School ""asked"" Cody Alicea, 13, to remove his US flag from his bike
Greegor
Then lots of people raised hell and the School Board apologized.
I think we have a general problem with government officials
being way too "officious" and attempting to "direct" people
way too much.
What do YOU think, Dan?
Come on bigmouth Dan, give us YOUR OPINION!
Michael McGuire
Stanislaus County Political Buzz Examiner.SubscribeSponsor an
Examiner .....View all of Michael's articles
4 commentsPrint.US flag incident has Denair school in hot water
November 16th, 2010 10:47 am PT.Do you like this story?
A controversy over the removal of a United States flag has a
Stanislaus County school district under attack from critics ranging
from military veterans to biker groups to area Tea Party activists.
According to News 10, Cody Alicea, a 13-year-old student in Denair, on
Nov. 8 was ordered to remove a U.S. flag from his bicycle.
On Monday, several dozen bikers escorted the boy to school, displaying
the flag on their motorcycles.
The incident resulted in an emergency school board meeting on Sunday.
The board decided to place a discussion of the incident on its Nov. 18
agenda.
On Tuesday, the Central Valley Tea Party announced a fundraising
campaign to donate flags and pocket-sized copies of the U.S.
Constitution to Denair students.
Saying the incident was misunderstood, Denair Schools Superintendent
Ed Parraz has issued this statement:
"As most of you are aware, we’ve had a school issue that has risen to
the level of national news coverage. This incident occurred on
Monday, November 8th when a campus supervisor asked one of our middle
school students to remove an American flag from his bicycle while he
was on school grounds. This request was based on concerns for the
student’s immediate safety, and to give school staff time to
investigate a potentially dangerous situation, involving threats to
this
student.
"While it is our responsibility to ensure that all students are safe
at school, we also support every students’ First Amendment rights. We
are dealing with the students who threatened to disrupt the school
environment. And, the student involved in this incident is now again
proudly displaying his flag.
"We recognize that we live in the greatest country in the world and
that we should all be proud to display the American flag. It’s
unfortunate that the entire story of this issue has not been fully
portrayed in the media. Denair is a wonderful community, filled with
hard working committed citizens who support our schools and our
democracy.
"I’m proud to lead the schools in this community and sincerely hope we
can return the focus to our children and their education. We will be
addressing the issue with our Board at our regular meeting Thursday,
November 18 in the District Leadership room located at 3460 Lester
Road, Denair."
[...]
NJ Dad
Very telling that in the same week a young California boy was told to
remove a U.S. flag from his bike, California votes to provide in-state
tuition to illegal immigrants. You can't make it up.!!!
reply.
JAKAL328
Schools are suppose to promote pride in the kids and teach them about
tolerance and history. All these so called educators should be fired
for being unfit to hold their positions. People should be extremely
upset by what is going on here.
reply.Billzer 7 hours ago Report Abuse .Well there's a dumb excuse by
the school just trying to CYA. If someone from another country doesn't
like someone from the U.S. flying the U.S. flag, take their dumb
ignorant selves back to the country they came from and stop taking
advantage of U.S. government benefits -- illegal moochers. The donkey
who decided to tell someone they can't fly the flag should be
fired ... or exported ... along with all who initially supported the
decision -- pinheads.
reply.
US Citizen
What the hell? This boy's safety was in question? HOW ABOUT THE SCHOOL
SUPERVISOR GET HIS IGNORANT LAZY CHICKEN ASS OVER TO THE PUNKS CAUSING
THE THREAT and SEND THEM BACK TO WHATEVER ROCK THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM
UNDER? Since when do we hide our flag when trouble rears its ugly
head? So now we hide and we run and we curtail our love and respect
for our country because we are threatened? I am so pissed off at this
entire situation I can hardly contain myself. WE the PEOPLE better get
our act together because we are UNDER ATTACK.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> Denair Middle School in Stanislaus County, California
>
> Then lots of people raised hell and the School Board apologized.
>
> I think we have a general problem with government officials
> being way too "officious" and attempting to "direct" people
> way too much.
>
> What do YOU think, Dan?
>
> Come on bigmouth Dan, give us YOUR OPINION!
>
The little tea bagging punk was stirring up controversy
Most bikers are shit bags. Some are pussies trained by the US
military. The rest are crooked maggots that deserve extermination.
Bring the war home and legally kill a biker.
God is a piece of shit
Greegor
Fred Brown
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31297e97-f65b-4de2...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Denair Middle School in Stanislaus County, California
Old news moron, stop stealing Dan's old newpapers from his trash can,
buy your own and be up to date.
womanGoddess
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:31297e97-f65b-4de2...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Denair Middle School in Stanislaus County, California
>
> Old news moron, stop stealing Dan's old newpapers from his trash can,
> buy your own and be up to date.
>
> Then lots of people raised hell and the School Board apologized.
>
> I think we have a general problem with government officials
> being way too "officious" and attempting to "direct" people
> way too much.
>
> What do YOU think, Dan?
>
> Come on bigmouth Dan, give us YOUR OPINION!
>
greg gets his " news" from FOX and that type of radio and TV BS
artists.
What Greg Hanson failed to mention is that he has a hard-on for Dan
and he abused for two years a female child, even to the point of
admitting he put his bare hands between her legs with his excuse of '
washing the pee' off of the seven year old girl. A girl who was the
daughter of his girlfriend, ho ended up choosing him over her own
daughter.
IOW Greg doesn't give a damn about children unless he can abuse them
like he abused his mentally-ill ex-wife. If greg wants to hide his
crap under the guise of " patriotism" like so many seem to be doing
Greg's gonna need a bigger flag. He has a LOT to hide.
Moe
Greegor
Moe > admitting he put his bare hands between her legs
Another blatant lie from Moe.
What's new?
Kabuki Bob
The point is you get your " information" from slanted sources.
As usual for you what I commented on concerning the REAL YOU you
mysteriously ignore. Whatsamatter Greg? SO focused on dissing Dan
that you forgot how hypocritical you are considering what you DID to a
seven year old girl?
Like you actually give a damn about what you were commenting on..
Right. And I'm Amelia Earhart.
Got the proof about the political leanings of Pagans yet Greg?
Moe
Greegor
> On Nov 18, 6:04 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I posted an Examiner link and story and Moe bitches about Fox News?
>
> > Moe > admitting he put his bare hands between her legs
>
> > Another blatant lie from Moe.
> > What's new?
>
> The point is you get your " information" from slanted sources.
All you're doing is giving away your political orientation and
your sources.
> As usual for you what I commented on concerning the REAL YOU you
> mysteriously ignore. Whatsamatter Greg? SO focused on dissing Dan
> that you forgot how hypocritical you are considering what you DID to a
> seven year old girl?
Been eating prunes again, Moe?
Part of your ""cleansing process" ?
> Like you actually give a damn about what you were commenting on..
> Right. And I'm Amelia Earhart.
Awe, I'm starting to think you're really annoyed.
It must help that you pee standing up.
> Got the proof about the political leanings of Pagans yet Greg?
You just posted some, at least enough to make
it apparent what you've tried to conceal.
When I posted a link and story from examiner.com
you reflexively bitched about Fox News!
That's fairly transparent, Moe!
You fight the notion that your political views
are cliche' for a knee jerk extreme liberal,
but it's really no secret.
Fred Brown
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f87f6935-5a13-44d3...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
FOX is the only news network that reports what is ACTUALLY going
on in the U.S. and the world, although I've noticed that CNN is begining
to mirror FOX's reporting.
FOX does not bother with tabloid news reporting, you have to view the
mainstream media and Nancy Grace, Mike Galanos and the hyphenated
name lezzie for that.
Greegor
About 551,000 results
API, UPI, NBC, ABC have all carried this story.
Fox News didn't even show up on the first page of a google search with
the kids name.
Why are you so afraid to admit you are kook left, Moe?
You RAGE about rape even though you are clearly in no danger of that!
You attempt to vilify opponenets using epithets revealing you are kook
liberal.
You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
I posted an Examiner news story and you started bitching
about Fox News, even though Fox doesn't even show up
in the first page of Google hits on the kids name.
Maureen E McAllister, you are the brain surgeon of
Dardanelle Arkansas.
Do you even KNOW what API or UPI are?
http://www.turlockjournal.com/news/article/6669/
Reactions to flag incident disrupt classes in Denair
By Maegan Martens
Education Reporter
mmar...@turlockjournal.com
209-634-9141, ext. 2015
POSTED Nov. 19, 2010 11:03 p.m.
Daily routines at Denair Unified School sites have been disrupted, to
say the least. A community and media maelstrom has surrounded Denair
Middle School and eighth grade student Cody Alicea after he was told
by a campus employee to remove the American flag from his bicycle on
Nov. 8.
The television media was alerted to the situation and the school
district’s initial support of the employee’s decision to ask Alicea to
remove the flag due to safety concerns by Alicea’s stepfather Robert
Kisner.
Since then, the school has been bombarded with angry citizens,
concerned parents and those wishing to express patriotic support for
Alicea and his right to fly an American flag. Over 1,000 voicemails
were left on one phone alone at the school office on Nov. 12, in
response to the incident. It has also led to a patriotic parade and
rally, and sparked national discourse on First Amendment rights. It
has also made teaching and learning in Denair a little more
difficult.
"It has changed the Denair culture a little bit," said Ed Parraz,
Denair Unified School District superintendent. "This has had an impact
everywhere."
Parraz said students are tired of cameras being in their faces and
teachers are struggling to keep the distraction out of the classroom.
The incident has also added extra expenses to the small school
district’s budget, in the form of added security costs. Rank
Investigations has been patrolling the schools of Denair since the
beginning of this year to help with extra night patrol to stop the
increase in vandalism, Parraz said.
"There will be a bill or two for the extra help for security, but it
is nothing that will break the bank," he said.
DUSD held an emergency school board meeting on Sunday to go over
potential litigation from a legal group that is a watch dog for First
Amendment rights, Parraz said. The one potential litigation seems to
be solved and has been the only potential litigation they have
received.
"There is no financial obligation at this time," he said.
But at Thursday’s regular DUSD Board of Trustees meeting, Kisner said
"I have no intentions of litigation if things keep moving forward, but
if not, I will do what I have to do to make it right."
Even with the extra bills, the disruptions on campus seem to be the
major concern with the media and cameras taking over the education
process.
"Our students are just tired of it," Parraz said. "They just want to
come to school and learn. It takes away the integrity of the classroom
and it just becomes a disruption with the cameras and lights
everywhere."
To prevent these distractions from happening in the future, Parraz
said he is looking into policies and protocols to ensure parents are
notified first in extreme situations when safety is a concern.
Also the DUSD Board of Trustees has directed Parraz to look into
forming a community committee to help develop concrete protocols. They
will be looking into a flag policy as well because they currently do
not have one in place.
"We have to find a balance between protecting the First Amendment
rights of our students and maintaining their safety," he said.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16621024?nclick_check=1
Stanislaus student gets apology over US flag flap
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/15/2010 03:34:06 PM PST
Updated: 11/15/2010 03:36:40 PM PST
DENAIR, Calif.—A Stanislaus County school official has apologized to a
student who was told to remove an American flag from the back of his
bicycle.
Last week, a supervisor at Denair Middle School told 13-year-old Cody
Alicea to remove the flag over concerns for the teen's safety.
Officials say some students had made threatening remarks amid racial
tensions stemming from the display of a Mexican flag during Cinco de
Mayo.
Cody's stepfather called local media, and a civil rights group
threatened to sue the district for First Amendment violations.
The Modesto Bee reports that Denair schools Superintendent Ed Parraz
later apologized to Cody and community members who were upset by the
flag flap.
On Monday morning, several hundred people gathered for a rally to
celebrate Cody's victory.
———
Information from: The Modesto Bee, http://www.modbee.com
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/11/11/Student-told-to-take-US-flag-off-bike/UPI-77081289511876/
Odd News
Student told to take U.S. flag off bike
Published: Nov. 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM
ArticleListenComments. Share35K
Slideshow
Cody Alicea rides his patriotic bike. Related Stories
Neighborhood wants flag taken down
Flag removal sparks controversy
Vet charged for taking tattered flag
ACLU backs man wanting to fly flag
DENAIR, Calif., Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Officials in a California school
district said a middle school student was told to take a U.S. flag off
his bike to avoid "racial tension."
Denair Unified School District Superintendent Edward Parraz said Cody
Alicea, 13, was told not to fly the U.S. flag from his bike while at
Denair Middle School after complaints from other students, KCRA-TV,
Sacramento, Calif., reported.
"(The) First Amendment is important," Parraz said. "We want the kids
to respect it, understand it, and with that comes a responsibility."
Parraz said racial tensions boiled over at the school this year around
the Cinco de Mayo holiday.
"Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican
flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the
American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension
which we don't really want," Parraz said. "We want them to appreciate
the cultures."
Alicea's parents said he flies the flag from his bike as a tribute to
veterans in his family.
"He's got that flag on his bike because he's proud of where he comes
from," Alicea's father, Robert Kisner, said.
Alicea folds up the flag and keeps it in his backpack while attend
class, the TV station said.
Kabuki Bob
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Nancy Grace is hardly an objective source for information Fred. She
sensationalizes and puts on her outrage act every night and anyone who
actually knows about the subject of true crime and forensic
investigation would be appalled at the crap Grace spouts on her show.
People fall for what is presented to them and they don't stop to think
that the person on the screen may be not as honest as he or she
pretends to be.
You might want to go to Wiki and look at the entry for Nancy Grace.
She's lied about a few things in her life and showed no guilt for
hounding a woman to commit suicide, something that BTW if the woman
was guilty she would have eventually told police where the body was.
She's doing an act. How can an honest person one minute do the
outrage and yelling and the next minute shut the supposed anger off to
do the sympathy voice about dead soldiers? Big clue here. She's faking
it all along.
Moe
Kabuki Bob
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26474,26765,27022,27740&sug...
>
> About 551,000 results
So what? You know as well as I do that unless you boolean your
searches you get a lot of false results.
>
> API, UPI, NBC, ABC have all carried this story.
>
> Fox News didn't even show up on the first page of a google search with
> the kids name.
Google lists via two means, greg, popularity and what web site PAYS
for them to list them. It usually does NOT list by time and date
unless you specify it.
Your deception noted.
>
> Why are you so afraid to admit you are kook left, Moe?
I'm not "afraid" of acknowledging whatever political leanings I do
have greg, your childish attempts to pigeonhole me otherwise. I will
tell you this--I am not " kook left." Just because I refused to tell
you whom I voted for in the last election does not mean I am " afraid"
to state what my political beliefs are-- and are not.
You fall for the either-or extremism crap, which has stifled honest
debate. Just because I dislike the far right does not mean I am "kook
left". As I said in another post I am liberal in some things, moderate
in some and conservative in some things. IOW like any reasonable
person who thinks for him or herself rather than blindly follow
someone.
> You RAGE about rape even though you are clearly in no danger of that!
Really? How do you know?
Anyone can be a victim of rape greg. Even you. I " rage" against the
crap excuses of rapists and those who claim that there is a thing
called "soft rape".
I have not hidden the fact that for awhile when I was in college I
volunteered at a women's shelter. The women included victims of sexual
assault and rape, Greg. Not that you give a damn.
And before you spew out the feminazi man-hater crap, let me tell you
that I also knew during that time CARING MEN who felt so helpless that
they had to go to a private place and cry for awhile because even when
they meant not harm, the women were so traumatized that any male they
saw they saw as a threat to fear.
And unlike your mentally ill wife whom you abused, I have made it
clear to you that I am a strong-willed woman who could beat the crap
out of my attacker if need be.
I have deliberately NOT revealed a few things in my past on usenet
because of sick little bastards like you. And one of the many reasons
why is what you are displaying now.
> You attempt to vilify opponenets using epithets revealing you are kook
> liberal.
> You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
As for "vilify" opponents, are you referring to yourself and Kennie
Pangborn by any chance? Kennie, who had a record of being an abusive,
vulgar asshole online who actually suggested a woman who criticized
him should be "arranged to be raped"? Or how about you who by your own
admission ( though you have excuses) you treaded a seven year old girl
abusively for two years including your claim of " innocently" washing
the pee off of between her legs with your BARE HANDS. And when you
recently revealed in a post that as a cabbie you had women you claim
offered themselves to you sexually as payment for their cab fares. As
if you were handsome, which you are not.
>
> I posted an Examiner news story and you started bitching
> about Fox News, even though Fox doesn't even show up
> in the first page of Google hits on the kids name.
Attempt to distort my response noted.
Attempt to sneak in calling me a bitch noted.
>
> Maureen E McAllister, you are the brain surgeon of
> Dardanelle Arkansas.
Non sequitor obvious reference to your cyberstalking noted.
If I was a brain surgeon, you would be minor surgery, as you
obviously don't have a fully functioning brain.
At any rate, I seem to be more rational and more intelligent than
you,which admittedly is a low bar considering how you are.
>
> Do you even KNOW what API or UPI are?
Yes I do actually, They are news services.
Your attempt to distract from the fact that the far right is using
this story, hyping it up with the barely hidden context against the
illegal aliens is once again your dishonesty at what actually is
happening with the story.
I've said that what the school did was wrong and I also an aware of
how the conservatives are gleefully riding this for what they can use.
The simple fact is that nowadays the "news" like Ted Koppel said, is
no longer Edward R Murrow or Cronkite objectivity and fairness. As a
Pagan I have seen news stories about Pagans that were far from fair
and were highly distorted-- and this by "journalists". Reporters
nowadays have to do their stories " on the spot" and don't have time
to actually check to make sure they are telling the facts.
For example, there are a few news stories ( print and broadcast)
about "Pastor" Bob Larson that amaze me on how badly done they are.
One TV interview even mislabeled him " Father Bob Larson". Another
newspaper had a religion editor letting pass on his story Larson's
crass claim that people should watch his special on exorcism where he
verbally and psychologically abuses people as if they were watching
entertainment and eat popcorn.
The news editor should have been ashamed of himself. A simple online
search would have revealed that Larson is not someone one should
trust.
>
> http://www.turlockjournal.com/news/article/6669/
Greg's obsessive copy and paste deleted.
Think you got me Greg?
You don't.
You never have, and you never will.
Moe
Moe
Greegor
Moe > I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
Silly.
Robert Kent
Get a freaking life.
Maureen - you might want to consider getting a restraining order.
"Greegor" wrote in message
news:eb524c09-727f-44e9...@q14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Greegor
Moe > I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
G > Silly.
RK > ?Stalk much Greegor? How many years has it been?
Moe has publicly and repeatedly ANNOUNCED
being a Neo-Pagan. Now for me to know that
makes me a stalker?? Strange thinking.
My comments about Frank might come closer
to being stalking, except that again, it is
something that Moe posted about publicly
and repeatedly.
RK > Get a freaking life.
Since it looks like you have only posted to usenet for
one month, I feel I should inform you that Maureen
has engaged in several DECADE long campaigns
of stalking and harassment, using various
nyms (socks?) and others hunting in packs.
Get a freaking life indeed!
RK > Maureen - you might want to consider getting a restraining order.
Moe has publicly PROMISED to take legal action several times!
Since Moe lies about real legal actions and Police
investigations, or fabricates fictions about both, it's no
surprise that her dire threats of legal action are BS.
Her bestest buddy is Kent Bradley Wills, two time
thieving felon, garage burglar and beneficiary of a
""protective trust"" designed to keep an idiot such
as Kent from blowing the family fortune on magic beans.
Moe played along completely with Kent's various
idiotic attempts to deny his true identity and felonies.
As in first he claimed they were fake records, then
later he denied he IS that person.
The rotating denials actually conflict with each other.
Denying WHO he is just doesn't work well after
he tried to say they were FAKE records (with his name).
Kent and Moe made several other really funny
mistakes with their blustery storm of lies about it.
Kent's proud public claims that HE sold the
202 NW College apartment building when property
records are so PUBLIC was a major mistake.
The records match up with his parents and sibs
but more amusingly match up with a small claims
suit by the next owner of that same apartment
building against Kent over some money owed.
Kent is a raging mythomaniac, who makes the
mistake of thinking that VERIFIABLE interlocking
proven references can be shouted down with a
storm of lies, misrepresentations and misattributions,
mostly without any LINKS or means to verify.
My actual 15 year old misdemeanors were
not even good enough so Kent stooped to
posting text he altered to look like an OWI
conviction with NO CASE NUMBER!
