's about 40. That's when women start getting
> > very interesting. (SOME EXCEPTIONS in present company noted.)
>
> Always with the personal insults. Why did I start out reading this
> thinking that Ken was actually going to have an intelligent and fair
> discussion?
> I should have known better.
Ken always resorts to personal insults. Bear in mind this is the same
guy who threatened rape to a female online some years ago. If he's
anything like his buddy Greg ( and he probably is), he thinks women
are there for his sexual pleasure and to be his servant. See I am a "
radical feminist" "man-hater" because I dare stand up and MENTION how
women are abused.
I see now "fame " means" dame". One of his misspellings. IOW he's
claiming women up to age 40 are stupid and so forth.
And he's a great prize, right? (( grinning))
You know what he would have said if I said, for example, that males
don't actually mature until the reach age 35 or so. And yet its okay
if HE says it about females.
>
> I suspect some
>
> > of the reasons that 50 year old men chase after 17 year old girls is for
> > reasons saimilar to why they drive a Corvette. In psychology it is called
> > "COMPENSATION."
>
> > MOE> Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
> > MOE> knows about personally.
>
> > Moe baby THIS is what makes you SOOOOO attractive to men. I'd find it so
> > utterly fascinating, sitting in a livingroom with you next to a crackling
> > fire listening to the DRONE of your constant BITCHING ABOUT MEN. I can't
> > think of anything I'd rather be doing.
>
> I, personally, don't feel that the customs and laws of '100 years ago'
> were created to control women.
> I think they were created out of necessity. Many of them did end up
> putting a measure of control on women, but that was long ago, and
> equal rights put a stop to many inequalities between the sexes.
>
> And, again, to make my point, as I did when discussing this with Greg,
> for women to be married at 12 years old in 'the days of the quaker
> oats guy' was necessity, but now, it is not.
Even then a 12 year old girl is incapable of giving birth without
serious complications.
>
> > > My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
> > > interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
> > > right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
> > > and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
>
> > MOE> Maybe a NAMBLA guy who doesn't want to admit being gay-ish?
>
> > I dunno. My date to my Senior prom when I was 18 she was 20. Don't know
> > about this NAMBLA shit. I wasn't interested in 17 or 18 year old girls even
> > when I was 18. I WAS however very interested in them when I was 14 and 15.
>
> > > > As usual for you, you don't show concern for the children being
> > > > victimized.
> > > > The Tony Alamo " Church" is a cult, plain and simple. Even the local
> > > > people in the town where his " church" compound is are critical of
> > > > him.
>
> > Absolutely NO disagreement with that at all.
Moe
whitevamp
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
> and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
> as being from advocates kiddy sex.
>
> You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
> since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
What you did to the seven year old girl in the bathroom was hardly
right Greg and you know it. You were testing her to see how far you
could go in MOLESTING her.
And lets NOT mention how you abused her in other ways, shall we, or
how you treated at least TWO women in your life.
You aren't a saint Greg. You're disgusting.
>
> From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
> stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
> So WHY do you resort to similar BS?
> Was it just the BS of convenience for you?
By your own admission you touched the girl while " washing the pee
off of her" when she was of the age to do it herself without your
"help". You damn well know what you were trying to do, Greg. You
deserved the charges.
>
> Are you afraid to discuss the real issues, Betty?
You seem afraid to admit what you did, instead playing the victim.
Wah, wah poor Greg!!
Get a job, bum!!
>
> After your own dishonesty and personal insults
> you dare to protest personal insults?
Pot,kettle, Greg. You do both yourself, hypocrite.
>
> What Maureen and you seem to be advocating
> is that the members of this religious group
> should all be presumed guilty and all have
> their children removed for no other reason.
Actually what I am advocating is that there should be concern if a
cult leader is teaching that children should have sex with adults. I
realize you are not actually informed, so let me give you some history
of one cult. The " Children of God" cult way back in the seventies had
their adult male leader teach about " flirty fishing", which was when
female members of the cult would " convert" by in essence screwing the
males. This same cult leader had his " wives" pose for photos where
they had sex with children and where children had sex with each other.
By children I mean four and five year olds. And this cult leader later
had associates of his videotape young girls before puberty "
suggestively" dancing and stripping on camera.
But that is all right with you, right Greg?
The FLDS church has 12 year old GIRLS marrying fifty some odd year
old men, Greg. TWO of these girls later escaped and went public about
what they suffered.
But you don't mention that, do you Greg? It's all CPS look what they
did to me wah wah crap with you.
I noticed you haven't said whether or not the child-girl marriage
thing was WRONG or that sex with children is wrong.
Tell me Greg, is it wrong or not?
>
> Do you know who historically did stuff like that?
Males who abuse children. usually. Like you.
>
> Do you advocate targeting people for their religion?
Nope but if they HIDE BEHIND religion to molest, they should be
prosecuted.
Thinking of converting Greg?
>
> Maureen is a self declared Wiccan.
> For her to be vitriolic about a religion is absurd.
No actually as a Wiccan/Pagan over the years I've gotten hatred FROM
Xians about my faith. My " vitriol" about the Alamo " church" is
because I know about the history of the Alamos and what the cult has
done over the years.
I am against abuse hiding behind religion, Greg. I don't care if it's
slave work under Alamo or Catholic pedophile priests, abuse is abuse
and its wrong. And it should be stopped.
>
> What is your religious position, Betty?
Does it matter? You gonna do the " I'm a victim of witch persecution:
act again Greg? That didn't work before.
What is YOUR religion Greg?
>
> This news story was about grabbing kids ONLY
> because of their family's religious affiliation.
Actually it was also about abuses to children in the cult. You showed
only ONE story. This is a series of articles on the Alamo cult, Greg.
So "religious freedom" is stronger than " child safety" right Greg?
Not that you actually give a damn about children, seeing as you
haven't sired any and how you treated a seven year old girl.
>
> http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=QXJEZW1vY3JhdC8yMDA5...
>
> And WHY is it that in a cross posted thread, you
> addressed Moe yet posted only to ascps?
Because it was a reply to my post which is ONLY on ASCPS, dumbass.
Can you get any stupider, Greg?
>
> Betty, What kind of feminist do you consider
> yourself? Which faction of feminism?
>
> Moe? (same questions)
Considering your smirky treatment of me about my " sex life", why the
hell should I answer your questions?
I'm am Amazon feminist. I like MEN but "males" like you better step
out of the way. IOW I'm not your type of submissive female who takes
your abuse.
>
> Betty:
>
> Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> who poach on teens or little kids are given
> much lighter punishments than males who
> do the same?
Is poaching the same as deep frying? Are we talking cannibalism here?
And why would you be interested in females eating kids? Too much
Hansel and Gretel give you a hard on?
>
> Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
> with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
> has sex with a 5 year old?
Are you looking for approval of what you did to a seven year old
girl,Greg?
Your perversion's showing Greg.
For GREG its US laws-- mainly out of self interest. Greg's little
excuse of " washing the pee off" of a seven-year old girl in the
bathroom was his little testing to see how far he can go with her.
Greg plainly wants to molest little girls and for him anything that
supports that view is fine.
>
>
>
> > MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
> > self-serving skuzz he is.
>
> > I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
> > historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
> > Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
> > largely Hindu India.
>
> Greg wasn't 'discussing the issue in a historical perspective'.
> He was pointing out that it used to be acceptable, so why not now?
> And, again, the conversation, then, and now, centered around US laws
> and customs.
See above as to why Greg wants it to be acceptable now.
>
>
>
> > > Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
> > > contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
> > > of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
> > > old girl now.
>
> > MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
> > MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
>
> > I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality as
> > you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
> > sexuality. And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> > talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
> > (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the girls,
> > but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to BLAME
> > MEN for the practice.
>
> Girls may have been well versed in 'life', but probably not in
> sexuality.
> It was almost '100 years ago' that my grandmother was a young girl,
> and I do, VERY WELL, recall the secretive nature of all things
> 'sexual' with the people of her generation. My older cousin had gone
> into labor, 1983, and I mentioned that her water had broken and that
> it wouldn't be long before the baby came. My grandmother and her
> friends were horrified that I would say such a thing in 'mixed
> company'. Modesty was a big thing, and sexuality was not something
> that was openly discussed even thirty years ago in some societies in
> America.
Agreed. My mother was the same way.
> Forty six years ago my mother had to quit school to work and help take
> care of the family. Forty two years ago she was a virginal eighteen
> year old girl who had no idea what was going to happen on her wedding
> night.
As many were in that era. Ignorant of the wedding night and
frightened as well, not excited and lusty in seeing their hubby's
erect penis as Ken would love to claim. And, as Ken forgets to mention
once again, some of those husbands forced themselves on the women. IOW
rape.
> I highly doubt that '100 years ago' sexuality was as openly discussed
> as you would make one think.
> Those who grew up in rural areas definitely knew what procreation was,
> but knew very little of sexual behaviors, as it was kept in the closet
> along with infidelity, children out of wedlock, and a host of other
> taboos.
Agreed.
>
>
>
> > > I explained to him that today children are not 'made' to grow up so
> > > fast, and because of that they lack the responsibility and maturity of
> > > girls of 130+ years ago.
>
> > MOE> Agreed. Young girls then had to deal with a lot of things that modern
> > MOE> children don't face except in some harsher urban settings. Then they
> > MOE> had to help their mothers in birthing and care and disease took many
> > MOE> children. They also had to grow and raise their own food, which meant
> > MOE> that the children were work hands as well.
>
> > I LOVE ther ultra-simplistic RADICAL FEMINIST interpretations of
> > history. Feminists rubbing both IQ points together trying desperatelky to
> > start a fire. HON - the reason that females were married young in history
> > was simple. Preservation or expension of the species. You see for a long
> > time PEOPLE died off by age 30. You were considered a extremely OLD man by
> > 35. Humans had to get their baby making in quick. Divisions of labor
> > happened out of necessity too.There was always a surplus of females because
> > when UG left the cave to hunt for food - there was a 2 to 1 chance that HE
> > would wind up on the dinner plate of some other critter. So for human
> > society to survive it needed as many females as possible making babies.
> > Nothing sinister, no MALE CONSPIRACY to hold females down.
> > Just necessity.
>
> Leave it to Ken to go waaaaaay out there on a limb and point out the
> habits of cavemen.
As if he knows firsthand. :-D
> There's no 'conspiracy' about it. Just as women married young and had
> children and matured quickly, so did men.
> It was not uncommon in frontier days for boys as young as twelve to be
> in charge of caring for all the animals on the farm.
> Not uncommon for them to have their own livestock and begin starting
> up their own homesteads by the time they were fifteen.
> I would bet money that by the time my uncles were seven or eight (and
> that was nowhere near 100 years ago) they knew how to tend to the hogs
> and chickens, and 'work the field' (as my grandmother used to call
> tending the garden).
Most people in rural settings had to know this, both males AND
females, in order to survive.
Bet Great Manly Hunter Kennie can't even come close to what they had
to do every day.
> Far, far less than 100 years ago, I, myself, was taught to 'work the
> field' and can food at harvest. (thank God I never had to kill a
> chicken, or slaughter a hog, I don't think I could have done that, I
> like my meat on styrofoam).
> It's a societal issue, Ken, not a sexist issue.
> I know you want it to be a sexist issue, but really, it's not.
Agreed. I lived in a rural area and we do plant, harvest and can
food. I also had to do some, ahem, " meat processing" of chickens and
one hog. Not very nice work, but it was food on the table.
Where do you think the Southerners thought to eat opposum and Cajuns
eat snapping turtles? Both animals are cuss ugly yet someone was
desperate enough to cook the critters.
>
>
>
> > > And, I told him, back then it was legal, today it is not. Most states
> > > require marriage license applicants to be 15 and over, or have the
> > > approval of probate or family courts.
>
> > MOE> Back then it was also legal to have slaves. We know now slavery is
> > MOE> wrong. Back then medicine was crude at best. If he lived back then he
> > MOE> wouldn't have survived to his forties.
>
> > Well Moe - we BELIEVE now that slavery is wrong. Even though it persists
> > tp this day in many parts of Africa and the middle east. We just agree not
> > to talk about it. We agree to bury our heads in the sand and PRETEND it
> > doesn't exist. It also still exists in China.
>
> We don't live in Africa and China, Ken, and we weren't discussing
> other countries.
Agreed but the attitude is prevalent in other countries. Fortunately
in America we've become aware of horrible things like battered women
syndrome and " domestic violence" and date rape so that women can be
freer that we used to be.
>
>
>
> > > > And kindly tell me, Greg, why a NORMAL adult male would want to have
> > > > sex with a girl just entering puberty?
> > > That's a good question.
> > > Attributes that are 'usually' attractive to men include developed
> > > breasts and maturity.
> > > Most 12 year olds would lack both.
> > > So it doesn't make one wonder what a 50 year old man would find to be
> > > sexually attractive about a 12 year old girl.
>
> > MOE> Sexual control and supposed " purity" as the girl hasn't been used by
> > another male yet.
>
> > Well - in some cases there ARE pedophiles and Ephebophiles. It is
> > considered by academics to be deviant. It is considered by most of society
> > as deviant. I don't understand it myself to be frank. I simply can't find a
> > female under 40 worth wasting time on. I am not sure that brain development
> > begins in the fame until she's about 40. That's when women start getting
> > very interesting. (SOME EXCEPTIONS in present company noted.)
>
> Always with the personal insults. Why did I start out reading this
> thinking that Ken was actually going to have an intelligent and fair
> discussion?
> I should have known better.
Ken always resorts to personal insults. Bear in mind this is the same
guy who threatened rape to a female online some years ago. If he's
anything like his buddy Greg ( and he probably is), he thinks women
are there for his sexual pleasure and to be his servant. See I am a "
radical feminist" "man-hater" because I dare stand up and MENTION how
women are abused.