Kent also tried misrepresenting another
Greg Hanson's records as mine jsut so
he could claim I owed some guy named
Polkers some money. Kent refused to
provide the case number on that for a time,
but when I found the Polkers case it turns
out that Polkers was a lawyer or advocate
"FOR" that Greg Hanson and the case took
place on the opposite side of the state of Iowa.
I didn't post for over a week and so Moe
and Kent in their own cowardly way started
claiming some sort of victory over me.
I won the bet.
G > You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
Moe > I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
G > Silly.
Former Wiccan, current Neo-Pagan.
Moe especially has a personal need for crusades
to bitch about, so she can feel self-rightious.
Kent is basically an example of trolldom gone insane.
Unemployable with his two THIEVING felonies
and his misdemenor for USING a teen as an
accomplice to the Garage Burglary, Kent lives
off the "protective trust" and has assenine
amounts of time to post his insane gibberish.
Kent had two standout months in late 2007
in terms of the THOUSANDS of posts per month.
Even HE was ashamed about them and after
I ribbed him about it, Kent took a break from
usenet supposedly to treat his net addiction.
Kent even went through his own old posts to
delete anything that might trip him up in lies
or further autheticate his true identity.
Kent forgot that his old posts still live on in
the form of responses to him that quoted him.
I am certainly not the first or last person to
have run ins with Kent and Moe, especially
since they have sought out such bitchfests
for a DECADE or more before I ever heard
of either of them.
For them to claim that some opponent is a
criminal in some way is Standard Operating
Procedure for these two. ( de rigueur )
Often they use "sock" identities to start
such deceptions.
Imagine their joy when they found somebody
with two 15 year old misdemeanors and
fighting lies and false accusations from
a Child Protection agency?
To them I was a real gift, a bonanza.
They thought their ""street cred"" and their
self esteem would be overflowing by
playing the hyena pack game with me.
Have you sensed, Robert, that it hasn't
quite gone as they hoped?? LOL
Oh yeah, Kent used to have two OTHER
stooges trying to help him sell his big
deceptions about his identity and record,
but they bowed out years ago leaving
only the last stooge, Moe, to foist
their buddy's absurd lies.
Even as perverse as usenet is, Kent was
seen for the liar he is, long before I began
confirming the research others had done
on him years ago and expanding on it slightly.
Even the KOOK group full of liars, internet bullies
and sock parades booted Kent's ass out.
It might have been his stupid ass LIES,
even after he is OWNED, or it might have
been his "going real world" or "outing people"
but getting run out of the KOOK group
is indeed special.
Moe's usenet identity has been so closely
connected to Kent for SO LONG that it
eclipses any usenet identity she might
have had on her own.
Kent Wills
Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
>
>Moe > I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
>
>G > Silly.
>
>RK > ?Stalk much Greegor? How many years has it been?
>
>Moe has publicly and repeatedly ANNOUNCED
>being a Neo-Pagan. Now for me to know that
>makes me a stalker?? Strange thinking.
Anyone with a desire can read your posts on Google.
Like your claim that you've been obsessively stalking a man named
Glen for more than 10 years.
>
>My comments about Frank might come closer
>to being stalking, except that again, it is
>something that Moe posted about publicly
>and repeatedly.
And yet you are unable to state who Frank is.
>
>RK > Get a freaking life.
>
>Since it looks like you have only posted to usenet for
>one month, I feel I should inform you that Maureen
>has engaged in several DECADE long campaigns
>of stalking and harassment, using various
>nyms (socks?) and others hunting in packs.
>
Projection noted.
>Get a freaking life indeed!
>
>RK > Maureen - you might want to consider getting a restraining order.
>
>Moe has publicly PROMISED to take legal action several times!
Yet when asked, repeatedly, to provide the MID and/or Google link
to just one such post, you are NEVER able.
Lie much?
>Since Moe lies about real legal actions and Police
>investigations, or fabricates fictions about both, it's no
>surprise that her dire threats of legal action are BS.
When has Moe done such a thing?
Moe has, on occasion, stated legal action is an OPTION. Outside
of your latest PROOF that you allowed some honesty to slip out when
you admitted you use and abuse illegal drugs, stating it's an option
is not the same as promising to take legal action.
You often use this method of deception. You will present a lie,
then, months or years later, use your lie to try and support a new
lie.
Your deception has never worked, yet you continue to use it.
You're stupid.
>
>Her bestest buddy is Kent Bradley Wills, two time
>thieving felon, garage burglar and beneficiary of a
>""protective trust"" designed to keep an idiot such
>as Kent from blowing the family fortune on magic beans.
Would that be the trust from my parents whom you claim are alive
AND dead at the same time?
>
>Moe played along completely with Kent's various
>idiotic attempts to deny his true identity and felonies.
I've never denied my true identity. That you don't know my name
in real life, though you have acknowledged it's not Kent, doesn't mean
I deny who I am.
Further, you've publicly stated the records you claim are mine
are not mine.
You'll recall I posted the MID for just one of the admissions
when you LIED and claimed you could make use of them.
I expect you still can't figure out how to make use of the MIDs
from posts. You really are that dumb.
>
>As in first he claimed they were fake records, then
>later he denied he IS that person.
You're the one who firmly believes that the records, which you've
openly admitted aren't mine, were put there:
1) By mistake
2) To catch a stalker
3) As a joke
Those are the three claims YOU'VE made about the matter.
There is no way for all three to be true, yet you've never stated
any of your claims were made in error. Given the amount of time that
has passed, there is no way a claim of a mistake could be believed.
How do you hold these same beliefs at the same time?
Serious question.
>
>The rotating denials actually conflict with each other.
I've stated the same thing as you. That the records are not
mine.
How does your mind rationalize them being mine and NOT being
mine, at the same time?
When you needed to explain why I was able to travel the globe
(mostly south America), why I was able to LEGALLY be in constructive
possession of a fire arm (I posted video of it to YouTube and two days
later you encouraged people to save copies off all my videos), etc,
the records were not mine but some other Kent Wills.
When the embarrassment of your LIE having been exposed passed,
you returned to claiming that they are actually mine.
>
>Denying WHO he is just doesn't work well after
>he tried to say they were FAKE records (with his name).
You can present the same lie as often as your mind requires. It
will remain a lie.
>
>Kent and Moe made several other really funny
>mistakes with their blustery storm of lies about it.
Yet you have NEVER been able to offer a cite to one of them.
>
>Kent's proud public claims that HE sold the
>202 NW College apartment building when property
>records are so PUBLIC was a major mistake.
How do you propose selling property can be a mistake?
>
>The records match up with his parents and sibs
>but more amusingly match up with a small claims
>suit by the next owner of that same apartment
>building against Kent over some money owed.
Um, YOU are the one who was sued, several times, for non-payment
of rent. Projecting YOUR situation onto me only enforces the
knowledge that you're mentally ill.
>
>Kent is a raging mythomaniac, who makes the
Yet in order to make the claim you must LIE about what I've
posted.
You've yet to explain this, tough you've been asked MANY times.
>mistake of thinking that VERIFIABLE interlocking
>proven references can be shouted down with a
>storm of lies, misrepresentations and misattributions,
>mostly without any LINKS or means to verify.
I hold no such thoughts.
>
>My actual 15 year old misdemeanors were
You BEAT your wife. You were INCARCERATED for it.
>not even good enough so Kent stooped to
>posting text he altered to look like an OWI
>conviction with NO CASE NUMBER!
I did no such thing.
>
>Kent also tried misrepresenting another
>Greg Hanson's records as mine jsut so
>he could claim I owed some guy named
>Polkers some money.
I've done no such thing.
>Kent refused to
>provide the case number on that for a time,
>but when I found the Polkers case it turns
>out that Polkers was a lawyer or advocate
>"FOR" that Greg Hanson and the case took
>place on the opposite side of the state of Iowa.
Where you live now has NO bearing on where you used to live.
You're stupid.
>
>I didn't post for over a week and so Moe
According to you, this only occurs when someone is trying to deal
with an addiction to the Internet.
You express this standard below.
>and Kent in their own cowardly way started
>claiming some sort of victory over me.
Moe asked where you were. I stated I don't know, but it was nice
that you were gone.
That's not claiming some sort of victory.
You're stupid.
>
>I won the bet.
Since there was no bet, there could be none to win.
Care to try another lie?
>
>G > You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
>
>Moe > I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
>
>G > Silly.
>
>Former Wiccan, current Neo-Pagan.
So you admit you LIED?
>
>Moe especially has a personal need for crusades
>to bitch about, so she can feel self-rightious.
>
>Kent is basically an example of trolldom gone insane.
You really need to cease the projection.
>
>Unemployable with his two THIEVING felonies
I have the same employer I've had for many years. I work in the
same school district, in the same school.
There's nothing to indicate this is going to change.
You, however, haven't had a job in over a decade because of the
money you own due to the NUMEROUS legal cases where you were named as
a defendant and LOST.
>and his misdemenor for USING a teen as an
>accomplice to the Garage Burglary, Kent lives
>off the "protective trust" and has assenine
>amounts of time to post his insane gibberish.
You claimed, for over a year, it was an inheritance. When that
LIE was exposed by your more recent ones, you quickly changed the
claim.
>
>Kent had two standout months in late 2007
>in terms of the THOUSANDS of posts per month.
Again, Google's counting is not accurate. If it is, even with
your week off, you're posting far more than I.
You've exposed your addiction once again.
>Even HE was ashamed about them and after
>I ribbed him about it, Kent took a break from
>usenet supposedly to treat his net addiction.
You simply can't be honest.
>
>Kent even went through his own old posts to
>delete anything that might trip him up in lies
>or further autheticate his true identity.
I've done no such thing.
As of my writing this, those on Usenet who do know my name in
real life, have never stated what it is. I don't think anyone has so
much as hinted at it.
>Kent forgot that his old posts still live on in
>the form of responses to him that quoted him.
You're the one who admitted he nuked the post where you admit you
use and abuse illegal drugs. You then claimed you were trying to get
the replies nuked.
I've never found any replies, so either you were successful or
you lied. Only you KNOW which is the case.
>
>I am certainly not the first or last person to
>have run ins with Kent and Moe, especially
>since they have sought out such bitchfests
>for a DECADE or more before I ever heard
>of either of them.
Moe and I weren't aware of each other's existence for a decade.
>
>For them to claim that some opponent is a
>criminal in some way is Standard Operating
>Procedure for these two. ( de rigueur )
We both use YOUR standards in making the claims about you. If you
believe this is in some way unfair, perhaps you should cease DEMANDING
these standards be held to others.
>
>Often they use "sock" identities to start
>such deceptions.
Yet you ALWAYS out YOURSELF as the socks.
How do you explain this?
Of course you don't explain it. You run and HIDE from the truth.
BTW, I see where you are attacking yourself, again, on the
friends group. I guess you weren't getting the victim status you
desperately NEED, so you had to attack yourself.
It's only a matter of time before you slip and out yourself.
Unless you run and HIDE from the truth of it.
>
>Imagine their joy when they found somebody
>with two 15 year old misdemeanors and
Stop minimizing your actions. You BEAT Donna.
Your LIE that all you did was push her away when she attacked you
is laughable. One doesn't get sentenced to incarceration for pushing
away their attacker. In fact, if that was all that happened, you
would have been a victim (you NEED to be one) trying to stop an
attack. It's unlikely charges would have been brought against you.
To think a guilty verdict would be reached if your claim was true
is so asinine that no mentally sound person would have presented it.
It's no shock that you thought anyone would buy the lie.
>fighting lies and false accusations from
>a Child Protection agency?
So everyone, literally EVERYONE, except you, is lying, huh? You
alone are the beacon of truth in the world?
When you see everyone as lying, as you clearly do, it means you
have a problem understanding what is truth and what is not.
>
>To them I was a real gift, a bonanza.
And to think, if there is such a gift (outside of your continued
PROOF that you are as mentally unbalanced as you present there is
not), YOU handed it to us.
I left ASCPS. Once you realized I was gone, you sought me out
all over Usenet, including groups I hadn't been to for over a year.
I was no longer exposing your lies, so you were no longer being
made a victim of them. This was more than you could handle. You
couldn't stand actually getting the last word and being able to claim
you won.
You NEED to be a victim, so you looked for me, and found me. Had
you accepted that I was done proving you the liar you are, Moe
wouldn't be aware of your existence.
Now your continued lies are being exposed. The only way this
doesn't happen is when you cease posting to deal with your addiction
to Usenet.
>They thought their ""street cred"" and their
>self esteem would be overflowing by
>playing the hyena pack game with me.
Again you express your unending obsession with Kane (TBOKBUY!).
If he's still alive (he was to have been quite old when posting),
I'm sure he's experiencing a mixture of pleasure and concern over your
continued devotion via the use of his term.
I have no insight into this (if he's ever written me, he didn't
state he's Kane (PBTNOK!)) but I would expect him to be happy that
you're so OBSESSED with him that long after he ceased posting, you
still use his term.
I would also expect him to be a bit freaked out that you're so
OBSESSED with him that long after he ceased posting, you still use his
term.
>
>Have you sensed, Robert, that it hasn't
>quite gone as they hoped?? LOL
You can't be around children. If not legally, then ethically.
Your MOLESTATION of Kristen Watkins when she was around seven
years of age PROVES this.
And, according to YOU, the posting of the names of minors is
acceptable.
>
>Oh yeah, Kent used to have two OTHER
>stooges trying to help him sell his big
>deceptions about his identity and record,
>but they bowed out years ago leaving
>only the last stooge, Moe, to foist
>their buddy's absurd lies.
Who are these two phantom people?
>
>Even as perverse as usenet is, Kent was
>seen for the liar he is, long before I began
>confirming the research others had done
>on him years ago and expanding on it slightly.
Except that you've used that which was long ago proved wrong.
>
>Even the KOOK group full of liars, internet bullies
>and sock parades booted Kent's ass out.
I had left the group long before they got upset that I reported
Eric's threats to my children.
>
>It might have been his stupid ass LIES,
>even after he is OWNED, or it might have
>been his "going real world" or "outing people"
I only did so AFTER Eric threatened my children and after he
posted my phone number from when I lived in Chicago.
It's clear to any mentally sound person, which eliminates you,
that he either knew my real information, or could find it.
That they were upset over my altering law enforcement of his
threats speaks more to them than me.
>but getting run out of the KOOK group
>is indeed special.
Having them refuse to even acknowledge you is even more so.
Has anyone in the group so much as acknowledged a single post
from you?
>
>Moe's usenet identity has been so closely
>connected to Kent for SO LONG that it
>eclipses any usenet identity she might
>have had on her own.
Moe is a very independent woman. That she and I don't devote
time to matters where we disagree can't be seen, my the mentally
sound, as a meshing of identities.
YMMV, of course, given how often you prove you're mentally ill.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, August 15, 2010:
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.
Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.
Kent Wills
>On Nov 20, 8:42 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26474,26765,27022,27740&sug...
>>
>> About 551,000 results
>
> So what? You know as well as I do that unless you boolean your
>searches you get a lot of false results.
>
Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott Hanson) doesn't believe
that. Everything brought up in a search is 100% true and accurate.
Except when it's about her, of course.
Note her latest claim of where I live. She uses a site that
claims she is 20 years old and living in Thailand. Clearly the site
is not accurate. But Lisa Watkins is psychologically UNABLE to accept
this truth.
>>
>> API, UPI, NBC, ABC have all carried this story.
>>
>> Fox News didn't even show up on the first page of a google search with
>> the kids name.
>
> Google lists via two means, greg, popularity and what web site PAYS
>for them to list them. It usually does NOT list by time and date
>unless you specify it.
>
The paid returns are listed first.
It's not like this is a secret. Google even points out the
results listed first are sponsored results.
> Your deception noted.
What's most sad is that Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott
Hanson) thought the LIE would get past you.
>
>>
>> Why are you so afraid to admit you are kook left, Moe?
>
> I'm not "afraid" of acknowledging whatever political leanings I do
>have greg, your childish attempts to pigeonhole me otherwise. I will
>tell you this--I am not " kook left." Just because I refused to tell
>you whom I voted for in the last election does not mean I am " afraid"
>to state what my political beliefs are-- and are not.
I'm still waiting for Lisa Watkins (aka Greg Hanson) to explain
why she believes she has any right to know for whom you voted.
As of my writing this, she's run away like a coward.
>
> You fall for the either-or extremism crap, which has stifled honest
>debate. Just because I dislike the far right does not mean I am "kook
>left". As I said in another post I am liberal in some things, moderate
>in some and conservative in some things. IOW like any reasonable
>person who thinks for him or herself rather than blindly follow
>someone.
I'm openly conservative with libertarian leanings. This means
that while I'm not in favor of corporate welfare, I have no problem
with two people of the same gender getting married.
>
>
>> You RAGE about rape even though you are clearly in no danger of that!
>
> Really? How do you know?
> Anyone can be a victim of rape greg. Even you. I " rage" against the
>crap excuses of rapists and those who claim that there is a thing
>called "soft rape".
I had to Google the concept.
If one has to be "talked into" sex, it's probably not consensual.
I'm not sure how it would be in a truly legal sense.
Morally, it's just as bad as "standard" rape, but legally...
Of course, according to Greg's claims, he raped Donna when they
were married, since, according to him, bipolar people are not able to
give consent for sex.
>
> I have not hidden the fact that for awhile when I was in college I
>volunteered at a women's shelter. The women included victims of sexual
>assault and rape, Greg. Not that you give a damn.
Lisa Rene Watkins (AKA Gregory Scott Hanson) cares NOTHING for
anyone other than herself and what she can get from society.
Please note her post about how law enforcement should have
arrested a few pedophiles, allowing many, many more to escape justice.
>
> And before you spew out the feminazi man-hater crap, let me tell you
>that I also knew during that time CARING MEN who felt so helpless that
>they had to go to a private place and cry for awhile because even when
>they meant not harm, the women were so traumatized that any male they
>saw they saw as a threat to fear.
This is why it's very rare for a male to be seen in the "public"
area of shelters. Some won't allow males to be anywhere on the
premises.
In a strictly technical sense this is sexual discrimination, but
given the fragile condition of some of the women seeking help, it's
easy not to get upset about it. In fact, I fully understand it and
have never gotten upset when I've been told that while my offer to
assist is truly appreciated, it simply can't be accepted.
>
> And unlike your mentally ill wife whom you abused,
Please don't diminish it. Donna was BEATEN.
One does not get incarcerated for simply pushing someone away
when being attacked.
>I have made it
>clear to you that I am a strong-willed woman who could beat the crap
>out of my attacker if need be.
>
> I have deliberately NOT revealed a few things in my past on usenet
>because of sick little bastards like you. And one of the many reasons
>why is what you are displaying now.
>
>> You attempt to vilify opponenets using epithets revealing you are kook
>> liberal.
>> You're a former Wiccan Neo-Pagan
>
> I'm not a former Pagan. I still AM a Pagan.
>
> As for "vilify" opponents, are you referring to yourself and Kennie
>Pangborn by any chance? Kennie, who had a record of being an abusive,
>vulgar asshole online who actually suggested a woman who criticized
>him should be "arranged to be raped"?
Actually, Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP CONsulting and The
A-Team wrote, "We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape"
Please see http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com for the text and link
to Pangborn admitting he authored the threat. Readers will also find
a great deal of other PROOF of his misdeeds (said proof consisting
almost exclusively of Ken's own writings) at the site.
>Or how about you who by your own
>admission ( though you have excuses) you treaded a seven year old girl
>abusively for two years including your claim of " innocently" washing
>the pee off of between her legs with your BARE HANDS.
Kristen was MOLESTED.
Oh, the posting of a minor's name is acceptable to Lisa Rene
Watkins (aka Gregory Scott Hanson). She posted my son's name and what
she thought was the name of my daughter. Both were, and are, minors.
>And when you
>recently revealed in a post that as a cabbie you had women you claim
>offered themselves to you sexually as payment for their cab fares. As
>if you were handsome, which you are not.
>
If the picture that is to be of "Greg" and Dennis really is of
them, the word homely comes to mind.
I wonder if either has learned of the benefits of shampoo?
>>
>> I posted an Examiner news story and you started bitching
>> about Fox News, even though Fox doesn't even show up
>> in the first page of Google hits on the kids name.
>
> Attempt to distort my response noted.
> Attempt to sneak in calling me a bitch noted.
>
>>
>> Maureen E McAllister, you are the brain surgeon of
>> Dardanelle Arkansas.
>
> Non sequitor obvious reference to your cyberstalking noted.
>
> If I was a brain surgeon, you would be minor surgery, as you
>obviously don't have a fully functioning brain.
You'd need to contact a proctologist first to assist in removing
the cranium from the rectal cavity.
>
> At any rate, I seem to be more rational and more intelligent than
>you,which admittedly is a low bar considering how you are.
>
The mental retardation Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott
Hanson) displays is NOT an act.
S/He is stupid.
>>
>> Do you even KNOW what API or UPI are?
>
> Yes I do actually, They are news services.
>
> Your attempt to distract from the fact that the far right is using
>this story, hyping it up with the barely hidden context against the
>illegal aliens is once again your dishonesty at what actually is
>happening with the story.
>
> I've said that what the school did was wrong and I also an aware of
>how the conservatives are gleefully riding this for what they can use.
I have to disagree here.
The school needed to ensure the safety of the child in question.
Yes, the ones who issued the threats must face the consequences of
their actions, but ensuring safety comes first.
Also, further checking shows the matter actually started in May.
May 5th to be exact, when some had problems with the Mexicans having
flags in honor of Cinco de Mayo.
Lisa Rene Watkins' racism, as PROVED when she posted a racist
rant under her Gregory Hanson nym, prevented her from mentioning this.
She wanted the focus to be on the white "victim" in the matter.
>
> The simple fact is that nowadays the "news" like Ted Koppel said, is
>no longer Edward R Murrow or Cronkite objectivity and fairness. As a
>Pagan I have seen news stories about Pagans that were far from fair
>and were highly distorted-- and this by "journalists". Reporters
>nowadays have to do their stories " on the spot" and don't have time
>to actually check to make sure they are telling the facts.
>
> For example, there are a few news stories ( print and broadcast)
>about "Pastor" Bob Larson that amaze me on how badly done they are.
>One TV interview even mislabeled him " Father Bob Larson". Another
>newspaper had a religion editor letting pass on his story Larson's
>crass claim that people should watch his special on exorcism where he
>verbally and psychologically abuses people as if they were watching
>entertainment and eat popcorn.
>
>The news editor should have been ashamed of himself. A simple online
>search would have revealed that Larson is not someone one should
>trust.
>
>>
>> http://www.turlockjournal.com/news/article/6669/
>
>
> Greg's obsessive copy and paste deleted.
>
>Think you got me Greg?
>
> You don't.
>
> You never have, and you never will.
>
Poor widdle Gweggie.
If only Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott Hanson) could be
honest. Sadly, this is not possible, unless she thinks honesty will
promote one or more of her lies.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>?Stalk much Greegor? How many years has it been?
>
By the same definition Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Hanson)
once posted to accuse others of stalking, she is stalking many
different people.
>Get a freaking life.
Usenet is Lisa Rene Watkins' life. She has, by her own
standards, ceased posting on various occasions to deal with her
addiction.
>
>Maureen - you might want to consider getting a restraining order.
No need. Lisa is only brave on-line. She shows her true colors
when there's a chance to meet anyone.
Greegor
How could it BE when you claim you aren't who you
are and you claim you don't live where you do?
Say, isn't this the phone number you claim isn't yours, Kent?
http://www.spokeo.com/phone/search?p=479-633-8823
WHY do you suppose so many searches match
that phone number to your compuelf e-mail address
and 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520 ?
AND match that birthday you say isn't yours
to the compuelf e-mail address etc?
KBW > posted my son's name
You posted your son's name several times, Kent!
He's about 19 now right?
How often does he visit his Mom in Illinois?
Kabuki Bob
And here he goes.....
Greg, considering YOU were the one crossposting to the newsgroup that
this user is responding from, you just proved his point about you.
Simply put, while I do indulge myself in posting criticisms of you
and deflecting your accusatory questions at me, in all honesty I
understand where Robert is coming from. To him this is insane crap of
people obsessed with each other spoiling his newsgroup with this
garbage. And he would be right.
I could go on a long-winded rebuttal of your claims about me.but
sheesh, I've done that before on previous posts you've made so doing
so now would be, well, doing what you do.
As for Frohman the Ebay thief who ripped me off, the end result is
that he was convicted and spent six months in a federal pentitentary
with a hefty fine I doubt he has yet to pay off. Long story there but
I had a number of allies online who helped me out and Glen Frohman
ended up the loser. I've stated years ago the reasons why I went after
him so I won't bore people with long recountings here.
Anything else you try to make people believe about me only reflects
upon you, Greg.
BTW any responses I make in this thread I will omit certain NGs that
greg obviously added. My apologies for the sewage in your usentet
group from this.
Moe
Moe
Kabuki Bob
> ?Stalk much Greegor? How many years has it been?
>
> Get a freaking life.
>
> Maureen - you might want to consider getting a restraining order.
No worries, actually. I know enough about Greg Hanson that he limits
his stalking to online attacks. He also knows that as a country gal I
know how to use a gun and Greg has a real wimp factor when it comes to
women who don't fall for his insults and abuse.
Had Greg actually gone further with his cyberstalking and posting
what he thought was personal info about me, then yes I would have
sought legal action against him. The irony is that Greg is so pathetic
that what he thinks he has actually has a number of factual errors
because he relies upon people finder web sites that are pretty crappy
in their results. At one point he actually claimed I have three
different ages at the same time.
Moe
Kent Wills
Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KBW > posted my son's name
>
>How could it BE when you claim you aren't who you
>are and you claim you don't live where you do?
I've never denied who I am, and I've never denied I live where I
do.
That you've never gotten either correct is not the same, to the
mentally sound, as denying who I am or where I live.
Again you offer PROOF that the mental illness you display on-line
is not an act. It is an accurate representation of you in real life.
Further, you add evidence that the mental defects are a direct result
of your continued use and abuse of illegal drugs.
>
>Say, isn't this the phone number you claim isn't yours, Kent?
>
>http://www.spokeo.com/phone/search?p=479-633-8823
Call it. If the number is mine, as you claim, I've just granted
you permission to call. Be sure to record it (applicable law permits
it over state lines) and make the audio available.
If, as you KNOW to be the case, the number isn't mine, you'll
never make the call. You will, by default, admit it's never been
mine, just as you chose to admit the address you claim for me is not
now, nor has it ever been where I live.
>
>WHY do you suppose so many searches match
>that phone number to your compuelf e-mail address
>and 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520 ?
It doesn't.
One site, which you've admitted, by your own standards, isn't
accurate isn't impressive.
Unless you're going to claim you are still married and living
with Donna.
But call. If the number is mine, I've twice, in one post,
granted you permission to call. If it's not mine, I can't grant you
permission.
Either make the call and make the audio available for review, a
win for you, or admit another of your MANY drug induced pathological
lies has been exposed. Another of your life ling losses.
The choice is yours.
>
>AND match that birthday you say isn't yours
>to the compuelf e-mail address etc?
Which birthday? The one you claim for 1963 or the one you claim
for 1969?
For some reason I'm thinking you claimed 1965 as well, though I
can't be sure why. Let's just stick with your claims of 1963 and 1969
for now.
How does your mind rationalize the six year difference? You've
been asked about the different dates a few times. You've always run
away from it.
If you wish, I'll post the MID for your claim of 1963. Since you
stated you can make use of them, you'll see your LIE exposed.
Oh wait, you can only make use of them until one or more PROVES
you lied. Then, suddenly, you are unable to use them.
You're stupid.
>
>KBW > posted my son's name
>
>You posted your son's name several times, Kent!
>He's about 19 now right?
No.
>How often does he visit his Mom in Illinois?
I wasn't aware Lin had moved.
She states she's equally ignorant of the move.
Unless you're allowing me to expose more of your drug induced
path logical lies, you'll provide your proof that Lindsay has moved to
Illinois.
Then you'll have to explain why you LIED about my children being
fictional.
Poor widdle Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott Hanson). If you
would just be honest, you wouldn't get caught lying.
Greegor
Must have struck a nerve!
Kent Wills
Scott Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wow! Three from Kent and TWO from Moe!
>Must have struck a nerve!
If you're going to lie, and your drug induced mental defects
DEMAND that you do, make sure you lie about that which can't be
proved.
<4ce7b32c$0$44571$bb4e...@newscene.com>
<a73ba517-db53-4146...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
<eb524c09-727f-44e9...@q14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<ica3vu$qvc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<7a97ed5a-0502-4719...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Theses are the last five MIDs in the thread, not counting the
post to which I am replying.
The first one, the oldest, is from Fred Brown. Right there your
LIE is exposed since he is neither me nor Moe, but let's continue.
The second one listed is one of Moe's posts. If one more is hers,
your claim about Moe can make it.
The third is one of yours. While you often claim you are me, you
are still the uneducated, unemployed looser you were.
The fourth is Robert Kent's. Outside of your delusions, he is
neither me nor Moe.
The fifth one is Moe's. Well, your claim about her posting twice
in the thread has been proved accurate. How did that happen. Was it
an accident, or does this advance one or more of your lies?
But wait. Where are the three posts you claim for me? I don't
appear anywhere in the thread until this reply.
Here are all the MID listed in your post (not counting the one to
which I am replying):
References:
<31297e97-f65b-4de2...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<4ce3e555$0$7470$bb4e...@newscene.com>
<f87f6935-5a13-44d3...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
<4ce7b32c$0$44571$bb4e...@newscene.com>
<a73ba517-db53-4146...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
<eb524c09-727f-44e9...@q14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<ica3vu$qvc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
<7a97ed5a-0502-4719...@l32g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
As you've pointed out before, my MIDs all end with 4ax.com. This
is common, though not exclusive, with people who post with servers in
Europe.
Not a single one of them is mine.
Another of the MANY drug induced LIES of Lisa Rene Watkins (aka
Gregory Scott Hanson) has been exposed.
If you would just be honest, you wouldn't have your lies exposed.
How is it that you are so UNABLE to understand this concept?
Greegor
A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
beneficiary.
[...]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
An arrangement whereby one person sets aside property for the benefit
of another in which, either because of a direction of the settlor (one
who creates a trust) or because of statute, the beneficiary (one who
profits from the act of another) is unable to transfer his or her
right to future payments of income or capital, and his or her
creditors are unable to subject the beneficiary's interest to the
payment of his or her debts.
[...]
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Wills+Family+Trust+Rogers+Arkansas
Kent Wills
How very interesting, but what has that to do with your LIE that
my parents died and left the trust to control the inheritance I, and
my sisters, got? As you've been informed, in order for on to inherit,
it is required that someone die.
Which of the inquiry results actually includes any independent
reference to a "Wills family trust," except for your claims. The
claims of a known spouse and abuser and infamous Usenet liar?
How are you able to hold the belief that my parents died, leaving
my sisters and I our inheritance in a trust, and are still alive with
a spend thrift trust, at the same time?
You've never explained how you are able to firmly believe both
claims to be true and accurate at the same time. Please do so now.
joe
.....
>> .....
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
>> .....
>>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
>> .....
>>http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
> .....
> ..... what has that to do with your LIE that
>my parents died and left the trust to control the inheritance I, and
>my sisters, got? As you've been informed, in order for on to inherit,
> How are you able to hold the belief that my parents died, leaving
>my sisters and I our inheritance in a trust, and are still alive with
>a spend thrift trust, at the same time?
> You've never explained how you are able to firmly believe both
>claims to be true and accurate at the same time. Please do so now.
The portion of the posting I quote above is the only part of the only
one I have read in this thread and I also do not know or care anything
about what seems to be stupid bickering by and about its poster.
But in generally speaking terms, basic illogical and also obviously
not informed assumptions in the comments above bear noting lest others
be misled by assuming those assumptions are correct even though they
appear to be based mostly on no more than an also assumed but hyper
technical and, if considered in context, incorrect because too
incomplete definition of the word, inherit.
Yes, ordinarily one who inherits will have inherited from a no longer
living person. But that word when used in the context of trusts also
refers to bequests - that is, to outright or, in case of a trust, in
part conditional gifts - to a beneficiary in anticipation of or, in
many instances, without regard to consideration of the trust creator's
eventual death.
The poster's related illogical and, more importantly, ill informed
assumption above is that there may be a valid spendthrift trust only
if that trust is created by a will which, as such, does not become
effective until the death of the trust's creator - in other words, a
testamentary trust.
But there are many examples of spendthrift trusts created by still
living persons for the benefit of also still living persons - in other
words a so-called living trust which also is referred to by the now
archaic legalism, inter vivos trust.
In summary, the simple answer to the questions above if they are
intended to be real questions is that one can be made and can be the
beneficiary of a trust created by a still living person.
Greegor
> >A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
> >person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> >gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> >how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
> >Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> >trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> >beneficiary.
> >[...]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
> >An arrangement whereby one person sets aside property for the benefit
> >of another in which, either because of a direction of the settlor (one
> >who creates a trust) or because of statute, the beneficiary (one who
> >profits from the act of another) is unable to transfer his or her
> >right to future payments of income or capital, and his or her
> >creditors are unable to subject the beneficiary's interest to the
> >payment of his or her debts.
> >[...]
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Wills+Family+Trust+Rogers+Arkansas
KBW > How very interesting, but what has that
KBW > to do with your LIE that my parents died
KBW > and left the trust to control the inheritance
KBW > I, and my sisters, got? As you've been
KBW > informed, in order for on to inherit, it is
KBW > required that someone die. Which of
KBW > the inquiry results actually includes any
KBW > independent reference to a "Wills family
KBW > trust," except for your claims. The
KBW > claims of a known spouse and abuser
KBW > and infamous Usenet liar? How are you
KBW > able to hold the belief that my parents
KBW > died, leaving my sisters and I our
KBW > inheritance in a trust, and are still alive
KBW > with a spend thrift trust, at the same
KBW > time? You've never explained how you
KBW > are able to firmly believe both claims to
KBW > be true and accurate at the same time.
KBW > Please do so now.
I have never claimed that your parents are dead.
I believe that Fred and Janet are very much alive.
I have never claimed that I believe they are dead.
In an effort to deceive and manipulate, you have
mistakenly concluded that parents MUST be
dead in order for there to be an inheritance, and
in order for there to be a spendthrift or protective
trust.
That is a falsehood that you have repeated several
times, apparently you believe this deception helps you.
There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT that the people
who set up a protective trust or spendthrift trust
have to be dead BEFORE the trust pays out to
the beneficiary.
Incidentally, your sister/s would not necessarily
have to be under the same spendthrift trust if they
are not spendthrifts.
Picking away at the truth you wish to avoid and
the logic of the situation by attempting to
introduce every false premise you can think of
is really NOT the strategy you apparently think
it is.
YOU introduced the premise that beneficiaries
can only receive payouts from a spendthrift trust
AFTER the people who created it have died.
( Can be the case, but not necessarily true. )
YOU introduced the premise that if one sibling
is under a spendthrift trust, that they ALL must be.
( Can be the case, but not necessarily true. )
YOUR introduction of these two false premises
will not help you escape the reality
of the "Wills Family Trust" listed on public
real estate records in Rogers, Arkansas.
Did you know that a lottery winner could actually
set up a protective trust for themself, but that
if they get sued, the trust is vulnerable since
they set it up for themself?
If a lottery winner sets up a protective trust
for their children or anybody else, that trust
is much better protected against law suits attaching it.
But the POINT is that NO, the people who
set up the spendthrift or protective trust do NOT
have to be dead before the beneficiary receives
payouts from the trust.
Much like your argument that an attached
garage should not be considered part of
a residence for the purposes of sentencing
a burglar for RESIDENTIAL burglary,
even though common sense and Iowa
black letter law says it is, your ""logic""
is idiotic, Kent.
Dan Sullivan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
>
> > >A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
> > >person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> > >gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> > >how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
> > >Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> > >trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> > >beneficiary.
> > >[...]
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
>
> > >An arrangement whereby one person sets aside property for the benefit
> > >of another in which, either because of a direction of the settlor (one
> > >who creates a trust) or because of statute, the beneficiary (one who
> > >profits from the act of another) is unable to transfer his or her
> > >right to future payments of income or capital, and his or her
> > >creditors are unable to subject the beneficiary's interest to the
> > >payment of his or her debts.
> > >[...]
>
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
>
So your claim is Kent concludes his parents MUST be dead in order for
there to be a trust for him, when he knows his parents are alive?
How f'n stupid are YOU, grag?
Do you REALLY believe people take what you say as CREDIBLE???
LOL!!!
Greegor
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Wills+Family+Trust+Rogers+Ark...
That is a falsehood that you have repeated several
G > I have never claimed that your parents are dead.
G > I believe that Fred and Janet are very much alive.
G > I have never claimed that I believe they are dead.
G >
G > In an effort to deceive and manipulate, you have
G > mistakenly concluded that parents MUST be
G > dead in order for there to be an inheritance, and
G > in order for there to be a spendthrift or protective
G > trust.
DJS3 > Re: So your claim is Kent concludes his
parents MUST be dead in order for there to be a
trust for him, when he knows his parents are alive?
How f'n stupid are YOU, grag? Do you REALLY
believe people take what you say as CREDIBLE???
DJS3 > So your claim is Kent concludes his
DJS3 > parents MUST be dead
Never. That's Kent's insane claim.
You are not arguing with my claims, but
Kent's insane false presentation of them.
Apparently you are agreeing with me that
Kent's false presentation is insane.
Didn't you actually INTEND to agree with
Kent's false presentation?
If so you missed.
I have always asserted that Fred and Janet are alive.
In fact I SAID so in the text YOU quoted, Dan!
DJS3 > in order for
DJS3 > there to be a trust for him, when he
DJS3 > knows his parents are alive?
Kent is the one who falsely asserted that
a spendthrift trust can only pay out after
the people who set it up are dead.
That is a false premise that Kent posted.
DJS3 > How f'n stupid are YOU, grag?
There, there, get it ALL out, Dan!
DJS3 > Do you REALLY believe people take
DJS3 > what you say as CREDIBLE???
They wouldn't have to. I posted LINKS and references.
But you knew that, since you quoted them.
DJS3 > LOL!!!
Accusing me of saying the opposite of what
I actually did was fairly childish, Dan.
You even QUOTED my actual statements
so you really have no excuse for getting
everything backwards, Dan.
To assert the opposite of what I said, as an
attack on my credibility, in a post quoting
my actual assertions is bizarre, Dan.
Been having a wee drop this morning, Dan?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/9923280d030ff5e0?hl=en&dmode=source
Newsgroups: misc.legal, alt.support.child-protective-services,
alt.fan.bob-larson
From: joe <j...@a-b-c.org> [ Through Teranews ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:17:18 -0500 Local: Tues, Nov 23 2010 8:17
am
Subject: Re: Spendthrift Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
-------------------
Joe: Why did you present your simple points in such
verbose and legalese sounding prose rather than
in concise and plain English?
Kent's absurd premise that spendthrift or protective
trusts can ONLY pay out when the creators DIE
was blatantly false.
It was a deliberate obfuscation on Kent's part.
His contemporary, Dan, even attempted to
insult me for the opposite of what I had said.
Ergo the reading comprehension level of your
prose may well induce further misunderstanding
and be received as if it was written in Sanskrit.
Thanks (apologies?) for weighing in though!
Dan Sullivan
No, it's YOUR claim, grag, because you just said to Kent "you have
mistakenly concluded that parents MUST be dead in order for there to
be an inheritance, and in order for there to be a spendthrift or
protective trust."
But Kent CERTAINLY KNOWS his parents are ALIVE!!!
> You are not arguing with my claims, but
> Kent's insane false presentation of them.
You want to stick with your claim that Kent has claimed his parents
are DEAD???
LOL!!!
> Apparently you are agreeing with me that
> Kent's false presentation is insane.
It's YOUR claims that are insane, grag.
> Didn't you actually INTEND to agree with
> Kent's false presentation?
Here you go AGAIN, claiming Kent said his parents are dead when he
obviously KNOWS they're ALIVE!!!
LOL!!!
Bill Graham
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
>
> A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
> person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
> Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> beneficiary.
And a good thing they exist, too. I had a brother-in-law who was a superior
court judge. He had a daughter who was about 17 or 18 when he died. (his
wife, my sister, had died a few years earlier) He left about 2 million
dollars to his daughter, without any trust fund whatsoever.....She just had
the money dumped on her. She spent it all in a year and a half. At one time,
she had a three bedroom apartment in San Diego, CA, and she used one bedroom
just as a clothes closet.....Rows and rows of dresses.....If anyone ever
needed a "spendthrift trust", it was her.