I see now "fame " means" dame". One of his misspellings. IOW he's
claiming women up to age 40 are stupid and so forth.
And he's a great prize, right? (( grinning))
You know what he would have said if I said, for example, that males
don't actually mature until the reach age 35 or so. And yet its okay
if HE says it about females.
>
> I suspect some
>
> > of the reasons that 50 year old men chase after 17 year old girls is for
> > reasons saimilar to why they drive a Corvette. In psychology it is called
> > "COMPENSATION."
>
> > MOE> Its the male controlling the female, plain and simple. Something Greg
> > MOE> knows about personally.
>
> > Moe baby THIS is what makes you SOOOOO attractive to men. I'd find it so
> > utterly fascinating, sitting in a livingroom with you next to a crackling
> > fire listening to the DRONE of your constant BITCHING ABOUT MEN. I can't
> > think of anything I'd rather be doing.
>
> I, personally, don't feel that the customs and laws of '100 years ago'
> were created to control women.
> I think they were created out of necessity. Many of them did end up
> putting a measure of control on women, but that was long ago, and
> equal rights put a stop to many inequalities between the sexes.
>
> And, again, to make my point, as I did when discussing this with Greg,
> for women to be married at 12 years old in 'the days of the quaker
> oats guy' was necessity, but now, it is not.
Even then a 12 year old girl is incapable of giving birth without
serious complications.
>
> > > My husband once told me that when he was 18, he and his friends had no
> > > interest in girls who were younger than 17 or so. He said (and he's
> > > right) young girls who haven't developed yet look like little boys,
> > > and what is attractive about that to a grown man.
>
> > MOE> Maybe a NAMBLA guy who doesn't want to admit being gay-ish?
>
> > I dunno. My date to my Senior prom when I was 18 she was 20. Don't know
> > about this NAMBLA shit. I wasn't interested in 17 or 18 year old girls even
> > when I was 18. I WAS however very interested in them when I was 14 and 15.
>
> > > > As usual for you, you don't show concern for the children being
> > > > victimized.
> > > > The Tony Alamo " Church" is a cult, plain and simple. Even the local
> > > > people in the town where his " church" compound is are critical of
> > > > him.
>
> > Absolutely NO disagreement with that at all.
Moe
whitevamp
>
> news:8939827f-23b9-43ab...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
> > and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
> > as being from advocates kiddy sex.
>
> > You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
> > since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
>
> > From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
> > stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
>
> The perceived sexual crap (it may not be sexual to you, grag, it may be
> sadistic) is what YOU used on Lisa Watkins' seven year old daughter.
>
> Why do you think the authorities have kept the not-so-little girl away from
> the custody of her mother for more than eight years, grag?
>
> Because of a cluttered mobile home, which she hasn't lived in in seven
> years???
>
> OR because the mother is still with you?
The little bastard's playing the victim again. He wants you to "
admit" that if its okay for an adult female to screw a 17 year old
teenage male then its okay for HIM to molest a seven year old girl.
He's looking for acceptance of his disgusting, perverted sexual
interest.
krp
> Simplistic, No. Accurate, yes.
Yes SIMPLISTIC. Life wa s VASTLY different 1500 years ago. As it was
15,000 years ago.
> The Church during the middle ages said if a husband had to beat his
> "disobedient" wife to death, that was justifiable.
What church? Where?
> Also there was a practice in Europe where a peasant woman
> who is about to be married can be " passed on down" from the leading
> ruler on down his court sexually ( that is serially raped) the eve
> before her marriage, as to them she was property, not a human being.
> Nasty bits of history they don't teach you in public school.
Maybe not the schools YOU went to. Actually you have EVEN THAT wrong.
You always turn things into your fantasies. It WAS a practice in parts of
England where the "lord" could have sex with any woman about to be married.
She was NOT passed to all the guys. Just the nobleman himself held that
right.
>> MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
>> MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like
>> when
>> MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even
>> entering
>> MOE> puberty.
>> She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
>> uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
> Doesn't make it right , does it Ken?
Did *I* say anywhere that it did, Moe? Lay off the booze.
> Also in many of these same Islamic countries a woman can be murdered
> based on "honor killings" where she supposedly shamed the family by
> being raped or even talking with a male.
True - but than I am not a Muslim.
>> MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
>> self-serving skuzz he is.
>> I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
>> historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
>> Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
>> largely Hindu India.
> Ken, explain what he did to the seven-year old girl while they were
> in the bathroom alone. That stunk of sexual abuse.
Yet he was never charged with sexual abuse. I wasn't there. Were you?
>> > Back then then children were reared to accept responsibility and
>> > contribute to the family from a very early age. The mental maturity
>> > of a 12 year old girl then would be akin to the maturity of a 17 year
>> > old girl now.
>>
>> MOE> The girls were also ignorant of sexual matters and were not allowed
>> MOE> to be as educated as the boys. Again the women as property view.
>>
>> I am not so sure the young females were all as ignorant of sexuality
>> as
>> you believe. Mothers extensively instructed their daughters in matters of
>> sexuality.
> Bullshit and you know it. So the Puritans were great sex ed teachers?
> How about the Victorian era where sexuality was so constrained that
> pianio legs had to be covered, for crying out loud!
In their own way, Moe. Mothers routines "warned" girls about sex back
then.
> And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
>> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in Africa.
>> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the
>> girls,
>> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to
>> BLAME
>> MEN for the practice.
> Like you give a damn, right Ken? Great human rights advocate you are,
> huh? Quit your posturing. You aren't fooling anyone.
Sorry the FCATS are the FACTS. It is NOT men doing it to the girls - it
is WOMEN.
> To put your claim in another way, during the Civil War some slaves in
> the South defended their plantations and even fought as Confederate
> soldiers. That was certainly contrary to their best interests, wasn't
> it?
So the women who do the mutilation of girls are blameless and it is ALL
MEN'S FAULT, Moe??
> You know as well as I do that when someone is brainwashed or
> threatened into submission ( like the battered woman syndrome) they
> will do as their "master" says, even if they know it is wrong.
So now the MEN are BRAINWASHING the women... And WOEMN arfe too
brainless to think for themselves. is THAT what you are arguing?
> Speaking of simplicity.....
It's the way things were, Moe.
> Your version of human survival is overly simplistic. You can call me
> a " radical feminist" all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The "
> aways a surplus of females" claim has no scientific data to back it
> up. IOW you got that from the same place you get most of your views--
> from your anus.
Okay you are a RADICAL FEMINIST. Maybe, or maybe you just TALK like one.
> BTW " Ug" wouldn't have known that pregnancy came from screwing if he
> was just in the hunter-gatherer stage. Oh you forgot the GATHERER
> part, didn't you? Did you think they ate only meat? Gee, who dug and
> gathered the food, by any chance? By the time humans started herding
> animals and breeding them, the mystery of reproduction was becoming
> clearer.
Moe - in the days of living in caves - women were NOT considered
HELPLESS - MINDLESS little BIMBOS. Animals also came to human abodes
looking to eat somebody. The women defended the nest. You have a totally
screwed up vision of what folks were doing - filtered through that insane
FEMINIST bullshit ideology you are regurgitatin.
Dragon's Girl
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Betty, You made a similar mistake to what Michael
> and ca did, when you try to cast all logical opponents
> as being from advocates kiddy sex.
I did no such thing.
What 'opponents' would you be referring to?
I see no 'opponents'.
>
> You didn't honestly think I as arguing for self interest
> since you KNOW my exact age, Betty.
No. I didn't say that you were arguing the point for 'self interest'.
Where did you get that idea from?
I merely pointed out that we've had similar discussions in the past,
and your stance.
And mine.
>
> From what you say you know that CPS MAKES UP
> stuff like the sexual crap they actually used on me.
> So WHY do you resort to similar BS?
> Was it just the BS of convenience for you?
Excuse?
Whom did I 'make up similar' BS about?
>
> Are you afraid to discuss the real issues, Betty?
I was discussing the real issue.
>
> After your own dishonesty and personal insults
> you dare to protest personal insults?
Ummmm...what insults, Greg?
>
> What Maureen and you seem to be advocating
> is that the members of this religious group
> should all be presumed guilty and all have
> their children removed for no other reason.
Not me.
My only belief regarding guilt or innocence is that marrying off 12
year old girls IS child abuse.
Consummating such a marriage IS child sexual abuse.
I haven't 'presumed' anything but that if this practice has occurred
it IS child abuse.
>
> Do you know who historically did stuff like that?
I'm sure you're going to tell me.
>
> Do you advocate targeting people for their religion?
No, did I say I did?
>
> Maureen is a self declared Wiccan.
So?
> For her to be vitriolic about a religion is absurd.
>
> What is your religious position, Betty?
I've told you about six billion times already...I'm Baptist and
Pentecostal.
>
> This news story was about grabbing kids ONLY
> because of their family's religious affiliation.
That's all? Really?
>
> http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=QXJEZW1vY3JhdC8yMDA5...
>
> And WHY is it that in a cross posted thread, you
> addressed Moe yet posted only to ascps?
Because I've decided that, unless I do happen to forget, I'm not cross
posting to any other groups anymore.
Why do you care?
>
> Betty, What kind of feminist do you consider
> yourself? Which faction of feminism?
I'm not a feminist.
>
> Moe? (same questions)
>
> Betty:
>
> Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> who poach on teens or little kids are given
> much lighter punishments than males who
> do the same?
I've known it to happen.
>
> Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
> with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
> has sex with a 5 year old?
I honestly do.
>
> How would you rank these?
>
> female school teacher 26 has sex with a 5 ear old boy
>
> F26 M5
Child abuse
> F26 M14
Child abuse
> F26 M17
Child abuse
> F26 F5
Child abuse
> F26 F14
Child abuse
> F26 F17
Child abuse
>
> M26 M5
Child abuse.
> M26 M14
Child abuse
> M26 M17
Child abuse
> M26 F5
Need I go on, or have you got the idea yet?
Greegor
Do you subscribe to the observation that women
who poach on teens or little kids are given
much lighter punishments than males who
do the same?
PLEASE ANSWER THIS!
Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
has sex with a 5 year old?
WHICH ONE IS WORSE?
How would you rank these?
I said RANK, not label.
DO YOU RANK THEM ALL IDENTICALLY?
YOU NEVER ANSWERED ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN
PERPETRATORS GET OFF EASIER OR WHY.
YOU FAILED TO RANK THESE.
Dan Sullivan
grag thinks he had the perfect excuse... the mother's permission.
LOL!!!
And the Courts have kept the mother from having custody of her
daughter for more than eight years.
LOL!!!!!!
Greegor
DS >
DS > LOL!!!
DS >
DS > And the Courts have kept the mother from having
DS > custody of her daughter for more than eight years.
DS >
DS > LOL!!!!!!
Dan, You REALLY need to get an update!
Call them up and tell them you're a NY caseworker!
Get them to give you an update!
You're SERIOUSLY out of date!
Dragon's Girl
> Betty:
>
> Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> who poach on teens or little kids are given
> much lighter punishments than males who
> do the same?
>
> PLEASE ANSWER THIS!
>
> Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
> with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
> has sex with a 5 year old?
>
> WHICH ONE IS WORSE?
>
> How would you rank these?
What do you want, Greg?
A 'scale' from one to ten or something?
If that's what you're looking for...10, 10, 10 and ten for each and
every one.
It seems to me that you're losing your head on this issue.
You forget that AGE is not always the only factor there is to
consider.
I do think that a 35 year old having sex with a seventeen year old is
just as bad as a 25 year old having sex with a five year old.
A child is a child is a child. 1, 5, 17, they're ALL kids.
Adults have no business having sex with children.
>
> I said RANK, not label.
> DO YOU RANK THEM ALL IDENTICALLY?
Do you?
>
> YOU NEVER ANSWERED ABOUT WHETHER WOMEN
> PERPETRATORS GET OFF EASIER OR WHY.
Geeze, stop yelling, and yes I did...I said I've known it to
happen...learn to read, ok?
krp
> Betty:
>
> Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> who poach on teens or little kids are given
> much lighter punishments than males who
> do the same?
Most likely Ms. Wiersen WILL try to deny the disparity between cases
where a woman is convicted of having sex with young boys versus men with
youngsters. It is because of the belief that there is something
intrinsically more harmful when a male does it to a female than a female
doing it to a male. There was a recent re-run of a Law & Order episode
dealing with a REAL LIFE case with only the names being changed type of TV
disclaimer to avoid lawsuits. It really went into the disparity quite well.
L&O on occasion has been very good telling stories of some of the places our
legal system goes wrong. They also did a great on on a quack therapist
planting memories into people. But the FACT is that if you examine the cases
the sentences for women are a TINY fraction of what would occur is the
genders had been reversed. We can use the Lafave case as a good example.
PROBATION, PROBATION PROBATION PROBATION PROBATION....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
`Before Betty chimes in and claims "IT IS EXTREMELY RARE." NOT SO
BETTY!!!!!!! NOT SO!!!!
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_11865756?source=most_viewed
A NEW problem?????????? JUST STARTED LAST WEEK DOC?????????
http://www.nbc6.net/news/15713803/detail.html
And we STILL hush up the cases of female teachers having sex with FEMALE
children. We STILL refuse to talk about it.
krp
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0280c10b-844e-41c6...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 8:51 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Betty:
>
> Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> who poach on teens or little kids are given
> much lighter punishments than males who
> do the same?
>
> PLEASE ANSWER THIS!
>
> Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
> with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
> has sex with a 5 year old?
>
> WHICH ONE IS WORSE?
>
> How would you rank these?
HBW> It seems to me that you're losing your head on this issue.
HBW> You forget that AGE is not always the only factor there is to consider.
REALLY BETTY? Think that works for the GUYS who are screwing 11 year old
girls??????? Is that a winning LEGAL strategy in your mind? Tell the jury
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE KIDS AGE -- SHE WAS REALLY HOT!!!!!! SHE WANTED
IT. Yeah, Betty THAT'LL work. Go back to your Harley.