Greegor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
Disgraceful for a JUDGE of all people to
have failed to do good estate planning!
On Nov 23, 12:44 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 12:20 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
> > A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
> > person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> > gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> > how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
> > Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> > trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> > beneficiary.
> > [...]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spendthrift+Trust
> > An arrangement whereby one person sets aside property for the benefit
> > of another in which, either because of a direction of the settlor
> > (one
> > who creates a trust) or because of statute, the beneficiary (one who
> > profits from the act of another) is unable to transfer his or her
> > right to future payments of income or capital, and his or her
> > creditors are unable to subject the beneficiary's interest to the
> > payment of his or her debts.
> > [...]
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=spendthrift+trust
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=Wills+Family+Trust+Rogers+Arkansas
> > KBW > How very interesting, but what has that
G > Never. That's Kent's insane claim.
DJS3 > No, it's YOUR claim, grag, because you
DJS3 > just said to Kent "you have mistakenly
DJS3 > concluded that parents MUST be dead
DJS3 > in order for there to be an inheritance,
DJS3 > and in order for there to be a spendthrift
DJS3 > or protective trust."
DJS3 > But Kent CERTAINLY KNOWS his parents are ALIVE!!!
Which disproves Kent's assertion that the
trust CAN'T pay him any inheritance until
after his parents die. Spendthrift trusts CAN.
> > You are not arguing with my claims, but
> > Kent's insane false presentation of them.
>
> You want to stick with your claim that Kent has claimed his parents
> are DEAD???
>
> LOL!!!
>
> > Apparently you are agreeing with me that
> > Kent's false presentation is insane.
>
> It's YOUR claims that are insane, grag.
>
> > Didn't you actually INTEND to agree with
> > Kent's false presentation?
> Here you go AGAIN, claiming Kent
> said his parents are dead when he
> obviously KNOWS they're ALIVE!!!
It's a logic argument, Dan.
Don't strain yourself.
There's a difference between Kent saying
his parents WOULD HAVE TO BE dead
in order for the trust fund to pay him part
of his inheritance, and Kent saying his
parents ACTUALLY ARE dead.
The fact is his parents are NOT dead and
would not HAVE TO BE DEAD before the
spendthrift trust could pay out to him.
Imagine if you had an adult son or daughter
who was a mental defective without
common sense or impulse control, Dan.
They live on their own.
You can set up a spendthrift trust and
it gets doled out to them or their payee
through a trust supervisor along guidelines
you set up . It can start paying them
immediately and if you die with money
left over after expenses, the remainder
can be WILLED to be put into the spendthrift trust.
Kent's Mom Janet is somewhat of an expert
on this.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
[...]
Bill Graham
> On Nov 23, 4:30 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
>
>>> A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
>>> person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
>>> gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
>>> how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
>>> Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
>>> trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
>>> beneficiary.
>>
>> And a good thing they exist, too. I had a brother-in-law who was a
>> superior court judge. He had a daughter who was about 17 or 18 when
>> he died. (his wife, my sister, had died a few years earlier) He left
>> about 2 million dollars to his daughter, without any trust fund
>> whatsoever.....She just had the money dumped on her. She spent it
>> all in a year and a half. At one time, she had a three bedroom
>> apartment in San Diego, CA, and she used one bedroom just as a
>> clothes closet.....Rows and rows of dresses.....If anyone ever
>> needed a "spendthrift trust", it was her.
>
> Disgraceful for a JUDGE of all people to
> have failed to do good estate planning!
Yes. That's what my other sister said. He was a respected Judge, appointed
by Governor Pat Brown. (Jerry Brown's father) I guess some people are
mesmerized by their love for their children, and can't believe they could do
something so foolish as to burn a couple of million bucks in 18 months.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a teenager....:^)
Kent Wills
You claimed my sisters and I inherited from them and that the
inheritance was protected by a trust.
In order to inherit something, someone must die, stupid.
You didn't flat out claim they are dead, but you could have
presented no other meaning.
>I believe that Fred and Janet are very much alive.
What do people I don't know have to do with anything?
>I have never claimed that I believe they are dead.
>
Since, as you KNOW, they are not my parents, your claim is true.
Of course, you're trying to advance your LIE about my getting money
from a trust.
The hope of advancing a lie is the ONLY way you are able to be
honest with intent.
>In an effort to deceive and manipulate, you have
>mistakenly concluded that parents MUST be
>dead in order for there to be an inheritance, and
One can't inherit unless someone dies.
Let's say I put in my will that you are to get $1000.00. When I
die, a check gets mailed to you for that amount. You've inherited it.
Let's say I change my mind and want you to have the money now. I
remove the bequeath from my will and mail you a check for the
$1000.00.
I've gifted you the money. You did not inherit it.
I can't dumb this down any further. If you and your ghost writer
are too stupid to understand, there is nothing more I can do.
>in order for there to be a spendthrift or protective
>trust.
I've never claimed, directly or through implication, that someone
must be dead for a trust to be formed, or start payments once formed.
You claimed my inheritance, and that of my sisters, was in a
trust that paid out a certain amount at specific intervals. My
parents would need to be dead for that to occur.
You're stupid.
>
>That is a falsehood that you have repeated several
>times, apparently you believe this deception helps you.
>
I offer no deception.
You're the one who is DESPERATE to distract from that TRUTH that
another of your MANY pathological lies has been exposed.
>There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT that the people
>who set up a protective trust or spendthrift trust
>have to be dead BEFORE the trust pays out to
>the beneficiary.
But for it to be an inheritance, as you have claimed, they must
be dead. There is no way around this.
If they are alive, it's a gift, not an inheritance.
Face it, either you've been lying all along or you honestly
believe my parents are alive AND dead at the same time. You foolishly
allow yourself no other options.
Well, you have the option to continue adding lies to your claim.
Or you can run and HIDE.
No matter what, you've only permitted yourself options where you
will lose.
You're stupid.
>
>Incidentally, your sister/s would not necessarily
>have to be under the same spendthrift trust if they
>are not spendthrifts.
>
So you're changing that aspect as well.
>Picking away at the truth you wish to avoid and
>the logic of the situation by attempting to
>introduce every false premise you can think of
>is really NOT the strategy you apparently think
>it is.
You're the one who claimed and inheritance AND a "standard" (for
want of a better word) protective trust.
As of my writing this, you've yet to explain how you are able to
so firmly believe both are occurring at the same time.
>
>YOU introduced the premise that beneficiaries
>can only receive payouts from a spendthrift trust
>AFTER the people who created it have died.
>( Can be the case, but not necessarily true. )
That's not the premise I presented.
Once again you PROVE that in order to claim I've lied, you are
reduced to LYING about what I've posted.
YOU claimed it's an inheritance. When you realized you could LIE
and claim people I don't know are my parents, you had to try and run
from the claim.
Had you stated you were in error about an inheritance before your
newest lie, there wouldn't be much I could do about it. As it is, you
either believe my parents are alive AND dead at the same time, or
you've lied. You've allowed yourself no other options.
>
>YOU introduced the premise that if one sibling
>is under a spendthrift trust, that they ALL must be.
>( Can be the case, but not necessarily true. )
No, you made the claim that my sister (you weren't acknowledging
the other one yet) was also getting her inheritance from the trust.
MID available upon request. I'll set aside the requirement for
this instance.
What will you do? Will you ask for it, allowing anyone and
everyone with an interest to see you lied, or will you offer a tacit
admission, by YOUR standards, that you've lied by running away from
the offer?
>
>YOUR introduction of these two false premises
>will not help you escape the reality
>of the "Wills Family Trust" listed on public
>real estate records in Rogers, Arkansas.
And what would that have to do with me?
That people who happen to have the same last name as me have a
trust isn't going to empress too many people. Certainly none who are
mentally sound.
YMMV, of course.
>
>Did you know that a lottery winner could actually
>set up a protective trust for themself, but that
>if they get sued, the trust is vulnerable since
>they set it up for themself?
Good for them
What does that have to do with your LIE about the mythical trust
being an inheritance AND a gift at the same time?
>
>If a lottery winner sets up a protective trust
>for their children or anybody else, that trust
>is much better protected against law suits attaching it.
Which has what to do with your LIE?
>
>But the POINT is that NO, the people who
>set up the spendthrift or protective trust do NOT
>have to be dead before the beneficiary receives
>payouts from the trust.
But if it's an inheritance, as you claim, they must be dead.
Unless you're going to admit you LIED about my parents leaving me
my inheritance in a trust.
You've allowed yourself no other way out.
>
>Much like your argument that an attached
>garage should not be considered part of
>a residence for the purposes of sentencing
That was YOUR claim.
I linked to cites proving that an attached garage is a part of
the residence under law.
Why do you ALWAYS fail to mention this important TRUTH?
>a burglar for RESIDENTIAL burglary,
>even though common sense and Iowa
>black letter law says it is,
I'm the one who pointed this out to you.
>your ""logic""
>is idiotic, Kent.
You act as if it wasn't me who exposed your LIE regarding an
attached garage.
You're stupid.
Kent Wills
>DJS3 > So your claim is Kent concludes his
>DJS3 > parents MUST be dead
>
>Never. That's Kent's insane claim.
I've never claimed my parents are dead.
Post the MID and/or Google link to one post where I've done so.
One is all I ask.
If you're LYING, and you are, you'll offer no MID and/or link for
my making such a claim.
>
>You are not arguing with my claims, but
>Kent's insane false presentation of them.
I've made no false presentation.
>
>Apparently you are agreeing with me that
>Kent's false presentation is insane.
I've never claimed my parents are dead. In fact, I've claimed
they are alive.
Here it is again, just for you:
My parents are alive.
Now what will you do?
>
>Didn't you actually INTEND to agree with
>Kent's false presentation?
>
>If so you missed.
>
>I have always asserted that Fred and Janet are alive.
>In fact I SAID so in the text YOU quoted, Dan!
As I mentioned in another thread, that people I don't know are
alive means nothing.
>
>DJS3 > in order for
>DJS3 > there to be a trust for him, when he
>DJS3 > knows his parents are alive?
>
>Kent is the one who falsely asserted that
>a spendthrift trust can only pay out after
>the people who set it up are dead.
I've made no such assertion.
>
>That is a false premise that Kent posted.
I've never posted the premise you claim.
Why do you have to LIE about what I've posted?
>
>DJS3 > How f'n stupid are YOU, grag?
>
>There, there, get it ALL out, Dan!
You're stupid, Lisa.
>
>DJS3 > Do you REALLY believe people take
>DJS3 > what you say as CREDIBLE???
>
>They wouldn't have to. I posted LINKS and references.
>But you knew that, since you quoted them.
>
Where is the link proving my parents died, leaving me an
inheritance paid out via a trust?
Since they are alive, you can't offer one.
>DJS3 > LOL!!!
>
>Accusing me of saying the opposite of what
>I actually did was fairly childish, Dan.
It's a good thing Dan didn't commit such an act.
>
>You even QUOTED my actual statements
>so you really have no excuse for getting
>everything backwards, Dan.
He got nothing backwards.
I've never claimed my parents are dead. YOU made that claim.
>
>To assert the opposite of what I said, as an
>attack on my credibility, in a post quoting
>my actual assertions is bizarre, Dan.
You made the claim.
You're stupid.
Greegor
> Greegor wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 4:30 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Greegor wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
> >>> A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a
> >>> person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> >>> gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> >>> how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary.
> >>> Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> >>> trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> >>> beneficiary.
BG
> >> And a good thing they exist, too. I had a brother-in-law who was a
> >> superior court judge. He had a daughter who was about 17 or 18 when
> >> he died. (his wife, my sister, had died a few years earlier) He left
> >> about 2 million dollars to his daughter, without any trust fund
> >> whatsoever.....She just had the money dumped on her. She spent it
> >> all in a year and a half. At one time, she had a three bedroom
> >> apartment in San Diego, CA, and she used one bedroom just as a
> >> clothes closet.....Rows and rows of dresses.....If anyone ever
> >> needed a "spendthrift trust", it was her.
G > Disgraceful for a JUDGE of all people to
G > have failed to do good estate planning!
BG > Yes. That's what my other sister said. He was
BG > a respected Judge, appointed by Governor Pat
BG > Brown. (Jerry Brown's father) I guess some
BG > people are mesmerized by their love for their
BG > children, and can't believe they could do
BG > something so foolish as to burn a couple of
BG > million bucks in 18 months.
BG > Never underestimate the stupidity of a teenager....:^)
Still likely hooked on idiotic peer pressure at that age.
Kent's irrresponsibility was probably BLATANT
enough to overcome any parental blindness.
I was amused when I read up on spendthrift/protected trusts
and found out that people even set them up to pay out to
THEMSELF. But of course that 18 year old with 2 Million
wouldn't think that to be a smart idea.
I would guess that these trusts could be set up
to fully pay out for college tuition or pay rent
directly to the recipient's landlord every month
if they think the person might blow the rent
money on magic beans.
Kent's folks don't have to worry he'll waste
the rent money on magic beans and get evicted.
They let him live in one of the houses that THEY own.
Kent was seriously economically advantaged, which
made him even more of an a-hole or mental case
to commit his thieving felonies.
You know, it's funny.
Kent "joined in" with a pack that was bashing me,
and tried to bash or guilt me about my old
misdemeanors. Some others saw Kent doing
this and pointed out Kent's more recent FELONIES.
Kent really is an exercise in the absurd.
To poke at somebody's old misdemeanors
when he had FELONIES was really insane.
But as I have learned, that is very Willsian.
He joined in at posting what he thought was
my home address.
Kent lives in one of the houses his parents own
so it's funny he poked at me for eviction records
when Eagle had to pay $50 each for the two
mistaken filings. ( 2 case numbers x 2 court dates )
I doubt Kent's own MOMMY or DADDY would evict him.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e05d908-5475-4e57...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> Imagine if you had an adult son or daughter
> who was a mental defective without
> common sense or impulse control, Dan.
> They live on their own.
What if I had a son who lived with a single mother and her seven year old
daughter like you did, grag?
What if they were a mental defective without common sense and impulse
control, like you are, grag?
What if they regularly went into the bathroom when the little girl was
showering, like you did?
What if they forced the little girl to take cold showers as punishment, like
you did?
What if they touched the little girl while she was naked, like you did?
What if they claimed everything they did to the little girl was completely
acceptable because they had the mother's permission, like you did?
First I would explain to him that having the mother's permission to mistreat
her daughter doesn't make it acceptable.
And then I would call the little girl's grandparents to have them remove
their granddaughter from such an abusive home life.
And hopefully, if my son had any brains and any compassion at all, he'd move
out of the little girl's house so her mother could regain custody.
Short of that I'd take him to the bay and throw him in, like a burlap bag
full of unwanted kittens.
Greegor
DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
Is THAT why various people turned in 20+ child abuse reports on you,
Dan?
You're a real humanitarian!
Dan Sullivan
>
> Dan's attempt to evade logical example by using more insults.
Not at all.
I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
> DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
> DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
> DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
>
> You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
Never.
> Is THAT why various people turned in 20+ child abuse reports on you,
> Dan?
You think killing kittens is child abuse?
> You're a real humanitarian!
Yes, I am.
Greegor
> On Nov 24, 2:04 am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 4:30 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> Greegor wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spendthrift_trust
>
> > >>> person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that
> > >>> gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to
> > >>> Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the
> > >>>trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the
> > >>> beneficiary.
>
> BG
>
> > >> And a good thing they exist, too. I had a brother-in-law who was a
> > >> superior court judge. He had a daughter who was about 17 or 18 when
> > >> he died. (his wife, my sister, had died a few years earlier) He left
> > >> about 2 million dollars to his daughter, without anytrustfund
> > >> whatsoever.....She just had the money dumped on her. She spent it
> > >> all in a year and a half. At one time, she had a three bedroom
> > >> apartment in San Diego, CA, and she used one bedroom just as a
> > >> clothes closet.....Rows and rows of dresses.....If anyone ever
>
> G > Disgraceful for a JUDGE of all people to
> G > have failed to do good estate planning!
>
> BG > Yes. That's what my other sister said. He was
> BG > a respected Judge, appointed by Governor Pat
> BG > Brown. (Jerry Brown's father) I guess some
> BG > people are mesmerized by their love for their
> BG > children, and can't believe they could do
> BG > something so foolish as to burn a couple of
> BG > million bucks in 18 months.
> BG > Never underestimate the stupidity of a teenager....:^)
>
> Still likely hooked on idiotic peer pressure at that age.
>
> Kent's irrresponsibility was probably BLATANT
> enough to overcome any parental blindness.
>
Right Kent?
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> I doubt Kent's own MOMMY or DADDY would evict him.
>
>Right Kent?
Your name is Lisa Rene Watkins (aka Gregory Scott Hanson). My nym
is Kent.
I wasn't posting, you were, dullard.
If you want people to take your posts seriously, you shouldn't
continue to post claiming you are me. Or anyone other than yourself. I
expect, but do not KNOW, readers will see you for the mentally
disabled, drug addled loser you are when you consistently do such as
this.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. Maybe I can help.
Here's how to, with almost no effort, avoid this confusion you
have about who you are and who you are not.
Address "Kent," my nym, in a new post, make your statement
again, using present tense, and say, "I doubt your own MOMMY or DADDY
would evict you," then write "Right Kent?"
Your ghost writer is stupid. Almost as stupid as you.
Greegor
G > Right Kent?
> Your name is [...]. My nym is Kent.
> I wasn't posting, you were, dullard.
Would your Mommy or Daddy evict you from one of the houses they own,
Kent?
Kent Wills
You really need to lay off the illegal drugs, Lisa Rene Watkins.
Projecting your mom's "disowning" you because she could no longer
turn a blind eye to your destructive behavior onto me, or anyone else,
only serves to further PROVE you are as mentally ill as you present.
Not that any more proof is required. You've offered so much,
there is no way to make an honest denial of it.
>
>I was amused when I read up on spendthrift/protected trusts
>and found out that people even set them up to pay out to
>THEMSELF. But of course that 18 year old with 2 Million
>wouldn't think that to be a smart idea.
>
They might, IF they think of it.
At 18, few would have the life experience to even formulate the
thought, let alone act on it.
>I would guess that these trusts could be set up
>to fully pay out for college tuition or pay rent
>directly to the recipient's landlord every month
>if they think the person might blow the rent
>money on magic beans.
Is that the reason you were sued so many times for non-payment of
rent, Lisa Rene Watkins?
Tell us again how Eagle Property Management's paying a standard
filing fee equates to your being innocent of the claim that you
thought you should be allowed to live there for free.
>
>Kent's folks don't have to worry he'll waste
>the rent money on magic beans and get evicted.
>They let him live in one of the houses that THEY own.
Wow.
I'll be sure to let them know.
Um, are they alive this week? You're often confused as to
whether they are alive or dead, depending on the specific LIE you're
trying to present.
>
>Kent was seriously economically advantaged, which
>made him even more of an a-hole or mental case
>to commit his thieving felonies.
You've already admitted I have no such record, so while it is
possible I've committed such acts (how could it be proved or disproved
on Usenet?), there is nothing to support such a claim.
Did you lie when you claimed I have no record, or are you lying
now when you claim I do?
Please answer the question, even though the mere thought of
having to do so fears you with terror.
>
>You know, it's funny.
>Kent "joined in" with a pack that was bashing me,
How is leaving a group (ASCPS) joining?
Please be specific, using pie charts where needed.
If your psychological NEED to be a victim wasn't so great, you
might still be offering advice to families with the intent of ensuring
CPS wins each and every time. But upon realizing I had left ASCPS,
you HAD to seek me out. Now any parents seeking help in dealing with
CPS will see that you are not to be trusted.
Poor widdle Gweggie. Families are staying together despite your
intense HATE for the concept of family.
>and tried to bash or guilt me about my old
>misdemeanors. Some others saw Kent doing
>this and pointed out Kent's more recent FELONIES.
>Kent really is an exercise in the absurd.
You admitted I have no such record.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
You've been asked this MANY times, yet you NEVER answer. Rather,
on the extremely rare occasions when you can gather up enough honesty
to acknowledge the question, you have to lie and claim you were being
sarcastic.
You weren't, of course, but you NEED to dishonestly make the
claim in the hopes that someone as messed up as you will buy the BS
you're selling.
How's that worked out for you?
>
>To poke at somebody's old misdemeanors
>when he had FELONIES was really insane.
It would be, if true.
Of course, I would rather have someone steal property than BEAT
me, as you BEAT Donna.
>But as I have learned, that is very Willsian.
>
I'm not alone in having exposed your numerous mental illnesses.
I'm just the only one you can't get to leave. Since you NEED me
to expose your lies so that you can claim to be a victim, I'll do so
for as long as I see your lies being posted.
Feel free to BEG me to cease posting for six months. You've done
it before.
Of course, if I did, you'd have to sock up, again, and start
attacking yourself. It's so obvious when you do it now, I have to
wonder just why you bother.
Add that you ALWAYS out yourself, and your use of them is even
more odd.
>He joined in at posting what he thought was
>my home address.
I did no such thing.
You've already admitted, by YOUR standards, that I've never
posted an address that was/is to be yours.
After you posted what you claimed to be Moe's, she posted what
she claimed to be yours. Much the same as Betty, Roberta, etc.
You post what you claim are the addresses of others, then whine
when they do it back. Then you LIE and claim they did it first.
It causes me to actually pity you a bit.
>
>Kent lives in one of the houses his parents own
>so it's funny he poked at me for eviction records
>when Eagle had to pay $50 each for the two
>mistaken filings. ( 2 case numbers x 2 court dates )
Surely your next post will include proof that they were "mistaken
filings."
So tell everyone, oh NON-erudite one, if they had been not
mistaken would Eagle not have had to pay for them? Of course they
would. As has been explained to you MANY times, by various people,
that was the filing fee.
Trying to distract by attacking Eagle only serves to further
PROVE I hit way too close to home with something I posted. I only wish
I knew what it was that has you so utterly SCARED.
>
>I doubt Kent's own MOMMY or DADDY would evict him.
If I rented from them, probably not. Since do not now, nor have
I ever, rented from them, there's no way to really KNOW. I have no
plans on renting from them in the future, though I must acknowledge it
is possible such will occur.
Oh, does this mean they're back to being alive? You flip flop on
the matter, depending on which LIE you're trying to present.
When your LIE needs the phantom trust to control an inheritance,
they're dead. When you needed to LIE about who they are, suddenly
they're alive, with no explanation as to why you've changed the claim.
It's positions like that which has caused so many to recognize
that you are not mentally sound and that any claim you make should be
viewed with extreme skepticism.
You, and your ghost writer, are stupid.
Kent Wills
internet addict Greg Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > I doubt Kent's own MOMMY or DADDY would evict him.
>G > Right Kent?
>
>> Your name is Lisa Rene Watkins. My nym is Kent.
>> I wasn't posting, you were, dullard.
>
>Would your Mommy or Daddy evict you from one of the houses they own,
>Kent?
Asked and answered.
Again, there is no way to KNOW, though I would doubt they would.
Why do you feel so COMPELLED to ask questions so many times,
especially after they've been answered? Do the illegal drugs you
proudly boast about using and abusing make accepting the truth really
so difficult for you?
And why are you so COMPELLED to add groups to the list? What is
at the core of your obsessive NEED to do such a thing?
Serious questions that deserve an answer.
Greegor
G > to fully pay out for college tuition or pay rent
G > directly to the recipient's landlord every month
G > if they think the person might blow the rent
G > money on magic beans.
KBW > Is that the reason you were sued so many
KBW > times for non-payment of rent, [...]?
KBW > Tell us again how Eagle Property Management's
KBW > paying a standard filing fee equates to your
KBW > being innocent of the
KBW > claim that you thought
KBW > you should be allowed to live there for free.
I never made such a claim.
In fact both times they filed for eviction
it was because they made a clerical
error and the rent had already been paid.
Both dates, all four case numbers were
DISMISSED before hearing.
Do you acknowledge that all four case numbers
were DISMISSED?
Please explain what do you think that means, Kent?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Most people "present" facts.
You claim to "use" them.
Telling isn't it?
DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
G > You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
DJS3 > Never.
So why would you make a comparison
to something you now say you never actually did?
It's kind of strange that you'd compare
a proposed action to another action you
now say you never actually committed
or experienced.
In fact, if you never actually threw a burlap
bag of cats into the bay how could you
even draw a comparison?
G > Is THAT why various people turned in
G > 20+ child abuse reports on you, Dan?
DJS3 > You think killing kittens is child abuse?
You DO realize that animal abuse IS used
as a very strong indicator of child abuse, Dan?
G > You're a real humanitarian!
DJS3 > Yes, I am.
You're a legend in your own mind, Dan!
Dan Sullivan
news:
4e05d908-5475-4e57-8ab6-544c0da89...@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Imagine if you had an adult son or daughter
> who was a mental defective without
> common sense or impulse control, Dan.
> They live on their own.
What if I had a son who lived with a single mother and her seven year
olddaughter like you did, grag?
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
> DJS3 > I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
>
> Most people "present" facts.
> You claim to "use" them.
> Telling isn't it?
I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
How many people do you think will "present" the knife to the turkey
today, grag?
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
> DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
> DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
>
> G > You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
>
> DJS3 > Never.
>
> So why would you make a comparison
> to something you now say you never actually did?
I never did either.
> It's kind of strange that you'd compare
> a proposed action to another action you
> now say you never actually committed
> or experienced.
I wouldn't throw my imaginary son into the bay, grag, nor would I
throw a sack of kittens into the bay.
> In fact, if you never actually threw a burlap
> bag of cats into the bay how could you
> even draw a comparison?
>
> G > Is THAT why various people turned in
> G > 20+ child abuse reports on you, Dan?
>
> DJS3 > You think killing kittens is child abuse?
>
> You DO realize that animal abuse IS used
> as a very strong indicator of child abuse, Dan?
How many animals did you kill, grag?
Greegor
G > Most people "present" facts.
G > You claim to "use" them.
G > Telling isn't it?
DJS3 > I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
DJS3 > How many people do you think will
DJS3 > "present" the knife to the turkey
DJS3 > today, grag?
You said you "use" the facts when most people "present" facts.
The nature of a fact and the nature of a knife are different.
A more accurate correlation would have been if you
presented the FACT of the knife to the turkey
in an effort to intimidate it.
You USE an implement like a knife.
You would PRESENT facts, not USE them.
As the spelling and word use prick, you should have known that.
Perhaps you are less erudite than you pretend to be.
DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
G > You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
DJS3 > Never.
G > So why would you make a comparison
G > to something you now say you never actually did?
DJS3 > I never did either.
G > It's kind of strange that you'd compare
G > a proposed action to another action you
G > now say you never actually committed
G > or experienced.
DJS3 > I wouldn't throw my imaginary son
DJS3 > into the bay, grag, nor would I
DJS3 > throw a sack of kittens into the bay.
G > In fact, if you never actually threw a burlap
G > bag of cats into the bay how could you
G > even draw a comparison?
G > Is THAT why various people turned in
G > 20+ child abuse reports on you, Dan?
DJS3 > You think killing kittens is child abuse?
G > You DO realize that animal abuse IS used
G > as a very strong indicator of child abuse, Dan?
DJS3 > How many animals did you kill, grag?
YOU brought up the violent ideation about
your hypothetical son and how you could
do that as easily as you would throw a
burlap bag of cats into the bay.
In other words you voluntarily displayed
your indifference to both violent acts on
your son and indifference to throwing a
burlap bag of cats into the bay.
Hence: Re: Dan displayed indifference to
violent ideation regarding a hypothetical son
by comparing it to his indifference about
throwing a burlap bag of kittens into the bay
Think about this, Dan.
Do you think when some sicko puts
a cat in a microwave, that they would
not also raise child protection concerns?
Did you not realize that throwing a burlap
bag of kittens into the bay is legally
considered to be animal abuse, Dan?
You posted that to display your indifference.
Nobody compares their indifference to
a hypothetical action by citing their
indifference when they did something
which they never did.
Ergo, it STRONGLY implies that you
really have thrown a burlap bag
of kittens into the bay.
Your desperate attempts to escape
the implications of your ideation just
aren't working.
I'm not USING your ideation.
I'm just pointing it out by presenting quotes of your post.
Do you know what IDEATION is, Dan?
Greegor
> On Nov 25, 10:25 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > DJS3 > I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
>
> > Most people "present" facts.
> > You claim to "use" them.
> > Telling isn't it?
>
> I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
>
> How many people do you think will "present" the knife to the turkey
> today, grag?
DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
G > You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
DJS3 > Never.
G > So why would you make a comparison
G > to something you now say you never actually did?
DJS3 > I never did either.
G > It's kind of strange that you'd compare
G > a proposed action to another action you
G > now say you never actually committed
G > or experienced.
DJS3 > I wouldn't throw my imaginary son
DJS3 > into the bay, grag, nor would I
DJS3 > throw a sack of kittens into the bay.
G > In fact, if you never actually threw a burlap
G > bag of cats into the bay how could you
G > even draw a comparison?
Do you know what IDEATION is, Dan?
Did you know that throwing a burlap bag
full of kittens into the bay is actually a
fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
probably be enough for a court to order
you into a psychiatric evaluation.
Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
a justification for a criminal investigation?
Do you think CPS agencies do not get
called in when such sick animal abuse
is suspected, Dan?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > I would guess that these trusts could be set up
>G > to fully pay out for college tuition or pay rent
>G > directly to the recipient's landlord every month
>G > if they think the person might blow the rent
>G > money on magic beans.
>
>KBW > Is that the reason you were sued so many
>KBW > times for non-payment of rent, Lisa Rene Watkins?
Remove your name as often as your drug addled mind demands, Lisa
Rene Watkins. I'll simply replace it each time.
And according to you, any and all names a person has used to post
MUST be their name in real life. Unless your going to admit your
position is a LIE, you'll proudly admit your name in real life is Lisa
Rene Watkins.
>KBW > Tell us again how Eagle Property Management's
>KBW > paying a standard filing fee equates to your
>KBW > being innocent of the
>
>KBW > claim that you thought
>KBW > you should be allowed to live there for free.
>
>I never made such a claim.
Not in those words, but in meaning.
>
>In fact both times they filed for eviction
>it was because they made a clerical
>error and the rent had already been paid.
Proof, please.
Unless, of course, you're lying.
>
>Both dates, all four case numbers were
>DISMISSED before hearing.
>
>Do you acknowledge that all four case numbers
>were DISMISSED?
Yes. Have I ever claimed they were not? Even in implication?
>
>Please explain what do you think that means, Kent?
That you paid what was owed at the 11th hour. Just as I've
always stated and you've never denied. And to you, a lack of denial
means a great deal, correct?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>DJS3 > I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
>
>G > Most people "present" facts.
>G > You claim to "use" them.
>G > Telling isn't it?
>
>DJS3 > I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
>
>DJS3 > How many people do you think will
>DJS3 > "present" the knife to the turkey
>DJS3 > today, grag?
>
>You said you "use" the facts when most people "present" facts.
>The nature of a fact and the nature of a knife are different.
>
>A more accurate correlation would have been if you
>presented the FACT of the knife to the turkey
>in an effort to intimidate it.
How, in reality and NOT your drug induced delusions, can one
intimidate a dead turkey?
Please be specific.
Don't waste time trying to distract by asking if I'm helping Dan.
Answer the question or run and HIDE like the coward you are.
Dan Sullivan
> DJS3 > I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
>
> G > Most people "present" facts.
> G > You claim to "use" them.
> G > Telling isn't it?
>
> DJS3 > I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
>
> DJS3 > How many people do you think will
> DJS3 > "present" the knife to the turkey
> DJS3 > today, grag?
>
> You said you "use" the facts when most people "present" facts.
No, that's what YOU said, grag.
> The nature of a fact and the nature of a knife are different.
>
> A more accurate correlation would have been if you
> presented the FACT of the knife to the turkey
> in an effort to intimidate it.
How long after I remove the turkey from the oven do I need to wait
before I present the FACT of the knife to the turkey in an effort to
intimidate it, grag?
> You USE an implement like a knife.
> You would PRESENT facts, not USE them.
>
> As the spelling and word use prick, you should have known that.
>
> Perhaps you are less erudite than you pretend to be.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
Unwanted kittens.
> In other words you voluntarily displayed
> your indifference to both violent acts on
> your son and indifference to throwing a
> burlap bag of cats into the bay.
Unwanted kittens.
> Hence: Re: Dan displayed indifference to
> violent ideation regarding a hypothetical son
> by comparing it to his indifference about
> throwing a burlap bag of kittens into the bay
UNWANTED kittens.
> Think about this, Dan.
>
> Do you think when some sicko puts
> a cat in a microwave, that they would
> not also raise child protection concerns?
A cat in a microwave?
That's TERRIBLE!!!
> Did you not realize that throwing a burlap
> bag of kittens into the bay is legally
> considered to be animal abuse, Dan?
UNWANTED kittens.
> You posted that to display your indifference.
No, I didn't.
> Nobody compares their indifference to
> a hypothetical action by citing their
> indifference when they did something
> which they never did.
If I understand you correctly, I have no idea what you're talking
about.
> Ergo, it STRONGLY implies that you
> really have thrown a burlap bag
> of kittens into the bay.
UNWANTED kittens.
And I did NOT imply I threw them into the bay.
> Your desperate attempts to escape
> the implications of your ideation just
> aren't working.
Only to stupid people.
> I'm not USING your ideation.
> I'm just pointing it out by presenting quotes of your post.
You're presenting my quotes in an erroneous manner.
> Do you know what IDEATION is, Dan?
It's something I would stick in the burlap sack with the unwanted
kittens.
Dan Sullivan
> On Nov 25, 10:24 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 10:25 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > DJS3 > I simply used the facts of your situation as you posted them.
>
> > > Most people "present" facts.
> > > You claim to "use" them.
> > > Telling isn't it?
>
> > I will "use" a knife to carve the turkey.
>
> > How many people do you think will "present" the knife to the turkey
> > today, grag?
>
>
> DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
> DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full
> DJS3 > of unwanted kittens.
>
> G > You thrown a gunny sack of kittens into the bay lately, Danny?
>
> DJS3 > Never.
>
> G > So why would you make a comparison
> G > to something you now say you never actually did?
>
> DJS3 > I never did either.
>
> G > It's kind of strange that you'd compare
> G > a proposed action to another action you
> G > now say you never actually committed
> G > or experienced.
>
> DJS3 > I wouldn't throw my imaginary son
> DJS3 > into the bay, grag, nor would I
> DJS3 > throw a sack of kittens into the bay.
>
> G > In fact, if you never actually threw a burlap
> G > bag of cats into the bay how could you
> G > even draw a comparison?
>
> Do you know what IDEATION is, Dan?
See my previous message.
> Did you know that throwing a burlap bag
> full of kittens into the bay is actually a
> fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
UNWANTED kittens.
Imaginary UNWANTED kittens.
> Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
> probably be enough for a court to order
> you into a psychiatric evaluation.
No.
> Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
> a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
> a justification for a criminal investigation?
UNWANTED kittens.
> Do you think CPS agencies do not get
> called in when such sick animal abuse
> is suspected, Dan?
No.
Prove otherwise.
Greegor
> > full of kittens into the bay is actually a
> > fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
Wanted or not, killing them that way is criminal.
> Imaginary UNWANTED kittens.
>
> > Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
> > probably be enough for a court to order
> > you into a psychiatric evaluation.
>
> No.
>
> > Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
> > a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
> > a justification for a criminal investigation?
>
> UNWANTED kittens.
What difference would it make if the kittens
were UNWANTED?
Would that make it OK to throw them into
the bay in a gunny sack?
Would it make such an action less criminal?
Would it make your sick ideation more acceptable?
> > Do you think CPS agencies do not get
> > called in when such sick animal abuse
> > is suspected, Dan?
>
> No.
>
> Prove otherwise.
YOU asked for it!
Dan Sullivan
> > > Did you know that throwing a burlap bag
> > > full of kittens into the bay is actually a
> > > fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
>
> DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
>
> Wanted or not, killing them that way is criminal.
I never said throwing the kittens into the bay would kill them, grag.
Just like it wouldn't kill my imaginary son.
He can swim.
> > Imaginary UNWANTED kittens.
>
> > > Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
> > > probably be enough for a court to order
> > > you into a psychiatric evaluation.
>
> > No.
>
> > > Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
> > > a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
> > > a justification for a criminal investigation?
>
> > UNWANTED kittens.
>
> What difference would it make if the kittens
> were UNWANTED?
If you wanted the kittens why would you throw them into the bay?
> Would that make it OK to throw them into
> the bay in a gunny sack?
You don't have a burlap bag?
> Would it make such an action less criminal?
Are you afraid of getting arrested again, grag?
> Would it make your sick ideation more acceptable?
To whom?
> > > Do you think CPS agencies do not get
> > > called in when such sick animal abuse
> > > is suspected, Dan?
>
> > No.
>
> > Prove otherwise.
>
> YOU asked for it!
No, YOU asked for it... "Do you think CPS agencies do not get called
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
G > full of kittens into the bay is actually a
G > fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
G > Wanted or not, killing them that way is criminal.
DJS3 > I never said throwing the kittens into the bay would kill them,
grag.
You want to assert that throwing a burlap bag
of kittens into the bay would not kill them?
You think that nobody will recognize such a sick cliche' ?
Or did you think this pretense would make your
ideation less sick, less about animal abuse??
DJS3 > Just like it wouldn't kill my imaginary son.
DJS3 > He can swim.
DJS3 > Imaginary UNWANTED kittens.
G > Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
G > probably be enough for a court to order
G > you into a psychiatric evaluation.
DJS3 > No.
G > Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
G > a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
G > a justification for a criminal investigation?
DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
G > What difference would it make if the kittens
G > were UNWANTED?
DJS3 > If you wanted the kittens why would you throw them into the
bay?
Wanted or not, throwing gunny sack of kittens into
the bay/river is still a fairly serious criminal act.
G > Would that make it OK to throw them into
G > the bay in a gunny sack?
DJS3 > You don't have a burlap bag?
A gunny sack IS a burlap bag, dolt.
G > Would it make such an action less criminal?
DJS3 > Are you afraid of getting arrested again, grag?
G > Would it make your sick ideation more acceptable?
DJS3 > To whom?
G > Do you think CPS agencies do not get
G > called in when such sick animal abuse
G > is suspected, Dan?
DJS3 > No.
DJS3 > Prove otherwise.
G > YOU asked for it!
DJS3 > No, YOU asked for it... "Do you think
DJS3 > CPS agencies do not get called in
DJS3 > when such sick animal abuse is suspected, Dan?"
So you think that if some sicko microwaves
a cat or throws a gunny sack of kittens into
the bay (or river) they would get to keep
their kids?
You don't think that the dapraved criminal
act with kittens wouldn't imply child abuse?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Did you know that throwing a burlap bag
> G > full of kittens into the bay is actually a
> G > fairly serious criminal act in most places, Dan?
>
> DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
>
> G > Wanted or not, killing them that way is criminal.
>
> DJS3 > I never said throwing the kittens into the bay would kill them,
> grag.
>
> You want to assert that throwing a burlap bag
> of kittens into the bay would not kill them?
Yes.
> You think that nobody will recognize such a sick cliche' ?
>
> Or did you think this pretense would make your
> ideation less sick, less about animal abuse??
>
> DJS3 > Just like it wouldn't kill my imaginary son.
> DJS3 > He can swim.
> DJS3 > Imaginary UNWANTED kittens.
>
> G > Your IDEATION about it ALONE would
> G > probably be enough for a court to order
> G > you into a psychiatric evaluation.
>
> DJS3 > No.
>
> G > Don't you think your IDEATION about throwing
> G > a burlap bag of kittens into the bay might be
> G > a justification for a criminal investigation?
>
> DJS3 > UNWANTED kittens.
>
> G > What difference would it make if the kittens
> G > were UNWANTED?
>
> DJS3 > If you wanted the kittens why would you throw them into the
> bay?
>
> Wanted or not, throwing gunny sack of kittens into
> the bay/river is still a fairly serious criminal act.
You think I should be worried about getting arrested?
> G > Would that make it OK to throw them into
> G > the bay in a gunny sack?
>
> DJS3 > You don't have a burlap bag?
>
> A gunny sack IS a burlap bag, dolt.
Why are you altering the facts in my imaginary story, grag?
> G > Would it make such an action less criminal?