Dragon's Girl
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8906efd1-5837-410d...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Betty:
>
> > Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> > who poach on teens or little kids are given
> > much lighter punishments than males who
> > do the same?
>
> Most likely Ms. Wiersen WILL try to deny the disparity between cases
> where a woman is convicted of having sex with young boys versus men with
> youngsters
Goes to show how much you KNOW.
. It is because of the belief that there is something
> intrinsically more harmful when a male does it to a female than a female
> doing it to a male.
Psychologically the effects are the same. Physically, the damage can
be more devastating.
Regardless, abuse is abuse, doesn't matter what sex perpetuates it, or
what sex is the victim of it.
Why do you always try to play this 'reverse sexism' game with me?
There was a recent re-run of a Law & Order episode
> dealing with a REAL LIFE case with only the names being changed type of TV
> disclaimer to avoid lawsuits. It really went into the disparity quite well.
> L&O on occasion has been very good telling stories of some of the places our
> legal system goes wrong. They also did a great on on a quack therapist
> planting memories into people. But the FACT is that if you examine the cases
> the sentences for women are a TINY fraction of what would occur is the
> genders had been reversed. We can use the Lafave case as a good example.
> PROBATION, PROBATION PROBATION PROBATION PROBATION....
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
>
> `Before Betty chimes in and claims "IT IS EXTREMELY RARE." NOT SO
> BETTY!!!!!!! NOT SO!!!!
I wouldn't make such a claim, Ken.
And didn't.
>
> http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_11865756?source=most_viewed
>
> A NEW problem?????????? JUST STARTED LAST WEEK DOC?????????
>
> http://www.nbc6.net/news/15713803/detail.html
>
> And we STILL hush up the cases of female teachers having sex with FEMALE
> children. We STILL refuse to talk about it.
Funny, we had a case of that in this area just about four years ago,
and I didn't see anyone 'hushing' it up.
But you just keep living in that little delusional bubble of yours.
Apparently it's comfortable for you in there, for so long as you live
with these beliefs that seem to support your outrageous claims, you
can keep pretending that you're always right.
Dragon's Girl
> "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0280c10b-844e-41c6...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 14, 8:51 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Betty:
>
> > Do you subscribe to the observation that women
> > who poach on teens or little kids are given
> > much lighter punishments than males who
> > do the same?
>
> > PLEASE ANSWER THIS!
>
> > Do you honestly consider a 35 year old who has sex
> > with a 17 year old to be as horrific as a 25 year old who
> > has sex with a 5 year old?
>
> > WHICH ONE IS WORSE?
>
> > How would you rank these?
>
> HBW> It seems to me that you're losing your head on this issue.
> HBW> You forget that AGE is not always the only factor there is to consider.
>
> REALLY BETTY? Think that works for the GUYS who are screwing 11 year old
> girls???????
I'd guess not.
Is that a winning LEGAL strategy in your mind? Tell the jury
> PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE KIDS AGE -- SHE WAS REALLY HOT!!!!!! SHE WANTED
> IT.
Uh, Ken, why would I CARE what a 'winning legal strategy' would be for
a guy who IS messing around with an 11 year old girl?
>Yeah, Betty THAT'LL work.
Why would I CARE if it worked?
>Go back to your Harley.
Brilliant! You imply concern for a 'winning legal strategy' for
persons having sex with eleven year old girls, and then insult me.
You just can't help yourself, can you Ken?
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The reigning church in Europe at that time, Your church in fact.
Catholic boy.
Were you in fact charged with statutory rape of a 16 year old?
>
> > Also there was a practice in Europe where a peasant woman
> > who is about to be married can be " passed on down" from the leading
> > ruler on down his court sexually ( that is serially raped) the eve
> > before her marriage, as to them she was property, not a human being.
> > Nasty bits of history they don't teach you in public school.
>
> Maybe not the schools YOU went to. Actually you have EVEN THAT wrong.
> You always turn things into your fantasies. It WAS a practice in parts of
> England where the "lord" could have sex with any woman about to be married.
> She was NOT passed to all the guys. Just the nobleman himself held that
> right.
Incorrect. You as usual show your ignorance. It was called droit de
seigneur,among other similar names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
And after the " lord" raped her, she was passed down the court for
males to rape.
My point, and you as usual forget to see it is that the culture made
it acceptable for a "lord' to rape women.
>
> >> MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
> >> MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like
> >> when
> >> MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even
> >> entering
> >> MOE> puberty.
> >> She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
> >> uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
> > Doesn't make it right , does it Ken?
>
> Did *I* say anywhere that it did, Moe? Lay off the booze.
I don't drink, Ken. You do.
But as usual you don't say outright what you think. Usual weasly
cowardice on your part.
But then if its true that you as a n adult screwed /raped( willing or
not ) a sixteen year old girl, I can see how you don't want to say
right out that you approve of adults having sex with very young
people.
>
> > Also in many of these same Islamic countries a woman can be murdered
> > based on "honor killings" where she supposedly shamed the family by
> > being raped or even talking with a male.
>
> True - but than I am not a Muslim.
Yes I found out you're Catholic. Which some Protestants say is
Pagan :-D
>
> >> MOE> Greg's idea of history is pathetic, but typical of the ignorant
> >> self-serving skuzz he is.
> >> I don't think Greg was condoning it, but discussing the issue in a
> >> historical perspective. The practice is common today in fundamentalist
> >> Islamic groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other places, and even in
> >> largely Hindu India.
> > Ken, explain what he did to the seven-year old girl while they were
> > in the bathroom alone. That stunk of sexual abuse.
>
> Yet he was never charged with sexual abuse. I wasn't there. Were you?
I don't need to be there. The facts, even by Greg's twisting, are
indisputable. And if I WERE there, you can bet Greggie would have had
far more than a broken jaw. I'm not the submissive Lisa is.
FCATS?
Females brainwashed and beaten enough to do as the men tell them to
do.
>
> > To put your claim in another way, during the Civil War some slaves in
> > the South defended their plantations and even fought as Confederate
> > soldiers. That was certainly contrary to their best interests, wasn't
> > it?
>
> So the women who do the mutilation of girls are blameless and it is ALL
> MEN'S FAULT, Moe??
Is it right or wrong Ken? Have some ethics for once.
I didn't say they were blameless. I said they were brainwashed to do
as the men told them to do. Battered Woman Syndrome, Ken. Its real and
women who suffer from that don't have the courage to fight back.
Ask Greg. He knows all about battering women.
>
> > You know as well as I do that when someone is brainwashed or
> > threatened into submission ( like the battered woman syndrome) they
> > will do as their "master" says, even if they know it is wrong.
>
> So now the MEN are BRAINWASHING the women... And WOEMN arfe too
> brainless to think for themselves. is THAT what you are arguing?
Try proofreading before you post Ken. Seriously.
Battered Woman's Syndrome Ken. Look it up.
And in some areas of the world still are :(.
>
> > Your version of human survival is overly simplistic. You can call me
> > a " radical feminist" all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The "
> > aways a surplus of females" claim has no scientific data to back it
> > up. IOW you got that from the same place you get most of your views--
> > from your anus.
>
> Okay you are a RADICAL FEMINIST. Maybe, or maybe you just TALK like one.
Nope I am not a " radical feminist" but I don't back down to abusive
males nor do I see scum like you as desirable.
> > BTW " Ug" wouldn't have known that pregnancy came from screwing if he
> > was just in the hunter-gatherer stage. Oh you forgot the GATHERER
> > part, didn't you? Did you think they ate only meat? Gee, who dug and
> > gathered the food, by any chance? By the time humans started herding
> > animals and breeding them, the mystery of reproduction was becoming
> > clearer.
>
> Moe - in the days of living in caves - women were NOT considered
> HELPLESS - MINDLESS little BIMBOS. Animals also came to human abodes
> looking to eat somebody. The women defended the nest. You have a totally
> screwed up vision of what folks were doing - filtered through that insane
> FEMINIST bullshit ideology you are regurgitatin.
Nice avoidance. You were the one doing the protector claim. Ken. Pick
a lane.
whitevamp
He was referring to your excuse of getting Lisa's permission to
fondle in the bathroom her seven-year-old daughter.
Dan Sullivan
> DS > grag thinks he had the perfect excuse... the mother's permission.
> DS >
> DS > LOL!!!
> DS >
> DS > And the Courts have kept the mother from having
> DS > custody of her daughter for more than eight years.
> DS >
> DS > LOL!!!!!!
>
> Dan, You REALLY need to get an update!
If the situation has changed you should take a STRONG stand and post
what you're referring to.
If not we'll just know that you're jerkin off again.
Or has Lisa Watkins signed something you don't want revealed?
> Call them up and tell them you're a NY caseworker!
Why should I lie to them?
> Get them to give you an update!
Get them to give you an enema!
> You're SERIOUSLY out of date!
What was the date of the big change?
krp
> What church? Where?
MOE> The reigning church in Europe at that time, Your church in fact.
MOE> Catholic boy.
No - More the church NEVER said a husband could beat his wife to DEATH.
But even so, what the court DID allow was WRONG.
MOE> Were you in fact charged with statutory rape of a 16 year old?
No Moe that is another of DAVEY MOORE'S LIES.
> > Also there was a practice in Europe where a peasant woman
> > who is about to be married can be " passed on down" from the leading
> > ruler on down his court sexually ( that is serially raped) the eve
> > before her marriage, as to them she was property, not a human being.
> > Nasty bits of history they don't teach you in public school.
>
> Maybe not the schools YOU went to. Actually you have EVEN THAT wrong.
> You always turn things into your fantasies. It WAS a practice in parts of
> England where the "lord" could have sex with any woman about to be
> married.
> She was NOT passed to all the guys. Just the nobleman himself held that
> right.
MOE> Incorrect. You as usual show your ignorance. It was called droit de
MOE> seigneur,among other similar names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
As I said before - it has been acknowledged by some of a custoom for the
Noble Lord to have first intercourse. But evenb HERE you have to be
DISHONEST. Why leave this part out of YOUR OWN SOURCE????
"The existence of a "right of the first night" in the Middle Ages was first
disputed in the 19th century. Although most historians today would agree
that there was no authentic custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement
continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the
widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of
symbolic gestures referring to this right"
Doesn't suit your feminist RAVINGS???????
"The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th
century, Hector Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III
that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins
dwelling on the same." Legend has it that Saint Margaret of Scotland
procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called
merchet. But King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece's account included
much clearly fictional material.[3]"
Seems like yopur radical feminist BULLSHIT is on shakey ground Moe.
MOE> And after the " lord" raped her, she was passed down the court for
males to rape.
BULLSHIT - even your own source fails to support that claim. Your whacky
feminist bullshit is a sinking ship Moe.
MOE> My point, and you as usual forget to see it is that the culture made
it acceptable for a "lord' to rape women.
Your OWN SOURCE only goes so far as to say "alleged." You are very
dogmatic for something only "ALLEGED."
> >> MOE> If he wants to use the argument of marriage at age 14 or they were
> >> MOE> "old maids' he should go farther back in history for that. Like
> >> when
> >> MOE> Mohammed married a girl as his " wife" when she was not even
> >> entering
> >> MOE> puberty.
> >> She was NINE years old to be exact. In MANY Islamic nations it is not
> >> uncommon even today to have young girls married to old men.
> > Doesn't make it right , does it Ken?
>
> Did *I* say anywhere that it did, Moe? Lay off the booze.
MOE> I don't drink, Ken. You do.
Sorry - I don't even drink coffee or tea. Coca Cola yes. (Actually I
prfefer RC Cola.)
MOE> But as usual you don't say outright what you think. Usual weasly
MOE> cowardice on your part.
Me? Not saying what I mean? SURELY you jest, Moe.
MOE> But then if its true that you as a n adult screwed /raped( willing or
MOE> not ) a sixteen year old girl, I can see how you don't want to say
MOE> right out that you approve of adults having sex with very young
MOE> people.
It isn't true, of course. You had to gat thet BULLSHIT from DAVEY MOORE.
Ask him to PROVE it. Here's a problem for you and Moore. Even when I was 16
I didn't have sex with a 16 year old girl. The YOUNGEST female I ever had
sex with was 20 and I was 17.
> > Also in many of these same Islamic countries a woman can be murdered
> > based on "honor killings" where she supposedly shamed the family by
> > being raped or even talking with a male.
>
> True - but than I am not a Muslim.
MOE> Yes I found out you're Catholic. Which some Protestants say is Pagan
:-D
Yeah - well..............
> Sorry the FACTS are the FACTS. It is NOT men doing it to the girls - it
> is WOMEN.
MOE> Females brainwashed and beaten enough to do as the men tell them to do.
POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > To put your claim in another way, during the Civil War some slaves in
> > the South defended their plantations and even fought as Confederate
> > soldiers. That was certainly contrary to their best interests, wasn't
> > it?
>
> So the women who do the mutilation of girls are blameless and it is ALL
> MEN'S FAULT, Moe??
MOE> Is it right or wrong Ken? Have some ethics for once.
You're kidding right? OF COURSE IT IS WRONG to mutilate girls. I don't
mick like doing it to BOYS either (circumcision).
> > You know as well as I do that when someone is brainwashed or
> > threatened into submission ( like the battered woman syndrome) they
> > will do as their "master" says, even if they know it is wrong.
>
> So now the MEN are BRAINWASHING the women... And WOEMEN are too
> brainless to think for themselves. is THAT what you are arguing?
MOE> Try proofreading before you post Ken. Seriously.
MOE> Battered Woman's Syndrome Ken. Look it up.
More feminist BULLSHIT. NOT professionally accepted as a TRUE
psychological "syndrome."