>
> DJS3 > Are you afraid of getting arrested again, grag?
>
> G > Would it make your sick ideation more acceptable?
>
> DJS3 > To whom?
>
> G > Do you think CPS agencies do not get
> G > called in when such sick animal abuse
> G > is suspected, Dan?
>
> DJS3 > No.
> DJS3 > Prove otherwise.
>
> G > YOU asked for it!
>
> DJS3 > No, YOU asked for it... "Do you think
> DJS3 > CPS agencies do not get called in
> DJS3 > when such sick animal abuse is suspected, Dan?"
>
> So you think that if some sicko microwaves
> a cat or throws a gunny sack of kittens into
> the bay (or river) they would get to keep
> their kids?
How many times did you microwave a cat, grag?
That's an IDEATION completely of your creation.
Greegor
DJS3 > And hopefully, if my son had any brains and
DJS3 > any compassion at all, he'd move out of the
DJS3 > little girl's house so her mother could regain
DJS3 > custody.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full of
DJS3 > unwanted kittens.
Let's face it, Dan. You are a real sicko.
You can't undo what you said.
Usually when you liken or compare one
personal act to another personal act, it
is generally assumed that you are citing
the second one because it's one you
have personal experience with.
Who would cite one personal act of violence
to display their indifference to another, if
they never did either one??
You realized too late that what you said
would not go over well, that it was a damned
stupid and revealing thing to say, so then
you tried to weasel out of it. Too late.
In fact, when you attempted to justify the
comment by saying the kittens were
UNWANTED, you kind of hung yourself for it.
You are a real sicko, Dan.
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bill-would-probe-link-between-animal-cruelty-688260.php
Bill would probe link between animal cruelty, child abuse
By Ken Dixon Tuesday, October 5, 2010
HARTFORD, CT -- A bill that would require state and local officials to
judge connections between animal cruelty and potential child abuse
will be revived next year.
During a morning news conference in the Capitol complex, Rep. Diana
Urban, D-Stonington, said she plans to re-introduce the legislation,
which would require the state Department of Children and Families and
the Department of Agriculture to cross-report animal cruelty and child
abuse.
The FBI has recognized since 1971 that there is a link between animal
abuse and future violent behavior," said Urban, co-chairwoman of the
legislative Select Committee on Children.
"This bill was formed to catch that link so that we might possibly
step in before a child is abused or there is domestic violence in the
home by recognizing if there is animal abuse in the home there is a
red flag for future violent behavior there," said Urban, who believes
that many animal-cruelty cases are discounted during plea-bargaining
in court.
Urban, supported by students from Brien McMahon High School in Norwalk
and officials from the American Humane Association and the Domestic
Abuse Services at the Greenwich YMCA, said there is more and more
research linking pet cruelty to abuse and neglect of children and
other forms of domestic violence.
"Definitely, when you look at animal cruelty you can see the overlap,"
said Tracy Coppola, policy associate for the American Humane
Association.
"There have also been studies of children who are prone to being more
desensitized to abuse than those who do not witness domestic violence
or animal abuse," Coppola said. "They are more prone to commit anti-
social acts."
Lila Elmished of the center for youth leadership at the high school
said the link between animal abuse and human cruelty is important and
"touches on social justice and decency and affects the emotional and
physical well-being of people and animals."
The group is lobbying for the creation of an animal-abuse registry and
a policy of national criminal background checks by animal shelters for
those who wish to adopt pets.
Suzanne Adam, director of the YMCA's abuse program, said that every
day it becomes more obvious that there are connections between animal
abuse and other violence against kids and domestic partners.
"This link is important because it exposes the intentional nature of
battery," Adam said. "In the straight-forward cases of animal abuse,
the abuser is taking something out on the animal. In domestic
violence, however, the abuser often uses the animal to hurt a
particular person, usually the person who loves and cares for their
pet."
Earlier this year, the bill failed in a late-session filibuster.
Rep. DebraLee Hovey, R-Monroe, ranking member of the children's
committee, who attended the news conference and a subsequent forum
Tuesday on the issue, said the issue of pet abuse and human cruelty is
real.
"There's clear research that there's a link," Hovey said in an
interview. "There is a distinct correlation between children who abuse
animals early in their lives who become aggressive and can escalate
into violence."
In 2007, the General Assembly approved a bill including pets in
domestic protective orders.
"What we're saying is that if there is animal abuse and we need to be
aware of it," Urban said. "I'm feeling very good about the bill for
next session."
http://www.khq.com/global/story.asp?s=10966490#
Kitten survives 6 days in duffel bag, man charged
Updated: Aug 21, 2009 5:10 PM CDT
SPOKANE, Wash. - Two maintenance workers were testing and
reprogramming garage door openers at an apartment complex Thursday
when they heard a quiet, muffled meowing in one of the garages.
They looked in the garage and pinpointed the sound to a large, heavy
canvas duffel bag. The workers unzipped the bag not knowing what to
expect when they saw a second black duffel bag fully zipped.
When they finally opened the second bag they found a scared kitten.
They gave the kitten a bath to remove all of the feces and urine it
was covered in and called SCRAPS to pick the kitten up.
"This kitten was very lucky to be found at 11 this morning, otherwise
it probably would have died today," said Animal Protection Officer
Nicole Montano. She continued "we are thankful to those who rescued
this kitten from what would have been a horrific death."
The kitten was affectionately named "Duff" by the heroes who rescued
him and who also plan on adopting Duff from SCRAPS. Duff is available
for photo opportunities at SCRAPS.
Donivan Crews was charged criminally with confinement in an unsafe
manner. He admitted to SCRAPS that he had placed the kitten in the
duffel bag six days ago.
- SCRAPS
http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2008/jun/16/motorist_tosses_bag_of_kittens_onto_highway-ar-222350/
Motorist tosses bag of kittens onto highway
By Sarah Newell Media General News Service June 16, 2008
A five-week-old kitten named Luna perches on the shoulder of Raven
Bradshaw, 13, on Friday. Her mother Nikki Bradshaw rescued the feline
after it was thrown from a moving vehicle on U.S. 321 along with three
others, none of which survived.
HICKORY, N.C. - On Friday, Nikki Bradshaw got a new pet. If she ever
finds the original owners of her pet, she'll have them arrested.
Bradshaw was driving on U.S. 321 near Ham's Restaurant at about 11:45
a.m. Friday when she saw a man in a black Escalade throw a burlap bag
out the window of his car and drive off.
"I could tell by the bag that there was something moving in it. But
before I could get over to it, four cars ran over the bag," Bradshaw
said. "When I got to it, I opened the bag, and there were four kittens
inside. Three were dead. By the grace of God, one survived."
She said she wrapped the surviving kitten in her shirt and immediately
took it to Catawba Valley Animal Hospital to be examined. Although she
expected it to have a broken bone or internal bleeding, the kitten
didn't have a scratch on it. However, it did have a respiratory
infection and severe conjunctivitis around its eyes. Bradshaw was
given antibiotics to treat the kitten.
Although she was relieved the kitten was OK, Bradshaw was still upset
about the fate of the other three.
"We just got an award for being an All-America City, and this person
throws cats out of his car, trying to kill them?" she said. "And
people weren't stopping. No one cared. If I had a green light, I could
have gotten to them faster. Instead, when I was able to get there and
stop, people were honking their horns and cussing at me for stopping."
The cream-colored kitten with a black spot on its ear and back leg,
went home with Bradshaw. She buried the kitten's three siblings - all
calicos - in her back yard.
"There were so many other things he could have done with the cats. He
could have taken them to the flea market and given them away. There
were so many other choices, and this one was just cruel," Bradshaw
said. "I'm going to adopt this cat because for some reason, it
survived. It's had a tough day."
However, she's looking for assistance in paying the $200 vet bill, as
well as finding the person who dropped the bag of kittens out of the
car. Bradshaw said the vehicle was a black Cadillac Escalade in
pristine condition with chrome wheels. The driver was a white male in
his 50s with whitish hair, slightly heavy-set, has a double chin and
was wearing a white undershirt. If you have any information, call the
Humane Society of Catawba County at 464-8878.
If the person is apprehended, he could be charged with between one and
four counts of animal abuse, which could range from a Class 1
misdemeanor to a Class I felony, depending on the circumstances.
Greegor
four case numbers visa v Eagle were DISMISSED before court?
How do you explain that, Kent?
Greegor
so well established that many U.S. communities now cross-train social-
service and animal-control agencies in how to recognize signs of
animal abuse as possible indicators of other abusive behaviors. In
Illinois and several other states, new laws mandate that veterinarians
notify the police if their suspicions are aroused by the condition of
the animals they treat. The state of California recently added Humane
Society and animal-control officers to the list of professionals bound
by law to report suspected child abuse and is now considering a bill
in the State Legislature that would list animal abusers on the same
type of online registry as sex offenders and arsonists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13dogfighting-t.html
The Animal-Cruelty Syndrome By CHARLES SIEBERT June 11, 2010
On a late May afternoon last year in southwest Baltimore, a 2-year-old
female pit bull terrier was doused in gasoline and set alight. A young
city policewoman on her regular patrol of the neighborhood of boarded-
up row houses and redbrick housing developments turned her squad car
onto the 1600 block of Presbury Street and saw a cloud of black smoke
rising from the burning dog. She hopped out, ran past idle onlookers
and managed to put out the flames with her sweater. The dog,
subsequently named Phoenix, survived for four days with burns over 95
percent of her body, but soon began to succumb to kidney failure and
had to be euthanized.
It was only a matter of hours before the story, made vivid by
harrowing video footage of the wounded dog, was disseminated
nationwide in newspapers, TV and radio newscasts and countless Web
sites. An initial $1,000 reward for the capture of the culprits would
soon climb to $26,000 as people around the country followed Phoenix’s
struggle for life. A gathering of people in Venice Beach, Calif., held
a candlelight vigil for her. A month later, the mayor of Baltimore,
Sheila Dixon, announced the creation of the Anti-Animal-Abuse Task
Force to work in concert with city officials, local law enforcement
and animal rights and animal-control groups to find ways to better
prevent, investigate and prosecute such crimes.
The scale, speed and intensity of the response were striking. The
subject of animal abuse, especially the abuse of pit bulls in dog-
fighting activities, has achieved a higher profile after the 2007
arrest of the N.F.L. star Michael Vick for operating an illegal
interstate dog-fighting operation in Surry County, Va. But the
beleaguered pit bull is merely the most publicized victim of a
phenomenon that a growing number of professionals — including police
officers, prosecutors, psychologists, social workers, animal-control
officers, veterinarians and dogcatchers — are now addressing with a
newfound vigor: wanton cruelty toward animals. Before 1990, only six
states had felony provisions in their animal-cruelty laws; now 46 do.
Two years ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals formed the nation’s first Mobile Animal Crime Scene
Investigation Unit, a rolling veterinary hospital and forensic lab
that travels around the country helping traditional law-enforcement
agencies follow the evidentiary trails of wounded or dead animals back
to their abusers.
In addition to a growing sensitivity to the rights of animals, another
significant reason for the increased attention to animal cruelty is a
mounting body of evidence about the link between such acts and serious
crimes of more narrowly human concern, including illegal firearms
possession, drug trafficking, gambling, spousal and child abuse, rape
and homicide. In the world of law enforcement — and in the larger
world that our laws were designed to shape — animal-cruelty issues
were long considered a peripheral concern and the province of local
A.S.P.C.A. and Humane Society organizations; offenses as removed and
distinct from the work of enforcing the human penal code as we humans
have deemed ourselves to be from animals. But that illusory
distinction is rapidly fading.
“With traditional law enforcement,” Sgt. David Hunt, a dog-fighting
expert with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office in Columbus, Ohio,
told me, “the attitude has been that we have enough stuff on our
plate, let the others worry about Fluffy and Muffy. But I’m starting
to see a shift in that mentality now.” Hunt has traveled to 24 states
around the country in order to teach law-enforcement personnel about
the dog-fighting underworld, often stressing the link between
activities like dog fighting and domestic violence. “You have to sell
it to them in such a way that it’s not a Fluffy-Muffy issue,” he said
of teaching police officers about animal-abuse issues. “It’s part of a
larger nexus of crimes and the psyche behind them.”
The connection between animal abuse and other criminal behaviors was
recognized, of course, long before the evolution of the social
sciences and institutions with which we now address such behaviors. In
his famous series of 1751 engravings, “The Four Stages of Cruelty,”
William Hogarth traced the life path of the fictional Tom Nero: Stage
1 depicts Tom as a boy, torturing a dog; Stage 4 shows Tom’s body,
fresh from the gallows where he was hanged for murder, being dissected
in an anatomical theater. And animal cruelty has long been recognized
as a signature pathology of the most serious violent offenders. As a
boy, Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of cats and dogs on sticks;
Theodore Bundy, implicated in the murders of some three dozen people,
told of watching his grandfather torture animals; David Berkowitz, the
“Son of Sam,” poisoned his mother’s parakeet.
But the intuitions that informed the narrative arc of Tom Nero are now
being borne out by empirical research. A paper published in a
psychiatry journal in 2004, “A Study of Firesetting and Animal Cruelty
in Children: Family Influences and Adolescent Outcomes,” found that
over a 10-year period, 6-to-12-year-old children who were described as
being cruel to animals were more than twice as likely as other
children in the study to be reported to juvenile authorities for a
violent offense. In an October 2005 paper published in Journal of
Community Health, a team of researchers conducting a study over seven
years in 11 metropolitan areas determined that pet abuse was one of
five factors that predicted who would begin other abusive behaviors.
In a 1995 study, nearly a third of pet-owning victims of domestic
abuse, meanwhile, reported that one or more of their children had
killed or harmed a pet.
The link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence is becoming
so well established that many U.S. communities now cross-train social-
service and animal-control agencies in how to recognize signs of
animal abuse as possible indicators of other abusive behaviors. In
Illinois and several other states, new laws mandate that veterinarians
notify the police if their suspicions are aroused by the condition of
the animals they treat. The state of California recently added Humane
Society and animal-control officers to the list of professionals bound
by law to report suspected child abuse and is now considering a bill
in the State Legislature that would list animal abusers on the same
type of online registry as sex offenders and arsonists.
When I spoke recently with Stacy Wolf, vice president and chief legal
counsel of the A.S.P.C.A.’s Humane Law Enforcement department, which
focuses on the criminal investigation of animal-cruelty cases in New
York City, she drew a comparison between the emerging mindfulness
about animal cruelty and the changing attitudes toward domestic abuse
in the 1980s. “It really has only been in recent years that there’s
been more free and accurate reporting with respect to animal cruelty,
just like 30 years ago domestic violence was not something that was
commonly reported,” she said. “Clearly every act of violence committed
against an animal is not a sign that somebody is going to hurt a
person. But when there’s a pattern of abusive behavior in a family
scenario, then everyone from animal-control to family advocates to the
court system needs to consider all vulnerable victims, including
animals, and understand that violence is violence.”
It isn’t clear whether Phoenix was used for dog fighting. Subsequent
examinations of her body did find — along with evidence that gasoline
had been poured down her throat — a number of bite wounds.
Veterinarians, however, said that those could have been self-inflicted
in the course of Phoenix’s frenzied attempts to fight off the flames.
But prosecutors also later claimed that Phoenix’s accused assailants,
17-year-old twin brothers named Tremayne and Travers Johnson, of a
nearby block of Pulaski Street, were using a vacant neighborhood home
for the keeping of pit bulls and other ganglike activities.
The Johnson twins have pleaded not guilty. According to court
documents, both suspects, said to be members of the 1600 Boys gang,
were identified by a witness as running out of the alley where the dog
was set alight. “There was some gang-style graffiti found in that
abandoned building,” Randall Lockwood, the A.S.P.C.A.’s senior vice
president for forensic sciences and anticruelty projects, and a member
of the new Anti-Animal-Abuse Task Force in Baltimore, told me at the
A.S.P.C.A.’s Midtown Manhattan offices in December. “There was also
dog feces on the premises. Unfortunately, nobody bothered collecting
the feces to see if it was from Phoenix.”
Along with the need to track the physical evidence of animal cruelty
there is the deeper and more complex challenge of trying to parse its
underlying causes and ultimate ramifications. As a graduate student in
psychology, Lockwood had an interest in human-animal interactions and
the role of animals and education in the development of empathy in
children. This inevitably led him to consider the flip side of the
equation: the origins of cruelty to animals and what such behavior
might indicate about an individual’s capacity for empathy and his or
her possible future behavior.
Back in the early 1980s, Lockwood was asked to work on behalf of New
Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services with a team of
investigators looking into the treatment of animals in middle-class
American households that had been identified as having issues of child
abuse. They interviewed all the members of each family as well as the
social workers who were assigned to them. The researchers’ expectation
going in was that such families would have relatively few pets given
their unstable and volatile environments. They found, however, not
only that these families owned far more pets than other households in
the same community but also that few of the animals were older than
2.
“There was a very high turnover of pets in these families,” Lockwood
told me. “Pets dying or being discarded or running away. We discovered
that in homes where there was domestic violence or physical abuse of
children, the incidence of animal cruelty was close to 90 percent. The
most common pattern was that the abusive parent had used animal
cruelty as a way of controlling the behaviors of others in the home.
I’ve spent a lot of time looking at what links things like animal
cruelty and child abuse and domestic violence. And one of the things
is the need for power and control. Animal abuse is basically a power-
and-control crime.”
The dynamic of animal abuse in the context of domestic violence is a
particularly insidious one. As a pet becomes an increasingly vital
member of the family, the threat of violence to that pet becomes a
strikingly powerful intimidating force for the abuser: an effective
way for a petty potentate to keep the subjects of his perceived realm
in his thrall. In 2005, Lockwood wrote a paper, “Cruelty Toward Cats:
Changing Perspectives,” which underscores this dynamic of animal
cruelty as a means to overcome powerlessness and gain control over
others. Cats, Lockwood found, are more commonly victims of abuse than
dogs because dogs are, by their very nature, more obedient and eager
to please, whereas cats are nearly impossible to control. “You can get
a dog to obey you even if you’re not particularly nice to it,”
Lockwood told me. “With a cat you can be very nice, and it’s probably
going to ignore you, and if you’re mean to it, it may retaliate.”
Whatever the particular intimidation tactics used, their effectiveness
is indisputable. In an often-cited 1997 survey of 48 of the largest
shelters in the United States for victims of domestic violence and
child abuse, more than 85 percent of the shelters said that women who
came in reported incidents of animal abuse; 63 percent of the shelters
said that children who came in reported the same. In a separate study,
a quarter of battered women reported that they had delayed leaving
abusive relationships for the shelter out of fear for the well-being
of the family pet. In response, a number of shelters across the
country have developed “safe haven” programs that offer refuges for
abused pets as well as people, in order that both can be freed from
the cycle of intimidation and violence.
What cannot be so easily monitored or ameliorated, however, is the
corrosive effect that witnessing such acts has on children and their
development. More than 70 percent of U.S. households with young
children have pets. In a study from the 1980s, 7-to-10-year-old
children named on average two pets when listing the 10 most important
individuals in their lives. When asked to “whom do you turn to when
you are feeling sad, angry, happy or wanting to share a secret,”
nearly half of 5-year-old children in another study mentioned their
pets. One way to think of what animal abuse does to a child might
simply be to consider all the positive associations and life lessons
that come from a child’s closeness to a pet — right down to eventually
receiving their first and perhaps most gentle experiences of death as
a natural part of life — and then flipping them so that all those
lessons and associations turn negative.
In a 2000 article for AV Magazine, a publication of the American Anti-
Vivisection Society, titled, “Wounded Hearts: Animal Abuse and Child
Abuse,” Lockwood recounts an interview he conducted for the New Jersey
Division of Youth and Family Services in the early 1980s. He describes
showing to “a perky 7-year-old boy” a simple drawing of a boy and a
dog, playing ball inside a house and a broken lamp on the floor beside
them. Lockwood asked the 7-year-old — a child who had witnessed his
brother being beaten by their father, who was “reportedly responsible
for the ‘disappearance’ of several family pets” — to describe what
would happen next in the story of the boy in the picture. “He grew
still and sullen,” Lockwood writes, “and shook his head slowly.