> Moe - in the days of living in caves - women were NOT considered
> HELPLESS - MINDLESS little BIMBOS. Animals also came to human abodes
> looking to eat somebody. The women defended the nest. You have a totally
> screwed up vision of what folks were doing - filtered through that insane
> FEMINIST bullshit ideology you are regurgitatin.
MOE> Nice avoidance. You were the one doing the protector claim. Ken. Pick a
lane.
Both parents were protectors. Mom held down the nest and dad brought
back food. (Ooool)
whitevamp
krp the party rapist wrote:
> > > Bullshit and you know it. So the Puritans were great sex ed teachers?
> > > How about the Victorian era where sexuality was so constrained that
> > > pianio legs had to be covered, for crying out loud!
> >
> > In their own way, Moe. Mothers routines "warned" girls about sex back
> > then.
>
> >
> > > And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> > >> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in
> > >> Africa.
> > >> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the
> > >> girls,
> > >> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to
> > >> BLAME
> > >> MEN for the practice.
> > > Like you give a damn, right Ken? Great human rights advocate you are,
> > > huh? Quit your posturing. You aren't fooling anyone.
> >
> > Sorry the FACTS are the FACTS. It is NOT men doing it to the girls - it
> > is WOMEN.
>
> MOE> Females brainwashed and beaten enough to do as the men tell them to do.
>
> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
Women get battered,raped, abused, tortured into submission and you
say THAT?
Ever talked with a woman who's been through that hell, Ken? I have.
You filth.
krp
> krp the party rapist wrote:
WHAT the hell is WRONG with you girl???? Besides being a RABID feminazi?
>> > > Bullshit and you know it. So the Puritans were great sex ed teachers?
>> > > How about the Victorian era where sexuality was so constrained that
>> > > pianio legs had to be covered, for crying out loud!
>> >
>> > In their own way, Moe. Mothers routines "warned" girls about sex back
>> > then.
>>
>> >
>> > > And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
>> > >> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in
>> > >> Africa.
>> > >> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the
>> > >> girls,
>> > >> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to
>> > >> BLAME
>> > >> MEN for the practice.
>> > > Like you give a damn, right Ken? Great human rights advocate you are,
>> > > huh? Quit your posturing. You aren't fooling anyone.
>> >
>> > Sorry the FACTS are the FACTS. It is NOT men doing it to the girls - it
>> > is WOMEN.
>>
>> MOE> Females brainwashed and beaten enough to do as the men tell them to
>> do.
>>
>> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
> Women get battered,raped, abused, tortured into submission and you
> say THAT?
> Ever talked with a woman who's been through that hell, Ken? I have. You
> filth.
Moe - my EX-WIFE was the victim of a GANG RAPE when she was 15 she got
pregnant - her mother took her for an ABORTION - she and her parents were
EXCOMMUNICATED by the Catholic church. (Later reversed.) I do NOT need a
lecture from some sanctimonious FEMINAZI whack on Usenet.
Dragon's Girl
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I guess Ken thinks that having a EX-WIFE who experineced GANG RAPE
when she was 15 (most likely before he even knew her) gives him some
kind of special insight into being a victim? Or maybe it makes him a
victim by proxy in his mind?
I don't have a penis. I know a lot of people who do have penises.
I've talked to a lot of the people I know that have penises.
That doesn't mean I KNOW what it's like to have a penis.
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c2a5115a-91fb-4db5...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > krp the party rapist wrote:
>
> WHAT the hell is WRONG with you girl???? Besides being a RABID feminazi?
I'm pointing out what you are.
Deal with it, teenie weenie.
And if I'm' nuts" then YOU are completely whacked out of your mind,
Ken.
Come on, Mister " mature" lets see more of your hissy fits and
temper tantrums. Prove me right once again about you.
>
>
>
> >> > > Bullshit and you know it. So the Puritans were great sex ed teachers?
> >> > > How about the Victorian era where sexuality was so constrained that
> >> > > pianio legs had to be covered, for crying out loud!
>
> >> > In their own way, Moe. Mothers routines "warned" girls about sex back
> >> > then.
>
> >> > > And while you are on your GENDER based HIGH HORSE, here, let's
> >> > >> talk of the practice of the genital mutilation of young girls in
> >> > >> Africa.
> >> > >> (Infibrulation I believe is the term.) It isn't men doing it to the
> >> > >> girls,
> >> > >> but WOMEN. I have NO fear, you will kost certyainly find some way to
> >> > >> BLAME
> >> > >> MEN for the practice.
> >> > > Like you give a damn, right Ken? Great human rights advocate you are,
> >> > > huh? Quit your posturing. You aren't fooling anyone.
>
> >> > Sorry the FACTS are the FACTS. It is NOT men doing it to the girls - it
> >> > is WOMEN.
>
> >> MOE> Females brainwashed and beaten enough to do as the men tell them to
> >> do.
>
> >> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
>
> No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
> because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
THAT shows what you REALLY are Ken. You just exposed yourself to be
the slimy piece of shit you actually are.
I've had women who suffered abuse cry on my shoulder as they told me
details of the hells they suffered.
I've seen the bruises and broken bones of women and teenage girls
after their abuser lost control and took it out on them.
I've talked with victims of rape whose rapists were " boyfriends" or
members of their family.
Their agonies are real, Ken. For you to mock and ridicule only adds
to my DISGUST about you.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW RAPE VICTIMS SUFFER, DON'T YOU?
You disgusting sack of shit.
The church should excommunicate YOU for being so evil.
whitevamp
Ken doesn't know shit about what rape does to a woman. I mentioned
battered woman's syndrome, Ken, as usual ignores that.
I see now that Ken DID in fact threaten a woman online with rape.
He's disgusting.
> I don't have a penis. I know a lot of people who do have penises.
> I've talked to a lot of the people I know that have penises.
> That doesn't mean I KNOW what it's like to have a penis.
I despise rapists and woman beaters because I saw the harm they do is
far more than physical and limited to their victims. I have a deep
hatred for such disgusting males for more than observational reasons.
I despise Greg because his touching Lisa's daughter in the bathroom
was far more than the " washing pee" he claims happened. I can figure
out he was up to no good from the start and he was grooming the child
for abuse.
Ken's own words earn my contempt for him.
Dragon's Girl
I just wrote a post the other day in response to his asking me about a
'strategy' in defending a man who had sex with a young girl.
Essentially, I viewed that as Ken admitting he would defend a child
molester.
He makes it VERY obvious that he's got issues with women, in general.
>
> > I don't have a penis. I know a lot of people who do have penises.
> > I've talked to a lot of the people I know that have penises.
> > That doesn't mean I KNOW what it's like to have a penis.
>
> I despise rapists and woman beaters because I saw the harm they do is
> far more than physical and limited to their victims. I have a deep
> hatred for such disgusting males for more than observational reasons.
I don't, myself. I learned long ago, as a victim, that harboring hate
does nothing for me but cause that hate to fester like an open sore
and spill over into other areas of my life.
Besides, it takes a lot of energy to hate, and I have better things to
focus my energies on.
You are correct, the effects are far more than physical, and they do
touch far more people than the victim.
That's absolutely one thing I can attest to being completely true.
>
> I despise Greg because his touching Lisa's daughter in the bathroom
> was far more than the " washing pee" he claims happened. I can figure
> out he was up to no good from the start and he was grooming the child
> for abuse.
I, personally, think he was just being stupid.
If you haven't noticed, Greg tends to get things in his head, and
nothing can convince him that he's wrong.
Even now, after seeing the effects of his behavior first hand, he will
not admit that even MAYBE his behavior was, at the least,
inappropriate.
He seems to be like that with most everything. If he doesn't see any
wrong in it, then to him, there IS no wrong in it.
I think he put himself in a bad position with Lisa's daughter, I don't
think that his intention was to molest her, but most men at that age
would know that what they were doing was inappropriate and would not
be assisting a girl of that age in showers, etc.
I was in the hospital once, and my ex was taking care of the kids. He
took my daughter, who was not his bio child, to his mother to give her
a bath. He didn't want to put himself in a position of APPEARING
inappropriate, and...he didn't want to give her a bath anyway. He
said 'But then I'd be having to clean her, like, ALL OVER' and he
didn't want to do that any way.
I don't think Greg took into consideration the appropriateness of his
actions before he committed them.
He's an asshole, but I don't believe he's a child molester.
>
> Ken's own words earn my contempt for him.
Believe me, I know EXACTLY what you're saying there.
Greegor
Dragon's Girl
Went right over your head, huh Greg?
Greegor
Moe > I saw the harm they do is far more than
Moe > physical and limited to their victims. I have
Moe > a deep hatred for such disgusting males
Moe > for more than observational reasons.
In other words, just like Mikey the crusader and ca the
crusader, you've got your own insane crusade and
mere facts will not get in your way.
Moe > I despise Greg because his touching Lisa's
Moe > daughter in the bathroom was far more than
Moe > the " washing pee" he claims happened. I
Moe > can figure out he was up to no good from
Moe > the start and he was grooming the child
Moe > for abuse.
No touching was involved in washing pee.
The kid was told to wash off the pee and complied.
Moe, You are certain that more took place
than what really did, because it's CONVENIENT for you.
Much like how you've parroted all of Kents diversionary crap.
How DO your autonomic functions continue
when you rub two brain cells together to post?
Greegor
Moe the Wiccan suggests a church should excommunicate somebody?
ROFL
krp
> > krp the party rapist wrote:
>
> WHAT the hell is WRONG with you girl???? Besides being a RABID feminazi?
MOE> I'm pointing out what you are. Deal with it, teenie weenie.
No you are merely bloviate like an ass.
MOE> And if I'm' nuts" then YOU are completely whacked out of your mind,
Ken.
Hi Pee WEE. IKYABWAI.
MOE> I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
MOE> in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
Sure the battered women's syndrom has been proven to be bullshit.
MOE> I've had women who suffered abuse cry on my shoulder as they told me
MOE> details of the hells they suffered.
So have I and about half the time it proved out that they were telling
the truth.
> > Women get battered,raped, abused, tortured into submission and you
> > say THAT?
> > Ever talked with a woman who's been through that hell, Ken? I have. You
> > filth.
>
> Moe - my EX-WIFE was the victim of a GANG RAPE when she was 15 she got
> pregnant - her mother took her for an ABORTION - she and her parents were
> EXCOMMUNICATED by the Catholic church. (Later reversed.) I do NOT need a
> lecture from some sanctimonious FEMINAZI whack on Usenet.
Ever talked to one? I slept next to one for over 20 YEARS.
krp
MOE> THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW RAPE VICTIMS SUFFER, DON'T YOU?
MOE> You disgusting sack of shit. The church should excommunicate YOU for
being so evil.
Moe - some women are rape victims, some are LIARS.
freedom
Proof that you raped a teenaged girl will follow.
And yet you were at nearly twice the legal limit when you were pulled over
for DUI** in November 2008, while you had your hand on some bimbo's knee
and your wife was at home doing your laundry.
>
>MOE> But as usual you don't say outright what you think. Usual weasly
>MOE> cowardice on your part.
>
> Me? Not saying what I mean? SURELY you jest, Moe.
>
>MOE> But then if its true that you as a n adult screwed /raped( willing or
>MOE> not ) a sixteen year old girl, I can see how you don't want to say
>MOE> right out that you approve of adults having sex with very young
>MOE> people.
>
> It isn't true, of course. You had to gat thet BULLSHIT from DAVEY MOORE.
>Ask him to PROVE it.
Since you ask so nicely, I will indeed prove that you were convicted of
statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. I'll even use your standards of
proof and logic to do it. Here goes:
http://images.todaystmj4.com/images/LIZs.jpg
So why did you rape her, Ken?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
- --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
- --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
- --Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
- --Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSb5NA6bdsu4taRc6EQKRVwCgs09xoqYckDjNYllw+OY9h192bXgAn3cT
iByJqh11j7l2gbY7Hf7cy+gt
=+K1U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:fa0332530c4d872a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> It isn't true, of course. You had to gat thet BULLSHIT from DAVEY
>> MOORE.
>>Ask him to PROVE it.
>
> Since you ask so nicely, I will indeed prove that you were convicted of
> statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. I'll even use your standards of
> proof and logic to do it. Here goes:
> http://images.todaystmj4.com/images/LIZs.jpg
Davey AGAIN that's your "ABSOLUTE PROOF?" Another photo of a girl? The
thing doesn't even say she was raped much less in ANY way mention me. Thisa
on a PAR with gthe rest ofc your BULLSHIT on your website. DAVID MOORE'S
PROOF.
> So why did you rape her, Ken?
I didn't. YOU DID apparently!
So DAVEY tell us your COWARDLY reason for including the names above? Are you
TERRIFIED to say the SOURCE for your names above???? Most of them are not
even people I know,
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore calumet
city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, david daniel moore
stalker, stalker, david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
pervert, david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore, internet
harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore internet libel, david
daniel moore website of lies, 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui,
linda boss, david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, david
daniel moore srara lee corporation, never employ david daniel moore,
internet psychopaths, david daniel moore chicagoland pansies
Nicko
Dogs and rodents probably flee to the other side of the street when
they see you staggering toward them down the alleyways or gangways of
the shit-encrusted asscrack of town.
You should hook up with that Jihad dude. You might change that whole
little internal world of yours if you combined forces with him!
--
YOP...
whitevamp
wipes off his mouth and wrote:
> Moe > I despise rapists and woman beaters because
> Moe > I saw the harm they do is far more than
> Moe > physical and limited to their victims. I have
> Moe > a deep hatred for such disgusting males
> Moe > for more than observational reasons.
>
> In other words, just like Mikey the crusader and ca the
> crusader, you've got your own insane crusade and
> mere facts will not get in your way.
" More than observational reasons" has meaning Greg. I'm female. It
got VERY personal for me once.