‘That’s it,’ he said in a matter-of-fact tone, ‘They’re all going to
die.’ ”
Children who have witnessed such abuse or been victimized themselves
frequently engage in what are known as “abuse reactive” behaviors,
Lockwood said, re-enacting what has been done to them either with
younger siblings or with pets. Such children are also often driven to
suppress their own feelings of kindness and tenderness toward a pet
because they can’t bear the pain caused by their own empathy for the
abused animal. In an even further perversion of an individual’s
healthy empathic development, children who witness the family pet
being abused have been known to kill the pet themselves in order to at
least have some control over what they see as the animal’s inevitable
fate. Those caught in such a vicious abuse-reactive cycle will not
only continue to expose the animals they love to suffering merely to
prove that they themselves can no longer be hurt, but they are also
given to testing the boundaries of their own desensitization through
various acts of self-mutilation. In short, such children can only
achieve a sense of safety and empowerment by inflicting pain and
suffering on themselves and others.
In March I paid a visit to the newly established Veterinary Forensics
Medicine Sciences program at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Directed by Melinda Merck, a veterinarian who serves as the
A.S.P.C.A.’s senior director of veterinary forensics and as the
“captain” of its new mobile C.S.I. unit, the program is the first of
its kind at a major U.S. university. As animal abuse has become an
increasingly recognized fixture in the context of other crimes and
their prosecution, it is also starting to require the same kinds of
sophisticated investigative techniques brought to bear on those other
crimes.
Veterinary forensic students at the University of Florida are being
trained in the same way that traditional crime-scene investigators
are, taking courses in a wide range of topics: crime-scene processing;
forensic entomology (determining the time of an animal’s injury or
death by the types of insects around them); bloodstain-pattern and
bite-mark analysis; buried-remains excavation; and forensic osteology
(the study of bones and bone fragments).
“I love being around bones,” Merck proclaimed as she led me into the
university’s C. A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory, a sprawling,
brashly lighted array of human skeletal remains arranged in meticulous
piecemeal patterns on rows of shiny metal tables. “I find bones
fascinating. There is a lot of information in them.” Merck, who
testifies at animal-cruelty trials across the country, conducted the
forensic osteology on the dog remains recovered from the mass graves
on Michael Vick’s Virginia property in 2007.
The lab is one of the busiest of its kind in the world, enlisted for
countless crime-scene investigations and archaeological digs and to
help identify the victims of disasters, including those of the 9/11
attacks on the World Trade Center and Hurricane Katrina. The fact that
one of the examining tables and adjacent bone-boiling and cleansing
units have now been assigned to Merck for her own animal-forensic work
and course instruction speaks volumes about the shifting perspective
toward animal-cruelty crimes. “We have a really cool thing going on
here,” Merck told me. “We have the collaborative effort of a lot of
big-wig forensic specialists down here with years of experience.”
She led me over to her examining table. Set at one end was what she
called “my box of evidence,” a picnic-cooler-size plastic container
that held the excavated remains from a mass grave, part of an
investigation she is conducting into a suspected dog-fighting
operation in Georgia. “In most of our cases of animal cruelty, the
bodies are not fresh,” she said. “They’re decomposed. They’re
discarded. They’re hidden. And so the advanced post-mortem stage is
where we really need to be experts.”
Merck’s 2006 book, “Forensic Investigation of Animal Cruelty: A Guide
for Veterinary and Law Enforcement Professionals,” which she wrote
with Randall Lockwood and Leslie Sinclair of Shelter Veterinary
Services in Columbia, Md., contains a daunting list of the grisly
things human beings do to animals: thermal injuries (immolation,
baking, microwaving); blunt-force trauma; sharp-force and projectile
injuries; asphyxiation; drowning; poisoning; ritual murders; and
sexual assault. Merck spared no details in discussing such horrors
over the course of a veterinary-forensics lecture I attended earlier
that day, held in a conference room at a hotel near the university as
part of a four-day seminar. Even Merck’s seasoned audience of out-of-
town vets, A.S.P.C.A. disaster-response and investigative-team
workers, community-outreach personnel and the chief legal counsel for
New York City’s Humane Law Enforcement department could be heard
gasping into their coffee mugs as Merck annotated, one after the next,
screen-projected slides of stark brutality: blood-drenched dog-
fighting pits; bludgeoned, internally hemorrhaging pets; bruised and
mutilated canine sexual organs; a heavily duct-taped, paint-coated
puppy and the fur-lined, nail-scraped oven walls from which the puppy
struggled vainly to escape.
Those whose compassion compels them to confront and combat daily its
utter absence are, of necessity, often forced to affect a passionless
pose. Merck proceeded through her seminar with clinical speed and
precision through a series of signature forensic cases. One of the
first pivoted around the mystery of a missing Pomeranian whose owners
were convinced had been stolen from their backyard. Merck called up
the slide of a tiny skeleton she had rendered in her corner of the lab
from remains found in a vacant lot not far from the Pomeranian owners’
home. It looked like a wingless bat, the delicate brace of ribs
bearing tiny symmetrical snaps on each side.
“What could have caused these,” Merck asked, pointing her red laser at
the breaks. “What could make a dog disappear so fast?”
“Man!” someone called out to bursts of laughter.
“What else,” Merck said, smiling.
“A bird of prey!”
“Yep,” Merck nodded. “Most likely a hawk. These two breaks are where
the bird’s talons grabbed hold of the dog. This is why forensic
osteology is so important, and yet there’s nothing in our standard
veterinary training that teaches us how to look at bones properly.”
Merck soon proceeded to the case of the puppy found four years ago in
the oven of a ransacked community center in Atlanta. An outraged local
prosecutor called Merck about the case and then showed up at her vet
clinic one day with the dog’s remains. “She brings me the puppy, and
this . . . ,” Merck said, the slide behind her now sapping the room’s
air, “is what she brings me.”
Step by step, from the outer paint to the unraveled layers of duct
tape to the dog’s abraded nails and paws to the hem of an old T-shirt
that was used as a leash, Merck’s detailed forensic analysis of the
victim and of the crime scene would be used to assemble a timeline of
events. Ultimately, her analysis would help seal the conviction of two
teenage brothers on multiple charges, including burglary, animal
cruelty and — because the brothers had shown a number of children at
the community center what they had done and then threatened them with
their lives if they told anyone — additional charges of child abuse
and terroristic threats.
The most common dynamic behind the cases cited that morning was that
of a man abusing a family pet to gain control over, or exact revenge
against, other family members. Merck told of one puppy found buried in
the backyard of a house. As Merck tells it, the dog belonged to the
female friend of a woman who had recently left the man with whom she
and her two children from a previous marriage were living. She and her
children had moved in with the friend, someone who the man decided was
keeping him and his estranged partner from reuniting. The girlfriend’s
pet, therefore, became for him the optimum vehicle for expressing his
rage against both women.
“He tortured the puppy when the two women weren’t home,” Merck told me
after her lecture that day. “He also tried to make two of the kids
participate just to make it more heinous. So along with the animal
cruelty, of course, we had child abuse.”
Merck has made it her mission to urge other vets to report and
investigate suspected cases of animal abuse, incorporating a few
cautionary tales of her own into her lectures to point up the often
dire consequences of failing to do so. One involved a man from
Hillsborough County in Florida who was arrested for murdering his
girlfriend, her daughter and son and their German shepherd. He had
previously been arrested (but not convicted) for killing cats. In
another story Merck tells, one related to her by a New York City
prosecutor, a woman reported coming home to find her boyfriend
sexually molesting her Labrador retriever, but the case never went to
trial.
“My point on that one,” Merck told me, “is that no one took
precautions to preserve the evidence on the dog. And once it comes
down to a he-said-she-said type of situation, you’re lost. These types
of cases are difficult enough even when we have all the evidence, in
part because it’s very hard for investigators and prosecutors to even
consider that someone would do things like this. It’s so disturbing
and offensive, they don’t know what to do about it. A lot of the work
I do involves not just talking to vets but reaching out to law
enforcement to make them more knowledgeable on these matters, to make
them understand, for example, that things like sexual assault of
children and animals are linked. They are similar victims.”
On our way back to the hotel for an afternoon lecture on forensic
entomology, Merck made a little detour to show me the A.S.P.C.A.’s new
mobile C.S.I. unit, parked in a side lot of the vet school’s farm-
animal compound. Twenty-six-feet long, with its own climate-control,
generator, examination room and surgical suite, digital microscope, X-
ray machine, sexual-assault kit and anesthesia-oxygen machine, it is
essentially a giant emergency room on wheels, allowing Merck and her
crew to examine and care for animals at suspected crime scenes and to
efficiently analyze and process evidence to ensure its integrity.
The van was an important part of the largest dog-fighting raid in
American history last year, in which more than 400 dogs were rescued
and 26 people from six states arrested. “We had two forensic teams on
board for that,” Merck said. “We had to hit 25 different crime scenes
in one day. We hit the first one at 7 a.m., and we finished up at
around 6 a.m. the following morning.”
When I asked Merck if she thought incidents of animal cruelty were on
the rise or if it was that we are now being more vigilant about them,
she said that it is probably more the latter. “We’re more aware now,”
she said, “but there is also more of a support system for responding
to these incidents. When I started out as a vet 20 years ago, I was
one of the few who would call if I got a suspicious case, and that was
when such things were still a misdemeanor and it wasn’t law
enforcement involved. It was animal control taking care of nuisance
animals. Now with veterinarians I tell them you cannot not report,
because you don’t know if what you’re seeing on the animal isn’t the
proverbial tip of the iceberg.”
Merck then recalled for me a personal experience she most likes to
relate in classes and seminars, what she’s dubbed “the tale of the
good Samaritan and the savvy vet.” An Atlanta contractor pulled up to
a house one morning where he was to perform some work. As he got out
of his truck, he heard a dog screaming from the house next door, went
over to investigate and saw through an open garage door a dog dragging
its back legs and a woman standing beside it. The woman instantly
began pleading to the contractor that the dog needed to be euthanized,
but she said she couldn’t afford the vet bills. The contractor offered
to take the dog to his vet, who, upon examining the dog, agreed that
it was too debilitated to be saved. He then told the contractor that
there was something suspicious about the case and that he was going to
report it to animal services for whom Merck worked at the time as a
consultant outside of her daily vet practice.
“They asked me to perform a necropsy,” Merck told me. “It turns out
the dog was paralyzed from having been beaten so often. I reported
what I found. Police went to the woman’s house to make an arrest. They
found a badly bruised boy. And just like that both parents are being
hauled off for child abuse. So there was a classic case of the system
working like it should.”
Last November, Lockwoodwas asked to testify at the pretrial hearing in
which a judge ruled that Tremayne and Travers Johnson would be tried
as adults for the burning of Phoenix in Baltimore last year. Lockwood
looked at dozens of pictures of Phoenix in order to select which
images to present to A.S.P.C.A. staff members. “I could only find one
that wasn’t overwhelmingly disturbing,” he told me. “It’s where she’s
so bundled up in gauze and bandages you can’t really see anything.
It’s easy to empathize with burns because we’ve all been burned, and
even if it’s only minor, you realize how painful that is.”
The matter of empathy, of course, goes to the heart of most of our
inquiries into the nature of cruel acts and their possible causes.
There seems to be little doubt anymore about the notion that a
person’s capacity for empathy can be eroded; that someone can have, as
Lockwood put it to me, “their empathy beaten or starved out of them.”
To date, little is known about the Johnson twins’ background beyond
the fact that they both reportedly have chronic truancy issues and
previous probation violations and were recently involved with a gang.
Along with possible early abuse or genetic and biological components,
Lockwood also spoke of the frequent association between environment
and acts of violence, how poverty often creates the sense of
persecution and injustice that makes some people feel justified in
striking back in order to gain the sense of power and control they
otherwise lack.
“What I have the most trouble relating to,” Lockwood told me, “and the
Phoenix kids might be indicative of this sort of thing, is the kind of
cruelty that happens just out of boredom. I’ve had quite a few cases
where I ask a kid, Why did you blow up that frog or set fire to that
cat? and they don’t respond with answers like ‘I hate cats’ or ‘I
didn’t see that as a living thing.’ Their answer is ‘We were bored.’
And then you have to ask yourself, Well, what about alternative
pathways to alleviating this boredom? I have difficulty grasping what
would be the payoff for setting fire to a dog.”
Neuroscientists are now beginning to get a fix on the physical
underpinnings of empathy. A research team at the University of Chicago
headed by Jean Decety, a neuroscientist who specializes in the
mechanisms behind empathy and emotional self-regulation, has performed
fMRI scans on 16-to-18-year-old boys with aggressive-conduct disorder
and on another group of similarly aged boys who exhibited no unusual
signs of aggression.
Each group was shown videos of people enduring both accidental pain,
like stubbing a toe, and intentionally inflicted pain, like being
punched in the arm. In the scans, both groups displayed a similar
activation of their empathic neural circuitry, and in some cases, the
boys with conduct disorder exhibited considerably more activity than
those in the control group. But what really caught the attention of
the researchers was the fact that when viewing the videos of
intentionally inflicted pain, the aggressive-disorder teenagers
displayed extremely heightened activity in the part of our brain known
as the reward center, which is activated when we feel sensations of
pleasure. They also displayed, unlike the control group, no activity
at all in those neuronal regions involved in moral reasoning and self-
regulation.
“We’re really just beginning to have an inkling of the neurophysiology
of empathy,” Lockwood told me. “I think empathy is essentially innate,
but I also think empathy can be learned, and I know it can be
destroyed. That’s why having a better understanding of the
neurophysiology will really help us. Just doing a social intervention
on a person doesn’t do any good if you’re not aware of certain
physiological deficits. As I heard someone put it at a recent lecture
I attended, that would be like an orthopedist telling someone with a
broken arm to lift weights. It won’t do anything until the arm is set,
and it actually might make things worse. I try to understand who the
kids are who seem beyond reach, who seem to have truly impaired
systems of empathy. And then I ask, Can that be restored?”
It turns out that just as recent brain-imaging studies have begun to
reveal the physical evidence of empathy’s erosion, they are now also
beginning to show definitive signs of its cultivation as well. A group
of researchers led by Richard Davidson, a professor of psychiatry and
psychology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, published a study
in a March 2008 edition of the Public Library of Science One, showing
that the mere act of thinking compassionate thoughts caused
significant activity and physical changes in the brain’s empathic
pathways. “People are not just stuck at their respective set points,”
Davidson has said of the study’s results. “We can take advantage of
our brain’s plasticity and train it to enhance these qualities. . . .
I think this can be one of the tools we use to teach emotional
regulation to kids who are at an age where they’re vulnerable to going
seriously off track.”
To date, one of the most promising methods for healing those whose
empathic pathways have been stunted by things like repeated exposure
to animal cruelty is, poetically enough, having such victims work with
animals. Kids who tend to be completely unresponsive to human
counselors and who generally shun physical and emotional closeness
with people often find themselves talking openly to, often crying in
front of, a horse — a creature that can often be just as strong-willed
and unpredictable as they are and yet in no way judgmental, except, of
course, for a natural aversion to loud, aggressive human behaviors.
Equine-therapy programs, for example, are now helping an increasing
number of teenagers who have severe emotional and behavioral issues,
as well as children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome. At Aspen
Ranch in Loa, Utah, troubled teenagers are being paired off with wild
mustangs that have been adopted from the Bureau of Land Management,
each species ultimately managing to temper the other, a dynamic that
has also proved very effective in teaching patience and empathy to
prisoners in correctional facilities. In the Los Angeles suburb of
Compton, there is a youth equestrian program called the Compton Junior
Posse. Teenagers clean stables, groom horses and then ride them in
amateur equestrian events across Southern California. There are now
bovine- and elephant-assisted therapy programs as well.
For Lockwood, animal-therapy programs draw on the same issues of power
and control that can give rise to animal cruelty, but elegantly
reverse them to more enlightened ends. “When you get an 80-pound kid
controlling a 1,000-pound horse,” he said, “or a kid teaching a dog to
obey you and to do tricks, that’s getting a sense of power and control
in a positive way. We all have within us the agents of entropy,
especially as kids. It’s easier to delight in knocking things down and
blowing stuff up. Watch kids in a park and you see them throw rocks at
birds to get a whole cloud of them to scatter. But to lure animals in
and teach them to take food from your hand or to obey commands, that’s
a slower process. Part of the whole enculturation and socialization
process is learning that it’s also cool and empowering to build
something. To do something constructive.”
Charles Siebert, a contributing writer, is the author, most recently,
of “The Wauchula Woods Accord: Toward a New Understanding of Animals.”
Fair Use - For non profit discussion purposes
Dan Sullivan
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> DJS3 > And hopefully, if my son had any brains and
> DJS3 > any compassion at all, he'd move out of the
> DJS3 > little girl's house so her mother could regain
> DJS3 > custody.
> DJS3 >
> DJS3 > Short of that I'd take him to the bay and
> DJS3 > throw him in, like a burlap bag full of
> DJS3 > unwanted kittens.
>
> Let's face it, Dan. You are a real sicko.
> You can't undo what you said.
I don't want to undo what I said.
> Usually when you liken or compare one
> personal act to another personal act, it
> is generally assumed that you are citing
> the second one because it's one you
> have personal experience with.
That's not true.
> Who would cite one personal act of violence
> to display their indifference to another, if
> they never did either one??
Someone who was writing fiction.
> You realized too late that what you said
> would not go over well, that it was a damned
> stupid and revealing thing to say, so then
> you tried to weasel out of it. Too late.
I didn't try to weasel out of what I said.
> In fact, when you attempted to justify the
> comment by saying the kittens were
> UNWANTED, you kind of hung yourself for it.
Why would anyone throw kittens they WANTED into the bay?
> You are a real sicko, Dan.
Try as hard as you can, grag, what I said about an imaginary son and a
burlap bag full of imaginary kittens doesn't compare in any way with
you ACTUALLY causing Lisa Watkins to lose custody of her seven year
old daughter.
> http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bill-would-probe-link-between-anim...
> http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2008/jun/16/motorist_tosses_bag_of_k...
Let me know when it becomes a crime to throw a bag full of imaginary
kittens into the bay, grag.
Did I not mention all of the imaginary kittens had opposable thumbs
and each were equipped with a Swiss army knife so they could cut their
way out of the bag and swim to shore?
I'll tell you one thing, grag.
If there ACTUALLY was a bag of dead kittens, they STILL would be 1000
times smarter than you.
Do you really think trying to prove to me that throwing a bag full of
imaginary kittens into the bay is a crime demonstrates how erudite you
are?????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Dan Sullivan
Robert Kent
This is getting OLD.
"Greegor" wrote in message
news:db15fe9d-b2f2-4fcb...@e4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
wrote:
Context restored at no additional cost.
>>>Would your Mommy or Daddy evict you from one of the houses they own,
>>>Kent?
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>> Again, there is no way to KNOW, though I would doubt they would.
>> Why do you feel so COMPELLED to ask questions so many times,
>>especially after they've been answered? Do the illegal drugs you
>>proudly boast about using and abusing make accepting the truth really
>>so difficult for you?
>> And why are you so COMPELLED to add groups to the list? What is
>>at the core of your obsessive NEED to do such a thing?
>> Serious questions that deserve an answer.
>
>Kent, did you see in the online court records that all
>four case numbers visa v Eagle were DISMISSED before court?
>
What does that have to do with anything found in the post to
which you replied?
Did I expose the TRUTH about you so accurately that you had NO
choice but to remove the totality of the post, then try to distract
from it? Is this the reason you're so frighten over the prospect of
answering the questions I asked?
>How do you explain that, Kent?
Your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs is the likely reason
you are so frequently compelled to try and HIDE and/or distract from
the truth. Of course, this isn't the only possible reason. Simply
the most probable one.
If you'd like to offer one or more other reasons for review,
please do so.
Dan Sullivan
Dan Sullivan
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
That's not true.
Let me know when it becomes a crime to throw a bag full of imaginary
Greegor
> ?Does anyone care? Really?
> This is getting OLD.
You never say it's getting OLD when Kent posts
his puke about me, but always when I am
defending myself from his lies. Why is that?
In this case, Kent has pointed out records
where an apartment management company
mistakenly filed with the court for eviction.
All of the records show DISMISSED.
So far, Kent has not actually acknowledge that
the two filings (4 case numbers) were dismissed.
06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
me you would throw him in like you would throw a burlap
bag of kittens into the bay.
Brilliant comment, Dan!
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Almost as erudite as saying that you USE
facts rather than present them or point them out.
Kent Wills
>On Nov 26, 2:27 pm, "Robert Kent" <r...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> ?Does anyone care? Really?
>> This is getting OLD.
>
>You never say it's getting OLD when Kent posts
>his puke about me, but always when I am
>defending myself from his lies. Why is that?
WHAAAAA! Everyone is picking on poor widdle Gweggie.
BTW, you're lying. Robert has made a similar comment in a reply
to one of my posts. Rather than express the mentality of the average
11 year old, as you do, I explained how it's important that families
learn how you will do whatever you can to ensure CPS wins. That your
sole goal is to make it as impossible as you can for families to
remain together.
Such is your HATE for the concept of family.
>
>In this case, Kent has pointed out records
>where an apartment management company
>mistakenly filed with the court for eviction.
You've offered NOTHING to support a claim that there was any
mistake.
It's accepted that you paid what was owed at the last minute.
>
>All of the records show DISMISSED.
Which is what happens when a land lord terminates legal action.
Any and all readers who deal with evictions will know this.
>
>So far, Kent has not actually acknowledge that
>the two filings (4 case numbers) were dismissed.
Why do you lie?
Less than 24 hours ago I acknowledged, again, that once you paid
what you owed at the last minute, each case was dismissed.
Here's another one for you:
I openly and freely acknowledge that when Lisa Rene Watkins, aka
Gregory Scott Hanson, paid the rent money due, plus any additional
"fines" at the last minute, Eagle Properly Management had the cases
dismissed.
>
>06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
You paid at the last minute, causing Eagle to drop the case. This
resulted in the case being dismissed.
This is not in dispute by anyone. Not even you have denied this
is what occurred, and your lack of denial means something, according
to the standards you DEMAND be held to others.
On another subject:
Why do you keep adding groups to the list? I've asked this of
you MANY times, but you've never answered.
on a completely different subject:
What's your opinion of the latest video of me in constructive
possession of a fire arm (Lindsay's .9mm)? The video is on Youtube,
so unless you've been LYING about many different aspects of your
OBSESSION with me, you'll have seen it.
Did you save a copy? You can use it to show that someone you
claim has numerous felony convictions is in violation of the law.
You'll either do so or admit you've been openly and knowingly LYING
about my having the conviction (you've already openly admitted I have
no such record, but more PROOF that you're lying can't hurt).
You're move, stupid.
Kent Wills
Rene Watkins, posting as Greg Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence is becoming
>so well established that many U.S. communities now cross-train social-
>service and animal-control agencies in how to recognize signs of
>animal abuse as possible indicators of other abusive behaviors. In
>Illinois and several other states, new laws mandate that veterinarians
>notify the police if their suspicions are aroused by the condition of
>the animals they treat. The state of California recently added Humane
>Society and animal-control officers to the list of professionals bound
>by law to report suspected child abuse and is now considering a bill
>in the State Legislature that would list animal abusers on the same
>type of online registry as sex offenders and arsonists.
[...]
Cease abusing animals then, Lisa Rene Watkins. Unless you are
UNABLE to stop. If this is the case, have yourself committed to a
mental health care factually for treatment.
Dan Sullivan
Like you didn't USE the fact that you had Lisa Watkins "permission" as
an excuse for you to abuse her seven year old daughter, right, grag?
Greegor
G > me you would throw him in like you would throw a burlap
G > bag of kittens into the bay.
G >
G > Brilliant comment, Dan!
G > Almost as erudite as saying that you USE
G > facts rather than present them or point them out.
DJS3 > Like you didn't USE the fact that you
DJS3 > had [...] "permission" as an
DJS3 > excuse for you to abuse her seven
DJS3 > year old daughter, right, grag?
You use a lot of rigged questions.
Does it bother you that I do answer so many questions?
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.
Dan Sullivan
> G > It was real genius of you to say that if your son was like
> G > me you would throw him in like you would throw a burlap
> G > bag of kittens into the bay.
> G >
> G > Brilliant comment, Dan!
> G > Almost as erudite as saying that you USE
> G > facts rather than present them or point them out.
>
> DJS3 > Like you didn't USE the fact that you
> DJS3 > had [...] "permission" as an
> DJS3 > excuse for you to abuse her seven
> DJS3 > year old daughter, right, grag?
>
> You use a lot of rigged questions.
> Does it bother you that I do answer so many questions?
Since 2001 you've been claiming that you had Lisa Watkins permission
for everything you did to her seven year old daughter, right, grag?
Greegor
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 26, 2:27 pm, "Robert Kent" <r...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> ?Does anyone care? Really?
> >> This is getting OLD.
>
> >You never say it's getting OLD when Kent posts
> >his puke about me, but always when I am
> >defending myself from his lies. Why is that?
>
> WHAAAAA! Everyone is picking on poor widdle Gweggie.
> BTW, you're lying. Robert has made a similar comment in a reply
> to one of my posts. Rather than express the mentality of the average
> 11 year old, as you do, I explained how it's important that families
> learn how you will do whatever you can to ensure CPS wins. That your
> sole goal is to make it as impossible as you can for families to
> remain together.
> Such is your HATE for the concept of family.
Coming from Kent Bradley Wills, notorious usenet liar and garage
burglar.
G > In this case, Kent has pointed out records
G > where an apartment management company
G > mistakenly filed with the court for eviction.
KBW > You've offered NOTHING to support
KBW > a claim that there was any mistake.
Do you think late payment would be coded "OTHER" by the court?
KBW > It's accepted that you paid what was owed at the last minute.
This is your first presentation of this theory.
How could it be accepted already?
You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
G > All of the records show DISMISSED.
KBW > Which is what happens when a
KBW > land lord terminates legal action.
KBW > Any and all readers who deal
KBW > with evictions will know this.
But FIRST you had to acknowledge that they were all dismissed!
What TOOK you so long to acknowledge that, Kent?
G > So far, Kent has not actually acknowledge that
G > the two filings (4 case numbers) were dismissed.
KBW > Why do you lie?
KBW > Less than 24 hours ago I acknowledged,
KBW > again, that once you paid what you owed
KBW > at the last minute, each case was dismissed.
And you conveniently forgot to post a LINK to that?
You ARE Kent Bradley Wills, notorious usenet liar.
> Here's another one for you:
>
> I openly and freely acknowledge that when Lisa Rene Watkins, aka
> Gregory Scott Hanson, paid the rent money due, plus any additional
> "fines" at the last minute, Eagle Properly Management had the cases
> dismissed.
Fabricated garbage from Kent Wills.
Please explain how the dates would work.
Why would the court mark them as OTHER dismissed?
What is the legal meaning of a 3 day notice to cure, Kent?
06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
> You paid at the last minute, causing Eagle to drop the case. This
> resulted in the case being dismissed.
Well, Kent, at last you acknowledge that the cases were dismissed.
What took you so long ?
Oh, I see you said case instead of cases.
Trying to pull another fast one, Kent?
Kent, Most landlords but especially property
management companies will NOT accept
payment after the 3 day notice to cure is up.
That's when they file for eviction with the court.
Did you miss the dates, Kent?
KBW > This is not in dispute by anyone.
> Not even you have denied this
> is what occurred, and your lack of denial means something, according
> to the standards you DEMAND be held to others.
> On another subject:
> Why do you keep adding groups to the list? I've asked this of
> you MANY times, but you've never answered.
> on a completely different subject:
> What's your opinion of the latest video of me in constructive
> possession of a fire arm (Lindsay's .9mm)?
9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
> The video is on Youtube,
> so unless you've been LYING about many different aspects of your
> OBSESSION with me, you'll have seen it.
> Did you save a copy? You can use it to show that someone you
> claim has numerous felony convictions is in violation of the law.
> You'll either do so or admit you've been openly and knowingly LYING
> about my having the conviction (you've already openly admitted I have
> no such record, but more PROOF that you're lying can't hurt).
> You're move, stupid.
Typical BS from Kent Bradley Wills. No such video there.
Only 4 videos there.
Post a LINK to the exact video in question, Kent.
http://www.youtube.com/user/kbwills
0:21 Maya carving 105 views - 2 years ago
0:22 Mayan temple 14 views - 2 years ago
0:26 Maya ruins 01 34 views - 2 years ago
0:22 elevator in the criuse ship 83 views - 2 years ago
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
>DJS3 > Like you didn't USE the fact that you
>DJS3 > had [...] "permission" as an
>DJS3 > excuse for you to abuse her seven
>DJS3 > year old daughter, right, grag?
>
>You use a lot of rigged questions.
>Does it bother you that I do answer so many questions?
You've never answered any question from Dan. Feel free to prove
me wrong by linking to just one post where you actually ANSWER a
question he's asked.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>On Nov 27, 7:31 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 26, 2:27 pm, "Robert Kent" <r...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> ?Does anyone care? Really?
>> >> This is getting OLD.
>>
>> >You never say it's getting OLD when Kent posts
>> >his puke about me, but always when I am
>> >defending myself from his lies. Why is that?
>>
>> WHAAAAA! Everyone is picking on poor widdle Gweggie.
>> BTW, you're lying. Robert has made a similar comment in a reply
>> to one of my posts. Rather than express the mentality of the average
>> 11 year old, as you do, I explained how it's important that families
>> learn how you will do whatever you can to ensure CPS wins. That your
>> sole goal is to make it as impossible as you can for families to
>> remain together.
>> Such is your HATE for the concept of family.
>
>Coming from Kent Bradley Wills, notorious usenet liar and garage
>burglar.
If that's true, why are you ALWAYS reduced to LYING about what
I've posted?
>
>G > In this case, Kent has pointed out records
>G > where an apartment management company
>G > mistakenly filed with the court for eviction.
>
>KBW > You've offered NOTHING to support
>KBW > a claim that there was any mistake.
>
>Do you think late payment would be coded "OTHER" by the court?
The court will code entries as the court wishes. Contrary to your
implication, I have no say in the matter.
>
>KBW > It's accepted that you paid what was owed at the last minute.
>
>This is your first presentation of this theory.
>How could it be accepted already?
>
I've been presenting this for well over a year.
Why are you LYING about this?
>You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
You claimed I am not.
Where you lying then, or now?
>
>G > All of the records show DISMISSED.
>
>KBW > Which is what happens when a
>KBW > land lord terminates legal action.
>KBW > Any and all readers who deal
>KBW > with evictions will know this.
>
>But FIRST you had to acknowledge that they were all dismissed!
As I did nearly two years ago.
Why are you LYING and claiming I did not?
>What TOOK you so long to acknowledge that, Kent?
I acknowledged they were dismissed about two years ago. The real
question is why did you devote time and energy to dishonestly claiming
the opposite?
>
>G > So far, Kent has not actually acknowledge that
>G > the two filings (4 case numbers) were dismissed.
>
>KBW > Why do you lie?
>KBW > Less than 24 hours ago I acknowledged,
>KBW > again, that once you paid what you owed
>KBW > at the last minute, each case was dismissed.
>
>And you conveniently forgot to post a LINK to that?
Since you replied (you snipped the totality of my post in your
reply), I didn't need to.
>You ARE Kent Bradley Wills, notorious usenet liar.
Projection noted.
>
>> Here's another one for you:
>>
>> I openly and freely acknowledge that when Lisa Rene Watkins, aka
>> Gregory Scott Hanson, paid the rent money due, plus any additional
>> "fines" at the last minute, Eagle Properly Management had the cases
>> dismissed.
>
>Fabricated garbage from Kent Wills.
>
So the cases were not dismissed?
Um, ok. The courts contradict your current claim.
>Please explain how the dates would work.
Well, generally a guy who fancies a girl will ask her to join him
at some social function. Movies are fairly common.
Seriously, what do the dates that you paid the rent have to do
with anything?
>
>Why would the court mark them as OTHER dismissed?
Contrary to your belief, I have no say in how the courts code
things.
Accept this truth and move on with your life.
>What is the legal meaning of a 3 day notice to cure, Kent?
You are given three day to cease the non-payment of rent.
>
>06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE 02/27/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE 06/24/2004 DNU - OTHER DISMISSED
>
>> You paid at the last minute, causing Eagle to drop the case. This
>> resulted in the case being dismissed.
>
>Well, Kent, at last you acknowledge that the cases were dismissed.
>What took you so long ?
Why are you LYING about this?
>
>Oh, I see you said case instead of cases.
>Trying to pull another fast one, Kent?
A typo. I meant cases and apologize for my error.
>
>Kent, Most landlords but especially property
>management companies will NOT accept
>payment after the 3 day notice to cure is up.
>That's when they file for eviction with the court.
Since when?
Post proof that at least 51% of property management companies
will NOT accept payment after the three day notice expires.
Unless I've just exposed ANOTHER of your MANY lies, you'll do so.
>
>Did you miss the dates, Kent?
No.
>
>KBW > This is not in dispute by anyone.
>> Not even you have denied this
>> is what occurred, and your lack of denial means something, according
>> to the standards you DEMAND be held to others.
>> On another subject:
>> Why do you keep adding groups to the list? I've asked this of
>> you MANY times, but you've never answered.
>> on a completely different subject:
>> What's your opinion of the latest video of me in constructive
>> possession of a fire arm (Lindsay's .9mm)?
>
>9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
>
I've not claimed they are the same. A 9mm round would be fairly
big.
Again you PROVE you're mental retardation is NOT an act.
I do like how you're trying to distract from the TRUTH once again.
>> The video is on Youtube,
>> so unless you've been LYING about many different aspects of your
>> OBSESSION with me, you'll have seen it.
>
>> Did you save a copy? You can use it to show that someone you
>> claim has numerous felony convictions is in violation of the law.
>> You'll either do so or admit you've been openly and knowingly LYING
>> about my having the conviction (you've already openly admitted I have
>> no such record, but more PROOF that you're lying can't hurt).
>> You're move, stupid.
>
>Typical BS from Kent Bradley Wills. No such video there.
>Only 4 videos there.
>
There are 12 videos currently posted.
>Post a LINK to the exact video in question, Kent.
As soon as you PROVE your claim that you have a picture of me on
a pony and the one of David dressed as a Nazi, or admit you've been
lying about the existence of both the whole time.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/user/kbwills
>
>0:21 Maya carving 105 views - 2 years ago
>0:22 Mayan temple 14 views - 2 years ago
>0:26 Maya ruins 01 34 views - 2 years ago
>0:22 elevator in the criuse ship 83 views - 2 years ago
I forgot about that account, as evidenced by it's not being used
in two years.
I mean the main account. The one that has the videos of me and
the guns, the one with me in the new GMC, and the one of me and The
Princess making snow angels, etc.
But you already knew that, right?
Dan Sullivan
I'll tell you what was brilliant, grag.
I said "if my son had any brains and any compassion at all, he'd move
out of the little girl's house so her mother could regain custody.
Short of that I'd take him to the bay and throw him in, like a burlap
bag full of unwanted kittens."
And you say if my son was like you I'd throw him in the bay.
Obviously I would only throw my son into the bay if he didn't have the
brains or compassion to move out so the mother could regain custody,
which you just admitted was like you... so how 'bout you do the world
a favor and you walk in front of a fast moving bus or a train???
I doubt anyone in your family will miss you.
Lisa Watkins' father won't miss you.
Probably Lisa Watkins herself won't miss you.
Greegor
G > 9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
Why did you post .9mm?
Trouble with the decimal point, Kent?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Exhibit wishful thinking much, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> Dan says I admitted bla bla..
> Exhibit wishful thinking much, Dan?
I didn't say I would throw my son into the bay if he was like you,
grag.
I said "if my son had any brains and any compassion at all, he'd move
out of the little girl's house so her mother could regain custody.
Short of that I'd take him to the bay and throw him in, like a burlap
bag full of unwanted kittens."
See?
I didn't mention you at all.
BUT YOU said "if your son was like me you would throw him in like you
would throw a burlap bag of kittens into the bay."
YOU included yourself (and your lack of brains and compassion) in my
statement by saying "like me"
LOL!!!
Can you kill yourself by Feb 4, 2011?
Ten years is enough.
Greegor
G > Exhibit wishful thinking much, Dan?
> I didn't say I would throw my son into the bay if he was like you,
> grag.
>
> I said "if my son had any brains and any compassion at all, he'd move
> out of the little girl's house so her mother could regain custody.
>
> Short of that I'd take him to the bay and throw him in, like a burlap
> bag full of unwanted kittens."
>
> See?
>
> I didn't mention you at all.
>
> BUT YOU said "if your son was like me you would throw him in like you
> would throw a burlap bag of kittens into the bay."
>
> YOU included yourself (and your lack of brains and compassion) in my
> statement by saying "like me"
>
> LOL!!!
DJS3 > Can you kill yourself by Feb 4, 2011?
DJS3 > Ten years is enough.
More wishful thinking on your part, Danny?
Besides, your life would have no purpose.
You'd probably do more things with puppet bear condoms.
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Dan says I admitted bla bla..
>Exhibit wishful thinking much, Dan?
So everyone, except you, is lying? You are the sole beacon of
truth in the world?
Yours is not the mind of the mentally stable, Lisa Rene Watkins
(aka Gregory Scott Hanson).
Kent Wills
abusing pathological liar Gregory Scott Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Context restored at no additional cost.
Given that your editing out the context has NEVER worked, perhaps
you could explain why you are so driven to use this method of
deception?
>KBW > possession of a fire arm (Lindsay's .9mm)?
>
>G > 9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
>
>KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
>KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMR_enUS339US339&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=.9+mm+gun#hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMR_enUS339US339&sa=X&ei=vEfxTODKFIGclgfXyvzTDA&ved=0CBoQBSgA&q=.9mm+gun&spell=1&fp=94fb864a6b447b62
>
>KBW > Again you PROVE you're mental retardation is NOT an act.
>KBW > I do like how you're trying to distract from the TRUTH once again.
>
>Why did you post .9mm?
Please see the link above. I know you don't like it, since it
proves your LIE, which is why you removed it from your reply.
>Trouble with the decimal point, Kent?
None at all.
You're deception has already been exposed. You admit this, by
YOUR standards, when you snipped the URL that proves my claim.
Why do you OBSESSIVELY and COMPULSIVELY add groups to the list?
Are you truly UNABLE to stop yourself? It certainly appears this way.
You're stupid.
Bill Graham
> At one time, not so long ago, Lisa Rene Watkins, posting as the drug
> abusing pathological liar Gregory Scott Hanson, <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> G > 9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
>>
>> KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
>> KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
9 mm is about .35 inches. Slightly over a third of an inch, and about
average for a pistol bullet.
Greegor
KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
BG > 9 mm is about .35 inches. Slightly over a third
BG > of an inch, and about average for a pistol bullet.
,9mm diameter would be absurdly tiny ammunition.
A typical #2 pencil lead is over twice that diameter.
http://www.swissminigun.ch/home.html
We are proud to present the smallest revolver
and rim fire ammunition in the world.
It’s total length does not exceed 5.5 cm.
It shoots 2.34 mm calibre rim fire ammunition which we have developed
for it and which is the smallest rim fire ammunition in the World.
This miniature is a double action revolver and has all the same
features as are found on a real size gun.
The manufacture of this exceptional miniature revolver has only been
possible by exploiting the incomparable expertise and latest
technologies of the Swiss Watch and Jewellery Industry, upon which its
worldwide reputation is built.
Our revolver and its ammunition are 100% Swiss Made.
SwissMiniGun is a fully authorized and licenced gunsmith company in
Switzerland.
Greegor
Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > 9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
>
>KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
>KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
>
>BG > 9 mm is about .35 inches. Slightly over a third
>BG > of an inch, and about average for a pistol bullet.
>
>,9mm diameter would be absurdly tiny ammunition.
>
>A typical #2 pencil lead is over twice that diameter.
>
>http://www.swissminigun.ch/home.html
>
>We are proud to present the smallest revolver
>and rim fire ammunition in the world.
>
did kent claim to have used this weapon?
what is a ,9mm? are you from europe?
>It=92s total length does not exceed 5.5 cm.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > 9mm is not .9 mm, you boob.
>
>KBW > I've not claimed they are the same.
>KBW > A 9mm round would be fairly big.
>
>BG > 9 mm is about .35 inches. Slightly over a third
>BG > of an inch, and about average for a pistol bullet.
>
>,9mm diameter would be absurdly tiny ammunition.
>
Since what you claim doesn't exist, your lie fails.
BTW, why are you so scared of the link I posted showing from
where I got the .9mm concept?
And why do you obsessively and compulsively add groups to the
list? You've never answered this question, though it's been asked a
few times.