>
> Moe > I despise Greg because his touching Lisa's
> Moe > daughter in the bathroom was far more than
> Moe > the " washing pee" he claims happened. I
> Moe > can figure out he was up to no good from
> Moe > the start and he was grooming the child
> Moe > for abuse.
>
> No touching was involved in washing pee.
> The kid was told to wash off the pee and complied.
While you were there watching her naked. And how was is that you left
her out in the cold outside without a jacket as punishment, Greg? And
have her dumpster dive for aluminum cans for you? Concerned about her
health, were you, Greg?
And why was Lisa prevented from custody of her daughter for, what was
it, eight years while you were living with Lisa? Surely not for "
innocently" watching a girl wash the pee off of herself.
She thinks you're just plain stupid. I think you are an abuser of not
only the girl but of two women that we know of.
Get a job and support your family, Greg, THEN talk to me about how
good a guy you supposedly are.
>
> Moe, You are certain that more took place
> than what really did, because it's CONVENIENT for you.
I read a lot of true crime books, Greg. That includes criminal
profiling and profiles of child sex abusers. Your assortment of how
you treat women alone tells me you are far from the mister innocent
nice guy you pretend to be. And you latch onto Ken who has a streak of
misogyny he can barely control.
I don't need to have your complete psych makeup to see how you could
have been prepping the child for actual sex abuse later on.
>
> Much like how you've parroted all of Kents diversionary crap.
Like YOU parrot Ken's? You follow Panburn's lead like a slave.
I ' parrot" no one. But between you and Kent, I believe Kent far more
than I believe you.
>
> How DO your autonomic functions continue
> when you rub two brain cells together to post?
As I seem to be far more intelligent than you in my posts while you
seem to be mentally deficient, if I had only two brain cells, then
that means you have none.
But then your obvious drug abuse killed most of your brain cells long
ago.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
whitevamp
I heard you applied to the Church of Satan once because you thought
you could get free pussy and they denied your application because of
the crayons.
whitevamp
wrote:
>
> > >> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > > You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
>
> > No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
> > because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
>
> MOE> I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
> MOE> in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
>
> Sure the battered women's syndrom has been proven to be bullshit.
Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
syndrome is real.
Look, you can verbally abuse me all you want. I expect that from an
immature bastard like you. Some of the stuff I've seen you post over
the years via Google has me shaking my head and wondering how the hell
someone so obviously mentally screwed up as you are could even BE a
legal aid, much less a trial consultant. You show a serious LACK of
professionalism in your posts that it doesn't jive with the claims
about yourself you made in the real world.
Battered Woman's Syndrome is a real condition Ken. Most of your
alleged " education" dates to before domestic abuse laws were passed
and before law enforcement realized how serious spousal abuse really
is.
http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp
As one of many sites dealing with BWS problem.
>
> MOE> I've had women who suffered abuse cry on my shoulder as they told me
> MOE> details of the hells they suffered.
>
> So have I and about half the time it proved out that they were telling
> the truth.
I doubt you did, Ken. I really doubt you did.
>
> > > Women get battered,raped, abused, tortured into submission and you
> > > say THAT?
> > > Ever talked with a woman who's been through that hell, Ken? I have. You
> > > filth.
>
> > Moe - my EX-WIFE was the victim of a GANG RAPE when she was 15 she got
> > pregnant - her mother took her for an ABORTION - she and her parents were
> > EXCOMMUNICATED by the Catholic church. (Later reversed.) I do NOT need a
> > lecture from some sanctimonious FEMINAZI whack on Usenet.
>
> Ever talked to one? I slept next to one for over 20 YEARS.
And YOU divorced HER I see. You were such a good provider you had
her add her daughter live in decrepit home. And you defend men who
rape. Uh uh, Ken, don't try hiding behind your wife act with me. I'm
not fooled.
What did your daughter tell Moore about your treatment of her mother?
Bet you were far from a gentleman.
You defend rapists not rape victims,Ken. That says it all for me about
you. You even called for a woman online to BE raped.
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Does that mean all rape victims are liars Ken? Or that things like
spousal and date rape don't happen?
So when a guy drops a date rape drug into the woman's drink, he's
simply showing her a good time?
Rape is a reality Ken. Women in Muslim countries are murdered after
they've been raped because of " family honor". Men even in the Old
Testament as victors is wars raped local women.
So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
Dragon's Girl
> On Mar 16, 11:48 am, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> AKA rapist defender
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > > > You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
>
> > > No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
> > > because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
>
> > MOE> I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
> > MOE> in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
>
> > Sure the battered women's syndrom has been proven to be bullshit.
>
> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
> syndrome is real.
<degrees he earned through colleges that never taught basic human
anatomy. Obviously. Ken can't be an expert on sexual abuse because
he doesn't understand how the reproductive organs work. I think his
stupidity made it very clear how he's been educated, and what he's
been educated on.>
Greegor
Argumentum ad absurdum.
False pretense that it's one extreme or the other.
Ken said half of them are real.
Greegor
> anatomy. Obviously. Ken can't be an expert on sexual abuse because
> he doesn't understand how the reproductive organs work. I think his
> stupidity made it very clear how he's been educated, and what he's
> been educated on.>
Basic human anatomy?
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
Greegor
And how psycho is it that you inflate
that as if it's actual qualification?
Moe > That includes criminal profiling
Moe > and profiles of child sex abusers.
And you're such a retard that you think
that is a substitute for actual professional training...
You tried this crap before.
Why didn't you claim your Vampire
Cop fandom as qualifying you?
As far as I am concerned, you are a
TV watching vegetable.
whitevamp
No he said half of them are lies. He didn't acknowledge specifically
they were real. He could e did not specifically say what the other
half was, did he?
And he also denies that the Battered Women's Syndrome exists when I
cietd oneof many sources online alone that proves otherwise.
Some " sexual abuse" expert Ken is.
whitevamp
wrote:
> Moe > I read a lot of true crime books, Greg.
>
> And how psycho is it that you inflate
> that as if it's actual qualification?
It means I read a number of stories of actual cases where human
behavior lead o criminal and even murderous actions. True cmie
includes sex predators, in your case child sex predators.
And what you did to Lisa's seven year old girl reeks of predation and
abuse.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, but your own history speaks volumes
about your rather uncouth behavior with the members of the female
gender.
>
> Moe > That includes criminal profiling
> Moe > and profiles of child sex abusers.
>
> And you're such a retard that you think
> that is a substitute for actual professional training...
Its references FROM experts in the field, Greg. And you share a
number of triats with certain criminal types.
I've said this to Kenny and I'll say this to you. I don' really give
a crap what you say about me, for I know you will trash me all you
can. The FACTS about you, Lisa and her daughter ALONE raise suspicion
about what you really intended to do with her daughter. You did the "
poor me I'm the victim" act while TWO adult women associated with you
developed mental illness because of you.. That is far from mere
coincidence.
And the fact that you deliberately don't get a job partly to AVOID
PAYING COURT FEES really doesn't say much for you, now does it?
>
> You tried this crap before.
You tired YOUR crap many times before Greg. You're just afraid that
my reading educated me enough to see you for what you are-- scum.
>
> Why didn't you claim your Vampire
> Cop fandom as qualifying you?
Cheap shot Greggie, but typical of your low brain wattage. And
irrelveant to he issue at hand.
Can't you even hold onto a single logical argument without jumping
around like some drugged out junkie?
Oh, I forgot, you have mental damage from your long term drug use.
>
> As far as I am concerned, you are a
> TV watching vegetable.
Then don't respond to me.
Like I said what you think of me doesn't bother me at all.
(( Smirks))
krp
> MOE> THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW RAPE VICTIMS SUFFER, DON'T YOU?
> MOE> You disgusting sack of shit. The church should excommunicate YOU for
> being so evil.
> Moe - some women are rape victims, some are LIARS.
MOE> Does that mean all rape victims are liars Ken? Or that things like
MOE> spousal and date rape don't happen?
Did I say tghat? I dont recall saying THAT. YOU arew saing that. I never
said that. I used gthe word "SOME" is that too difficult of a word for yhou
Moe?
MOE> So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
You sure love to shovel words into people's mouths, Moe. ALL? No. MANY -
yes. Law enforcement statistics prove that anywhere from 40% to 70% are
outright LIES. Moe, maybe you should pay some attention to the large numbers
of rape convictions that have been overturned based on DNA. A good Study for
you is the case of Gary Dotson WRONGLY convicted of the rape of Cathy
Crowell Webb.
http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Me-Cathleen-Crowell-Webb/dp/0800714628
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=108019
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DC113AF936A15753C1A96E948260
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1464936.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/01/feminism-lies-and-rape-inferno-10/
Shall we go over the DUKE CASE, Moe? Are you STILL 200% positive they
raped Ms. Mangum???
krp
:
> Moe > So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
>
> Argumentum ad absurdum.
> False pretense that it's one extreme or the other.
> Ken said half of them are real.
MOE> No he said half of them are lies. He didn't acknowledge specifically
MOE> they were real. He could e did not specifically say what the other
MOE> half was, did he?
Moe - RES IPSA LOQUITOR.
krp
> > >> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > > You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
> > No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
> > because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
> MOE> I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
> MOE> in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
> Sure the battered women's syndrome has been proven to be bullshit.
MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
MOE> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
MOE> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
MOE> syndrome is real.
Yet it is not accepted as such within professional circles. Just
feminists.
http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp
MOE> As one of many sites dealing with BWS problem.
That STRIDENT ACTIVSITS believe in it is not the issue. It is whether it
is scientificaly valid and accepted in the professions. It isn't.
MOE> Ever talked to one?
>>I slept next to one for over 20 YEARS.
MOE> And YOU divorced HER I see. You were such a good provider you had
MOE> her add her daughter live in decrepit home.
I didn't "HAVE" her do anything. What my EX wife did was not within my
control. She is a free ADULT.
MOE> What did your daughter tell Moore about your treatment of her mother?
MOE> Bet you were far from a gentleman.
She didn't tell him anyhthing. HE MADE IT UP.
MOE> You defend rapists not rape victims,Ken. That says it all for me about
MOE> you.
How do you KNOW that they "ARE" rapists? We know that they are NOT.
First I want you to gtell us how you KNOW for 100% p;ositive that they ARE!
MOE> You even called for a woman online to BE raped.
YOU ARE INSANE! I didn't say that.
freedom
.......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question. Yet
more of your stalking of an innocent person.
(chi.general snipped, as this thread is completely irrelevant there)
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>DAVID MOORE'S LONG LIST NOF WHOPPERS
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:fa0332530c4d872a...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> It isn't true, of course. You had to gat thet BULLSHIT from DAVEY
>>> MOORE.
>>>Ask him to PROVE it.
>>
>> Since you ask so nicely, I will indeed prove that you were convicted of
>> statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. I'll even use your standards of
>> proof and logic to do it. Here goes:
>
>> http://images.todaystmj4.com/images/LIZs.jpg
>
> Davey AGAIN that's your "ABSOLUTE PROOF?" Another photo of a girl? The
>thing doesn't even say she was raped much less in ANY way mention me. Thisa
>on a PAR with gthe rest ofc your BULLSHIT on your website. DAVID MOORE'S
>PROOF.
Again, you're too stupid to even realize that I'm making fun of you and
your silly standards of proof. (You once posted a pic of a random woman
and claimed that it proved that I was having an affair.)
Perhaps people researching you, for the purpose of hiring you, won't
realize it either, and will actually believe that you raped a girl. I'll
laugh my ass off when that happens.
Or, you could admit that you lied, and that your standards of proof are
flawed, and I'll be happy to stop posting proof** that you raped a girl and
that you received a DUI while cheating with another.
Ask Barbara if she knows them. LOL.
>
>Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore calumet
>city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, david daniel moore
>stalker, stalker, david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
>pervert, david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
>david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore, internet
>harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore internet libel, david
>daniel moore website of lies, 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui,
>linda boss, david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, david
>daniel moore srara lee corporation, never employ david daniel moore,
>internet psychopaths, david daniel moore chicagoland pansies
Not a single one of which has anything to do with me. Mostly because my
middle name isn't "Daniel" nor reside in the Chicago area.
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSb7fnKbdsu4taRc6EQIYsQCfd/PZyez7NhzCxtiQEUAAxqkQkikAoNzX
z4o8zNb6M7kudWnumkXWpolo
=afK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ranting
> Moe - some women are rape victims, some are LIARS.
Does that mean all rape victims are liars Ken? Or that things like
spousal and date rape don't happen?
So when a guy drops a date rape drug into the woman's drink, he's
simply showing her a good time?
Rape is a reality Ken. Women in Muslim countries are murdered after
they've been raped because of " family honor". Men even in the Old
Testament as victors is wars raped local women.
So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
Ken says SOME are liars, where did you get that ALL are liars
krp
"Ranting" <ra...@rant.com> wrote in message
news:49bf7975$0$4011$bbd6...@news.usenetserver.com...
She bumped her head riding her broom. She *THINKS* she's a witch.
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> .......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question. Yet
> more of your stalking of an innocent person.
So NOW we are BACK to you are NOLT David Moore again. WHO are you today,
Davey? Jeff Johnson? Dustin Calloway? David Boss?
>>>> It isn't true, of course. You had to gat thet BULLSHIT from DAVEY
>>>> MOORE.
>>>>Ask him to PROVE it.
>>>
>>> Since you ask so nicely, I will indeed prove that you were convicted of
>>> statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. I'll even use your standards of
>>> proof and logic to do it. Here goes:
>>
>>> http://images.todaystmj4.com/images/LIZs.jpg
>>
>> Davey AGAIN that's your "ABSOLUTE PROOF?" Another photo of a girl? The
>>thing doesn't even say she was raped much less in ANY way mention me.
>>Thisa
>>on a PAR with gthe rest ofc your BULLSHIT on your website. DAVID MOORE'S
>>PROOF.
>
> Again, you're too stupid to even realize that I'm making fun of you and
> your silly standards of proof. (You once posted a pic of a random woman
> and claimed that it proved that I was having an affair.) >>
STILL *AFRAID* to tell us HOW you got them Davey? NOW you are claiming
Barbara gave them to you??? Are you claiming that you are talking to HER too
now Davey? Let's see, daily contact with my FIRST wife (even though she's
dead) minute by minute contact with Peggy. And now Barbara TOO Davey?
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore calumet
city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, david daniel moore
stalker, stalker, david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
pervert, david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore, internet
harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore internet libel, david
daniel moore website of lies, 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui,
linda boss, david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, david
daniel moore srara lee corporation, never employ david daniel moore,
internet psychopaths, david daniel moore chicagoland pansies
> Not a single one of which has anything to do with me. Mostly because my
> middle name isn't "Daniel" nor reside in the Chicago area.
Davey your name is popping up in the search engines.
Keywords: David Moore dumbass, David Moore pathological liar, pathological
liars, worlds greatest pathological liar, Pinocchio syndrome, fake websites,
website libel, new zealand and libel, David Daniel Moore and incest,
internet child abusers, portage indiana, potter county indiana, felony
arrests, famous gay stalkers david dennis moore, dustin calloway
Dan Sullivan
freedom
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:3ffa6fee62b2509d...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> .......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question. Yet
>> more of your stalking of an innocent person.
>>>DAVID MOORE'S LONG LIST NOF WHOPPERS
>>>"freedom" <aboutKRPken@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.
>
>
>So NOW we are BACK to you are NOLT David Moore again.
I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't seem
to have taught you this lesson.
You mentioned someone with a different middle name than me. I pointed out
that he didn't author the post in question, as you claim in the subject
line.
>WHO are you today,
>Davey? Jeff Johnson? Dustin Calloway? David Boss?
I've never claimed to be any of these people.
As you don't know my name, I doubt that you have any knowledge of whether
or not my name is popping up in any search engines.
>
>Keywords: David Moore dumbass, David Moore pathological liar, pathological
>liars, worlds greatest pathological liar, Pinocchio syndrome, fake websites,
>website libel, new zealand and libel,
>David Daniel Moore and incest,
>famous gay stalkers david dennis moore
So I changed my middle name yet again, in the space of a few keywords?
ROFL!
Stay out of that silver Honda until you sober up....
(chi.general snipped due to complete irrelevance)
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSb+cvabdsu4taRc6EQKy5wCghPT5IH0sissBjBGeGl30iBi7iPEAnRsc
y7PKMqvtWowUqDHvGJ6BpMaW
=8hwZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greegor
David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
INTERNET STALKER CON ARTIST
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
calumet city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath,
david daniel moore, stalker, stalker, david daniel moore
pathological liar, david daniel moore, pervert,
david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore,
internet harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore
internet libel, david daniel moore website of lies,
850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui, linda boss,
david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers,
david daniel moore sara lee corporation, never employ david
daniel moore, internet psychopaths, david daniel moore
chicagoland pansies
David Daniel Moore formerly of Sara Lee Corporation
850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
Check out Dave's REAL ESTATE LICENSE!
David D Moore 38 Calumet City, IL
Janet M Moore 67 (2009) Adoptive Mom
Jesse David Moore 72 (2009) Adoptive Dad?
Click on STREET VIEW to see Davey's bunker!
David D Moore 38
Bolingbrook, IL
Calumet City, IL
Arlington Heights, IL
Los Angeles, CA
Twentynine Palms, CA
Linda Moore
Audra Moore
Joseph Moore
Dave Moore
Jesse David Moore
Janet M Moore
Dawn M Moore
Adam A Moore
Michael C Moore
Trina A Moore
Greegor
G > Argumentum ad absurdum.
G > False pretense that it's one extreme or the other.
G > Ken said half of them are real.
Moe > No he said half of them are lies.
Then why did you say "all" ?
You just caught yourself in a LIE.
Moe > He didn't acknowledge specifically
Moe > they were real. He could e did not
Moe > specifically say what the other
Moe > half was, did he?
More Dan Sullivan style evasive BS?
Moe > And he also denies that the Battered
Moe > Women's Syndrome exists when I
Moe > cietd oneof many sources online
Moe > alone that proves otherwise.
You can't even spell cited!
making a STRONG statement about
psychology as if it's SCIENCE is
chancy, Moe? Do you understand
the hazards of presenting soft science
as if it's a hard science?
Just giving you a chance to modify your rant.
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34c12632-1d4f-4e05...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > MOE> THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW RAPE VICTIMS SUFFER, DON'T YOU?
> > MOE> You disgusting sack of shit. The church should excommunicate YOU for
> > being so evil.
> > Moe - some women are rape victims, some are LIARS.
>
> MOE> Does that mean all rape victims are liars Ken? Or that things like
> MOE> spousal and date rape don't happen?
>
> Did I say tghat? I dont recall saying THAT. YOU arew saing that. I never
> said that. I used gthe word "SOME" is that too difficult of a word for yhou
> Moe?
Try spell checking before you post Ken.
Were you this bad at typing in your alleged published writings?
>
> MOE> So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
>
> You sure love to shovel words into people's mouths, Moe. ALL? No. MANY -
> yes. Law enforcement statistics prove that anywhere from 40% to 70% are
> outright LIES. Moe, maybe you should pay some attention to the large numbers
> of rape convictions that have been overturned based on DNA. A good Study for
> you is the case of Gary Dotson WRONGLY convicted of the rape of Cathy
> Crowell Webb.
MANY are lies? Really?
Glad I got you to actually say that.
You're making it easier and easier for me to show what you really are
and how your CV is full of your posturing lies.
As for rape convictions reversed from DNA, you forget a few things,
as usual. One being that the rape VICTIM is so traumatized that she
(usually she, sometimes the victim is male) can mistake a SIMILARLY
LOOKING male as her attacker. And some attackers wear masks , Ken, so
they WON'T be identified.
But you SHOULD know this, considering your supposed CV.
The fact that you are deliberately twisting this when your " studies"
should have told you the same facts actual experts on sexual abuse and
sex crimes know shows once again your dishonesty and one further thing
that's been verified in other areas.
You're a misogynist.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Me-Cathleen-Crowell-Webb/dp/0800714628
>
> http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=108019
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DC113AF936A15753...
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca5a4679-7223-40c1...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> POOR HELPLESS LITTLE GYRLZ.
> > > > You sonofabitch! You disgusting, self-righteous little prick!
> > > No- Moe - I just don't brook BULLSHIT, and you get NO special pass
> > > because you are a HELPLESS LITTLE GYRL.
> > MOE> I am far from helpless. The ISSUE was women who are brainwashed and
> > MOE> in battered women' syndrome. And YOU MOCKED IT.
> > Sure the battered women's syndrome has been proven to be bullshit.
>
> MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
> MOE> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
> MOE> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
> MOE> syndrome is real.
>
> Yet it is not accepted as such within professional circles. Just
> feminists.
Are these the same "professional circles' that agree with you that up
to 70 percent of rape cases are LIES, Ken?
Battered Woman's Syndrome is a real trauma-related condition Ken, no
matter what your misogyny may tell you to believe otherwise.
>
> http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp
>
> MOE> As one of many sites dealing with BWS problem.
>
> That STRIDENT ACTIVSITS believe in it is not the issue. It is whether it
> is scientificaly valid and accepted in the professions. It isn't.
Try spell checking before you post,Ken. I know I got you when you
make typos and misspell common English words. Running on emotion
again, Kennie?
(( Smiles))
Hell,even the subject header you used has a typo!!
Quite professional Kennie-poo!!
>
> MOE> Ever talked to one?
>
> >>I slept next to one for over 20 YEARS.
>
> MOE> And YOU divorced HER I see. You were such a good provider you had
> MOE> her add her daughter live in decrepit home.
>
> I didn't "HAVE" her do anything. What my EX wife did was not within my
> control. She is a free ADULT.
You were the complantant in the divorce filing, not her. I know how
to read legal documents, Kennie.
The divorce filing showed how you " provided" for the family. You
share that with trait with Greg.
>
> MOE> What did your daughter tell Moore about your treatment of her mother?
> MOE> Bet you were far from a gentleman.
>
> She didn't tell him anyhthing. HE MADE IT UP.
Try spell checking, Kennie-poo.
>
> MOE> You defend rapists not rape victims,Ken. That says it all for me about
> MOE> you.
>
> How do you KNOW that they "ARE" rapists? We know that they are NOT.
> First I want you to gtell us how you KNOW for 100% p;ositive that they ARE!
You defend them and you're a misogynist who claims that up to 70
percent of rape victims lie.
Provided, OC, that they still are with you after you rip them off
financially.
I agree with someone who said that you serve to discredit father's
rights, not defend them. You seem unable to comprehend that your
temper tantrum posts and your harassments online do a disservice to
whatever professional services you actually do--if any.
I don't have to work hard to discredit you, You do a darn fine job of
it yourself.
Must be some trick to screw yourself up your own asshole.
>
> MOE> You even called for a woman online to BE raped.
>
> YOU ARE INSANE! I didn't say that.
Actually you did and got the original post deleted. You mad the
mistake of making comments about your original post at the time. Moore
caught you at it.
Once again you prove yourself to be a liar.
whitevamp
Read another of his posts. He siad up to 70 percent are liars.
Seventy percent is more than half.
Kennie is even bad at math!!
whitevamp
> "Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in message
I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a religion even recognized in
the military.
You belong to a religion where pedophile priests can hide for
decades until now.
whitevamp
<aboutKRP...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >news:3ffa6fee62b2509d...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >> .......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question. Yet
> >> more of your stalking of an innocent person.
> >>>DAVID MOORE'S LONG LIST NOF WHOPPERS
> >>>"freedom" <aboutKRPken@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.
>
> >So NOW we are BACK to you are NOLT David Moore again.
>
> I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
> drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't seem
> to have taught you this lesson.
Ken caught drunk and driving? ROTFL!
Boy that adds to his credibility!!
BTW Kennie what is " NOLT"? What you drank when you had the DWI?
(( laughing))
As is yours as well Kennie.
OOOPSIE!!
>
> As you don't know my name, I doubt that you have any knowledge of whether
> or not my name is popping up in any search engines.
Ken lies. You'd think by now with about a decade of dealing with you
he could embellish better his lies.
>
>
>
> >Keywords: David Moore dumbass, David Moore pathological liar, pathological
> >liars, worlds greatest pathological liar, Pinocchio syndrome, fake websites,
> >website libel, new zealand and libel,
> >David Daniel Moore and incest,
> >famous gay stalkers david dennis moore
>
> So I changed my middle name yet again, in the space of a few keywords?
> ROFL!
He and Greg share a number of things in common. Greg stalks Kent and
even thinks Kent uses female names.
>
> Stay out of that silver Honda until you sober up....
Considering the vehicle he had when he filed for bankruptcy, driving
a Honda is a big downturn!
>
> (chi.general snipped due to complete irrelevance)
>
> http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
> The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
> criminals
>
> "[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
> Association or AN Y connection to them."
> - --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
> with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
> is disproved here:http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/expert...
> x.shtml
>
> "Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
> that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
> - --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
> <jOp3l.292$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
whitevamp
>
> Click on STREET VIEW to see Davey's bunker!
>
> David D Moore 38
>
> Bolingbrook, IL
> Calumet City, IL
> Arlington Heights, IL
> Los Angeles, CA
> Twentynine Palms, CA
>
> Linda Moore
> Audra Moore
> Joseph Moore
> Dave Moore
> Jesse David Moore
> Janet M Moore
> Dawn M Moore
> Adam A Moore
> Michael C Moore
> Trina A Moore
So, ahem Dave uses female names as well?
Geez Greg, you're such an idiot.
whitevamp
> Moe > So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
>
> G > Argumentum ad absurdum.
> G > False pretense that it's one extreme or the other.
> G > Ken said half of them are real.
>
> Moe > No he said half of them are lies.
>
> Then why did you say "all" ?
> You just caught yourself in a LIE.
Did you catch your buddy saying up to 70 percent are lies. Seventy
percent is more than half, Greg.
Your master can't even do math right.
>
> Moe > And he also denies that the Battered
> Moe > Women's Syndrome exists when I
> Moe > cietd oneof many sources online
> Moe > alone that proves otherwise.
>
> You can't even spell cited!
> making a STRONG statement about
> psychology as if it's SCIENCE is
> chancy, Moe? Do you understand
> the hazards of presenting soft science
> as if it's a hard science?
So " soft" science shouldn't be believed at all, right. There are no
manic-depressives, no schizophrenics, no hallucinating people?
Like YOU'RE a frigging science expert now?
Maybe you and Ken can compare DWIs.
((Laughing))
krp
> MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
> MOE> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
> MOE> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
> MOE> syndrome is real.
>
> Yet it is not accepted as such within professional circles. Just
> feminists.
MOE> Are these the same "professional circles' that agree with you that up
MOE> to 70 percent of rape cases are LIES, Ken?
I refer to the courts Moe. It failes to pass muster when proof is
needed. Psychology and psychiatry don't buy it.
MOE> Battered Woman's Syndrome is a real trauma-related condition Ken, no
MOE> matter what your misogyny may tell you to believe otherwise.
That domestic violence is traumatic is NOT the question here. What is at
issue is your "SYMDROME." The evidence to support it has been found (BY
COURTS) to be sorely lacking. Quit blaming me.
> http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp
> MOE> As one of many sites dealing with BWS problem.
> That STRIDENT ACTIVSITS believe in it is not the issue. It is whether it
> is scientificaly valid and accepted in the professions. It isn't.
MOE> Try spell checking before you post,Ken. I know I got you when you
MOE> make typos and misspell common English words. Running on emotion
MOE> again, Kennie?
Don't flatter yourself. I always make typos. Thank God the word
processor is better at catching them than Microsoft Mail (Outlook Express)
> MOE> You defend rapists not rape victims,Ken. That says it all for me
> about
> MOE> you.
>
> How do you KNOW that they "ARE" rapists? We know that they are NOT.
> First I want you to tell us how you KNOW for 100% positive that they ARE!
MOE> You defend them and you're a misogynist who claims that up to 70
MOE> percent of rape victims lie.
How do you KNOW they are guilty? PROOF? I don't make the claim. They
come from research, such as the University of Colorado, Depertment of
Defense and law enforcement. My choice is to believe objective sources or
NUT CAKES LIKE YOU. I go with the objective folks who don't have an ax to
grind.
MOE> Provided, OC, that they still are with you after you rip them off
financially.
Moe most all of my REAL CLIENTS have high praise for my work, as do the
attorneys I have worked with.
>
> MOE> You even called for a woman online to BE raped.
>
> YOU ARE INSANE! I didn't say that.
MOE> Actually you did and got the original post deleted. You mad the
MOE> mistake of making comments about your original post at the time. Moore
MOE> caught you at it.
The PROOF that I did, Moe. Something more than David Moore's claims.
krp
> She bumped her head riding her broom. She *THINKS* she's a witch.
MOE> I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a religion even recognized in
MOE> the military.
Sure it is Moe. So is the church of Satan and Scientology and the
Unification Church.It is called religious tolerance.
Moe - chew on this little tidbit of the SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic")[1] is the
blanket term given to describe religions and spiritual practices of
pre-Christian Europe, and by extension a term for polytheistic traditions or
folk religion worldwide seen from a Western or Christian viewpoint. The term
has various different meanings, though, from a Western perspective, it has
modern connotations of a faith that has polytheistic,[2] spiritualist,
animistic or shamanic practices, such as a folk religion, historical
polytheistic or neopagan religion.
Neopaganism: A movement by modern people to revive nature-worshipping,
pre-Christian religions, or other nature-based spiritual paths. This
definition may include anything on a sliding scale from Reconstructionism at
one end to non-reconstructionist groups such as Neo-druidism and Wicca at
the other.
Be SURE you KNOW what you believe in Moe, because I know it.
krp
> > MOE> THEN YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW RAPE VICTIMS SUFFER, DON'T YOU?
> > MOE> You disgusting sack of shit. The church should excommunicate YOU
> > for
> > being so evil.
> > Moe - some women are rape victims, some are LIARS.
>
> MOE> Does that mean all rape victims are liars Ken? Or that things like
> MOE> spousal and date rape don't happen?
>
> Did I say tghat? I dont recall saying THAT. YOU arew saing that. I never
> said that. I used gthe word "SOME" is that too difficult of a word for
> yhou
> Moe?
MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. Were you this bad at typing in
your alleged published writings?
Moe that is the best that Outlook Express can do (Microsoft mail).
> MOE> So all accounts of rape are lies, huh Ken?
> You sure love to shovel words into people's mouths, Moe. ALL? No. MANY -
> yes. Law enforcement statistics prove that anywhere from 40% to 70% are
> outright LIES. Moe, maybe you should pay some attention to the large
> numbers
> of rape convictions that have been overturned based on DNA. A good Study
> for
> you is the case of Gary Dotson WRONGLY convicted of the rape of Cathy
> Crowell Webb.
MOE> MANY are lies? Really?
Yes Moe. MANY are. Official sources state that anywhere from 50% to 70%
are false. NOT ME.
MOE> Glad I got you to actually say that.
I am quoting the University of Colorado, the Department of Defense and
law enforcement sources Moe. You didn't "GET" me to say anthing.
MOE> As for rape convictions reversed from DNA, you forget a few things,
MOE> as usual. One being that the rape VICTIM is so traumatized that she
MOE> (usually she, sometimes the victim is male) can mistake a SIMILARLY
MOE> LOOKING male as her attacker. And some attackers wear masks , Ken, so
MOE> they WON'T be identified.
Is that what it was with Ms. Webb - Moe? She just got confused? Is that
your story Moe? Is that the way it was with ALL the cases? Just POOR
confused helpless WYMMNS?
>"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Me-Cathleen-Crowell-Webb/dp/0800714628
>
> http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=108019
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DC113AF936A15753...
>
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1464936.html
>
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/01/feminism-lies-and-rape-inferno-10/
> Shall we go over the DUKE CASE, Moe? Are you STILL 200% positive they
> raped Ms. Mangum???
Well MOE? Want to come out and play?
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>> .......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question.
>>> Yet
>>> more of your stalking of an innocent person.
>>>>DAVID MOORE'S LONG LIST NOF WHOPPERS
>>>>"freedom" <aboutKRPken@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.
>>
>>
>
> I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
> drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't
> seem
> to have taught you this lesson.
Sure you did. You said nobody by the name Dasvid Moore wrote the post I
was replying to. Since yhou wrote it you are saying you are "NOT" David
Moore.
> You mentioned someone with a different middle name than me. I pointed out
> that he didn't author the post in question, as you claim in the subject
> line.
Nope jkust said DAVID MOORE, but you ARE David Daniel Moore.
>>WHO are you today,
>>Davey? Jeff Johnson? Dustin Calloway? David Boss?
> I've never claimed to be any of these people.
SURE tou have Davey. For YEARS in the Child Support newsgroup you were
posting a JEFF JOHNSON whining about paying child support. You TROED to use
the ALIAIS Dustin Calloway with the registrations with ISP's in Ghana and
Malaysia for your website. You were thrown off THERE too. All the way till
you found the isp in New Zealand that doesn't care about libel.
TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore calumet
city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, david daniel moore
stalker, stalker, david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
pervert, david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore, internet
harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore internet libel, david
daniel moore website of lies, 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui,
linda boss, david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, david
daniel moore srara lee corporation, never employ david daniel moore,
internet psychopaths, david daniel moore chicagoland pansies, internet
stalking,
misappropriation of employer's computer system for harassment, sexual
harassment in the workplace,
blackmail, sexual blackmail in the workplace, threats and intimidation of
witnesses.
bankruptcy, changes social security numbers, hide in plain sight, witness
tampering,
janet moore, tara mooreland, alias jeff johnson, alias david miller, alias,
david boss,
alias dustin calloway,, alias rob wedlock, alias will rainey.
krp
>
> >So NOW we are BACK to you are NOLT David Moore again.
>
> I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
> drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't
> seem
> to have taught you this lesson.
MOE> Ken caught drunk and driving? ROTFL! Boy that adds to his
credibility!!
Moe Florida has such information available as a PUBLIC RECORD. My name
isn't there. Moore cannot explain why. Can you? Did I have THAT "nuked" as
well, Moe?
Greegor
KRP > She *THINKS* she's a witch.
Moe > I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a
Moe > religion even recognized in the military.
Moe >
Moe > You belong to a religion where pedophile
Moe > priests can hide for decades until now.
Here we go, Moe the kooky Wiccan attacking
Ken for being Catholic! LOL
Greegor
Moe > Geez Greg, you're such an idiot.
That would be an entire process of evolution for you, Moe!
freedom
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:619aad4af679e231...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>>> .......nobody by the name you mention authored the post in question.
>>>> Yet
>>>> more of your stalking of an innocent person.
>>>>>DAVID MOORE'S LONG LIST NOF WHOPPERS
>>>>>"freedom" <aboutKRPken@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.
>>>
>>>
>>>So NOW we are BACK to you are NOT David Moore again.
>>
>> I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
>> drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't
>> seem
>> to have taught you this lesson.
>
> Sure you did. You said nobody by the name Dasvid Moore wrote the post I
>was replying to. Since yhou wrote it you are saying you are "NOT" David
>Moore.
>
>> You mentioned someone with a different middle name than me. I pointed out
>> that he didn't author the post in question, as you claim in the subject
>> line.
>
>
> Nope jkust said DAVID MOORE,
If you're going to lie about what you put in the subject line, at least
change the subject line in the post containing the lie.
Seriously, Ken, it's time to consider going back and at least getting a
GED.
> but you ARE David Daniel Moore.
No, I'm not. Regardless of how many times you repeat this silly lie.
>
>>>WHO are you today,
>>>Davey? Jeff Johnson? Dustin Calloway? David Boss?
>
>> I've never claimed to be any of these people.
>
>SURE tou have Davey. For YEARS in the Child Support newsgroup you were
>posting a JEFF JOHNSON whining about paying child support.
Produce a single example. Next lie, please?
> You TROED to use
>the ALIAIS Dustin Calloway with the registrations with ISP's in Ghana and
>Malaysia for your website. You were thrown off THERE too. All the way till
>you found the isp in New Zealand that doesn't care about libel.
>
>TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY
But only when you're not completely incompetent at it, as you are.
>
>Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore calumet
>city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath, david daniel moore
>stalker, stalker, david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
>pervert, david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
>david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore, internet
>harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore internet libel, david
>daniel moore website of lies, 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui,
>linda boss, david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers, david
>daniel moore srara lee corporation, never employ david daniel moore,
>internet psychopaths, david daniel moore chicagoland pansies, internet
>stalking,
>misappropriation of employer's computer system for harassment, sexual
>harassment in the workplace,
>blackmail, sexual blackmail in the workplace, threats and intimidation of
>witnesses.
>bankruptcy, changes social security numbers, hide in plain sight, witness
>tampering,
>janet moore, tara mooreland, alias jeff johnson, alias david miller, alias,
>david boss,
>alias dustin calloway,, alias rob wedlock, alias will rainey.
Nice. Too bad not a single one of those keywords has anything to do with
me.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
iQA/AwUBScAy5Kbdsu4taRc6EQIVlACgsdTqP0eEJqo2KxKUFviqTKLVEy8AnAjQ
EFjgsDPEIKiKudbBbUJYJKea
=lfZ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greegor
""anonymous"" when you used those other names?
But you were so PROUD of yourself, weren't ya?
You only told your wife about the deceptions.
This made the thing with the brick especially stupid!
Aren't you brilliant? LOL
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dd247884-2a8e-4bca...@e10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being " bullshit"
> > MOE> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
> > MOE> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
> > MOE> syndrome is real.
>
> > Yet it is not accepted as such within professional circles. Just
> > feminists.
>
> MOE> Are these the same "professional circles' that agree with you that up
> MOE> to 70 percent of rape cases are LIES, Ken?
>
> I refer to the courts Moe. It failes to pass muster when proof is
> needed. Psychology and psychiatry don't buy it.
In MOST cases Ken? Nope and you damn well know it.
You're a misogynist and think most women lie about being sexually
assaulted and raped. A bastard like you doesn't WANT to cite objective
proof so you use whatever bullshit excuse to affirm your hatred of
women.
BTW Ken, if " psychology and psychiatry don't cut it" as you claim,
why is it that both are used in regards to the legal defense of the
accused?
Your omissons of fact, as usual, expose you for the liar you are.
>
> MOE> Battered Woman's Syndrome is a real trauma-related condition Ken, no
> MOE> matter what your misogyny may tell you to believe otherwise.
>
> That domestic violence is traumatic is NOT the question here. What is at
> issue is your "SYMDROME." The evidence to support it has been found (BY
> COURTS) to be sorely lacking. Quit blaming me.
Its SYNDROME, Ken. At least have the honesty to spell it right.
Unless, OC your misspellings are deliberate, which I would expect a
misogynist like you to do in mockery.
Perhaps you should get a current copy of DSM and see if that has BWS
listed.
IF the "evidence" of support of it is lacking " by the courts" as you
claim, cite case names and numbers to PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
>
> >http://www.mamashealth.com/abuse/bwomensyndrome.asp
> > MOE> As one of many sites dealing with BWS problem.
> > That STRIDENT ACTIVSITS believe in it is not the issue. It is whether it
> > is scientificaly valid and accepted in the professions. It isn't.
>
> MOE> Try spell checking before you post,Ken. I know I got you when you
> MOE> make typos and misspell common English words. Running on emotion
> MOE> again, Kennie?
>
> Don't flatter yourself. I always make typos. Thank God the word
> processor is better at catching them than Microsoft Mail (Outlook Express)
Actually you make typos when you get emotional and send it out before
proofreading. You can blame the program all you want as an excuse, but
you know as well as I do that sloppy typing and obsessive postings are
your forte.
Tell me Ken, do you make many typos in your "articles"? (( laughs))
>
> > MOE> You defend rapists not rape victims,Ken. That says it all for me
> > about
> > MOE> you.
>
> > How do you KNOW that they "ARE" rapists? We know that they are NOT.
> > First I want you to tell us how you KNOW for 100% positive that they ARE!
>
> MOE> You defend them and you're a misogynist who claims that up to 70
> MOE> percent of rape victims lie.
>
> How do you KNOW they are guilty? PROOF? I don't make the claim. They
> come from research, such as the University of Colorado, Depertment of
> Defense and law enforcement. My choice is to believe objective sources or
> NUT CAKES LIKE YOU. I go with the objective folks who don't have an ax to
> grind.
You objective?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You can't even cite a legitimate source for your claim that from 40
to 70 percent of rape claims are lies!
You can call me a nut case if you want. Coming from scum like you
that's a compliment on me!
But you really should back up your claims with objective sources as
you claim you use.
Have we seen any objective sources from you to support your claims?
Nope. Not a whit.
Where it counts, you can't support your claims.
>
> MOE> Provided, OC, that they still are with you after you rip them off
> financially.
>
> Moe most all of my REAL CLIENTS have high praise for my work, as do the
> attorneys I have worked with.
Lets see their names and contact information,Kenny boy.
Or are we supposed to trust your " word" for it?
>
>
>
> > MOE> You even called for a woman online to BE raped.
>
> > YOU ARE INSANE! I didn't say that.
Actually you did, you pathetic liar. Your recent BS about how more
than half of women " lie" about being raped or sexually assaulted
makes what Moore mentioned credible that that was what you WOULD DO
and DID.
>
> MOE> Actually you did and got the original post deleted. You mad the
> MOE> mistake of making comments about your original post at the time. Moore
> MOE> caught you at it.
>
> The PROOF that I did, Moe. Something more than David Moore's claims.
You deleted the original post because at that time you knew you went
too far. Your foaming-at-the-mouth denials don't mesh with the posts
you made AFTER your deleted post referring to the post you made.
Simply put Ken, you are not credible. You bashed your own credibility
long ago online and still do.
whitevamp
> "whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c1798ea6-e543-4365...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > She bumped her head riding her broom. She *THINKS* she's a witch.
>
> MOE> I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a religion even recognized in
> MOE> the military.
>
> Sure it is Moe. So is the church of Satan and Scientology and the
> Unification Church.It is called religious tolerance.
Is tolerance of other religions a good or bad thing Ken?
In case you don't know, one can be an American and be of a minority
religion or no religion at all. Are people like me supposed to be
treated like second-class people because we are not of the majority
bully faith?
And if you are not for tolerance that really contrasts to what your
put on your CV.
>
> Moe - chew on this little tidbit of the SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
>
> Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic")[1] is the
> blanket term given to describe religions and spiritual practices of
> pre-Christian Europe, and by extension a term for polytheistic traditions or
> folk religion worldwide seen from a Western or Christian viewpoint. The term
> has various different meanings, though, from a Western perspective, it has
> modern connotations of a faith that has polytheistic,[2] spiritualist,
> animistic or shamanic practices, such as a folk religion, historical
> polytheistic or neopagan religion.
>
> Neopaganism: A movement by modern people to revive nature-worshipping,
> pre-Christian religions, or other nature-based spiritual paths. This
> definition may include anything on a sliding scale from Reconstructionism at
> one end to non-reconstructionist groups such as Neo-druidism and Wicca at
> the other.
>
> Be SURE you KNOW what you believe in Moe, because I know it.
Actually you don't.
Presumably as a Wiccan/Pagan for more than two decades I would know
the good and bad of my religion-- which I do. Nothing you can say in
your malicious attempts to put me down will convince me otherwise.
BTW as a Catholic you really should take a good look at where some of
your religion's saints actually came from. St. Brigid, for example.
Your religion is far from clean Ken. But hey if you wanna attack my
religion go right ahead. Go full blast. I would LOVE to see how badly
you mess it up!!
(( Laughing))
whitevamp
> KRP > She bumped her head riding her broom.
> KRP > She *THINKS* she's a witch.
>
> Moe > I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a
> Moe > religion even recognized in the military.
> Moe >
> Moe > You belong to a religion where pedophile
> Ken for being Catholic! LOL
While YOU forgot that Ken made malicious comments about MY religion
first. The " broomstick" comments. But then you yourself mock
Christianity.
Or is your short-term memory from your frequent drug abuse excuse
enough for your lack of seeing the obvious.
Your hypocrisy noted Greg.
Tell me Greggie will you chastise Ken WHEN he attacks my religion in
one of his hissy fits?
Thought not....
whitevamp
So you're the " missing link"?
ROTFLMAO!!!
freedom
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, whitevamp <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 17, 12:51=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Golly, Dave, You're SO ""anonymous""! =A0 =A0 LOL
>>
>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>> INTERNET STALKER CON ARTIST
>>
>> Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
>> calumet city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath,
>> david daniel moore, stalker, stalker, david daniel moore
>> pathological liar, david daniel moore, pervert,
>> david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
>> david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore,
>> internet harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore
>> internet libel, david daniel moore website of lies,
>> 850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui, linda boss,
>> david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers,
>> david daniel moore sara lee corporation, never employ david
>> daniel moore, internet psychopaths, david daniel moore
>> chicagoland pansies
>>
>> David Daniel Moore formerly of Sara Lee Corporation
>> 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>
>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>
>> Check out Dave's REAL ESTATE LICENSE!
>>
>> http://www.arello.com/
Yup, I'm indeed listed there. As neither Greg nor Ken knows which state I
live in, it would probably be very difficult for them to find.
>>
>> David D Moore 38 Calumet City, IL
>> Janet M Moore 67 (2009) =A0 Adoptive Mom
>> Jesse David Moore 72 (2009) =A0Adoptive Dad?
Which rules me out, as I don't have adoptive parents.
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=3Den&q=3D850+Buffalo+Avenue,+Calumet+City,=
>...
>>
>> Click on STREET VIEW to see Davey's bunker!
As the link seems to refer to an address in Illinois, it's impossible for
it to resolve to any home related to me.
>>
>> David D Moore 38
>>
>> Bolingbrook, IL
>> Calumet City, IL
>> Arlington Heights, IL
>> Los Angeles, CA
>> Twentynine Palms, CA
>>
>> Linda Moore
>> Audra Moore
>> Joseph Moore
>> Dave Moore
>> Jesse David Moore
>> Janet M Moore
>> Dawn M Moore
>> Adam A Moore
>> Michael C Moore
>> Trina A Moore
>
> So, ahem Dave uses female names as well?
>
> Geez Greg, you're such an idiot.
>
Greg probably went to one of those "public records search" websites and
tried to find info on me, including names which might be associated with
me.
The really pathetic part is that not one of the names he listed has
anything to do with me. Of course, it might help if they actually knew my
full name.
iQA/AwUBScA2gqbdsu4taRc6EQIQFgCggdKCsSVJvnwKg1Mn+Par73/KffAAoOsI
DDONGRh3Dhs0SRqm8mqp4D4i
=MV9E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
freedom
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
I've already explained how I concluded that you received a DUI. I didn't
need the public records to do it....I merely used your own past statements
and your logic to prove it.
If you think my conclusion is erroneous, then your logic must be as well.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
- --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
- --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
iQA/AwUBScAzU6bdsu4taRc6EQLy3ACggD848WZoQPflaZwgsVML4VBMtbAAniYA
DsCLDj7J2OL20yWQxczB4AJ0
=prlR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dragon's Girl
> > <degrees he earned through colleges that never taught basic human
> > anatomy. Obviously. Ken can't be an expert on sexual abuse because
> > he doesn't understand how the reproductive organs work. I think his
> > stupidity made it very clear how he's been educated, and what he's
> > been educated on.>
>
> Basic human anatomy?
Yeah, Greg...didn't YOU think it was funny that Ken claimed women
urinate from their vaginas?
And didn't you think it was absurd that he ARGUED the fact?
>
> http://img.boardreader.com/b4/a1/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20W...
>
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%2...
>
> http://www.gifttrap.com/images/Rhino_Kenya.jpg
You should really get an update on your childish concerns over my
weight.
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>> INTERNET STALKER CON ARTIST
>>> David Daniel Moore formerly of Sara Lee Corporation
>>> 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>>
>>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>>
>>> Check out Dave's REAL ESTATE LICENSE!
>>>
>>> http://www.arello.com/
> Yup, I'm indeed listed there. As neither Greg nor Ken knows which state I
> live in, it would probably be very difficult for them to find.
Not with REMAX though.
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
calumet city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath,
david daniel moore stalker, stalker, real estate agents, david daniel moore
pathological liar, david daniel moore, pervert, abusive real estate agents,
david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore,
internet harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore
internet libel, david daniel moore website of lies,
850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui, linda boss,
david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers,
david daniel moore sara lee corporation, never employ david
daniel moore, internet psychopaths, david daniel moore
chicagoland pansies, internet adiction, internet stalking, woman hater,
tara moreland, janet more, dawn moore, alias dustin calloway, alias
david miller, alias david boss, alias jeff johnson, blackmailer, sexual
harassment,
sexual blackmail, david moore bbs blackmail, david moore usmc, 29 palms
california,
linda boss, david moore child abuser, anonymous remailer stalkers, anonymous
remailer abusers,
off shore website, new zealand, malaysia website,employer comupter abuse,
office disruption,
obsessive compulsive disorder, forger.
Dan Sullivan
krp
> > MOE> Try spell checking before you post Ken. As for BWS being "
> > bullshit"
> > MOE> according to whom? For all the degrees you CLAIM you have on sexual
> > MOE> abuse and so forth, you of all people should know battered woman's
> > MOE> syndrome is real.
>
> > Yet it is not accepted as such within professional circles. Just
> > feminists.
>
> MOE> Are these the same "professional circles' that agree with you that up
> MOE> to 70 percent of rape cases are LIES, Ken?
> I refer to the courts Moe. It fails to pass muster when proof is
> needed. Psychology and psychiatry don't buy it.
MOE> In MOST cases Ken? Nope and you damn well know it.
MOE> BTW Ken, if " psychology and psychiatry don't cut it" as you claim,
MOE> why is it that both are used in regards to the legal defense of the
MOE> accused? Your omissons of fact, as usual, expose you for the liar you
are.
Moe you have a SERIOUS reading deficit, don't you? I said that
"psychology and psychiatry don't BUY" your little pet syndrome, I did NOT
say they don't "CUT IT."
Look up the word "BUY" and then the word "CUT" and see if you can find a
listing that they are SYNONYMS. Maybe in your FEMINAZI dictionary.
Dan Sullivan
krp
On Mar 17, 8:29 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> KRP > She bumped her head riding her broom.
> KRP > She *THINKS* she's a witch.
>
> Moe > I'm a Wiccan, Catholic boy. Wicca is a
> Moe > religion even recognized in the military.
> Moe >
> Moe > You belong to a religion where pedophile
> Here we go, Moe the kooky Wiccan attacking
> Ken for being Catholic! LOL
While YOU forgot that Ken made malicious comments about MY religion
first. The " broomstick" comments. But then you yourself mock
Christianity.
Or is your short-term memory from your frequent drug abuse excuse
enough for your lack of seeing the obvious.
Your hypocrisy noted Greg.
Tell me Greggie will you chastise Ken WHEN he attacks my religion in
one of his hissy fits?
Not making fun of your RELIGION, Moe - I am making fun OF YOU!!! You're too
damn stupid to understand it.
Dan Sullivan
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>>>So NOW we are BACK to you are NOT David Moore again.
>>>
>>> I never said anything of the sort. You seriously need to stop
>>> drinking....although even the DUI you received last November** doesn't
>>> seem
>>> to have taught you this lesson.
>>
>>was replying to. Since yhou wrote it you are saying you are "NOT" David
>>Moore.
>>> You mentioned someone with a different middle name than me. I pointed
>>> out
>>> that he didn't author the post in question, as you claim in the subject
>>> line.
>> Nope just said DAVID MOORE,
>
> If you're going to lie about what you put in the subject line, at least
> change the subject line in the post containing the lie.
Davey how's the search engine think working for you? Seen your hits
lately?????? Time to WHINE Davey. ROUND 2. We'll play by YOUR rules for a
bit, shall we?
Keywords: david daniel moore pathological liar, david daniel moore
calumet city, illinois, david daniel moore internet psychopath,
david daniel moore stalker, stalker, real estate agents, david daniel moore
pathological liar, david daniel moore, pervert, abusive real estate agents,
david daniel moore coward, david daniel moore computer hacker,
david daniel moore criminal, internet stalkers david daniel moore,
internet harassment david daniel moore, david daniel moore
internet libel, david daniel moore website of lies,
850 buffalo avenue, calumet city,illinos, dui, linda boss,
david daniel moore malicious use of employers computers,
david daniel moore sara lee corporation, never employ david
daniel moore, internet psychopaths, david daniel moore
chicagoland pansies, internet addiction, internet stalking, woman hater,
tara moreland, janet more, dawn moore, alias dustin calloway, alias
david miller, alias david boss, alias jeff johnson, blackmailer, sexual
harassment,sexual blackmail, david moore bbs blackmail, david moore usmc, 29
palms
california,linda boss, david moore child abuser, anonymous remailer
stalkers, anonymous
remailer abusers, basement dwellers,off shore website, new zealand, malaysia
website,
employer computer abuse, office disruption, obsessive compulsive disorder,
forger, mommys basement,
coalition forces, david moore coalition supreme allied commander.
Dan Sullivan
freedom
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, "krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>DAVID DANIEL MOORE
.....didn't author the message you're replying to.
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:4ec446b6559da9c2...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
>>>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>>> INTERNET STALKER CON ARTIST
>
>>>> David Daniel Moore formerly of Sara Lee Corporation
>>>> 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>>>
>>>> David Daniel Moore 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409
>>>>
>>>> Check out Dave's REAL ESTATE LICENSE!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.arello.com/
>
>> Yup, I'm indeed listed there. As neither Greg nor Ken knows which state I
>> live in, it would probably be very difficult for them to find.
>
> Not with REMAX though.
I've never claimed to have worked with REMAX. Throwing up another
smokescreen? Perhaps diverting from the fact that I just proved** you
raped a girl once?
(silly attempts at keywords snipped, and replaced:)
iQA/AwUBScDfn6bdsu4taRc6EQLQLQCfeVk/zzDtzmLRIOyrinHZNuXNuXYAoJ2a
A1w96/MzD6kQAl+UQCD9daIY
=vz1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
whitevamp
> IN THE WYMMNS DICTIONARY "BUY" AND CUT ARE SYNONYMS"whitevamp" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Don't try to fool me Ken. You know as well as I do what you meant by
" fails to pass muster when proof is needed"-- which is BTW ironically
applicable to you. You seem not to " pass muster" yourself when asked
for proof of your claims and you fail to provide proof.
Greegor
> On Mar 17, 8:35 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moe > So, ahem Dave uses female names as well?
> > Moe > Geez Greg, you're such an idiot.
>
> > That would be an entire process of evolution for you, Moe!
>
> So you're the " missing link"?
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Laugh it up Vampirella!