Private messages on FightCPS.com aren't private at all???
Dan Sullivan
because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
Greegor
What's your evidence Dan?
0:->
You missed the confession?
Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical blindness?
Outside of clinical settings I've never seen, before, such a long string
of this as I have from you over the years.
Oh wait, there were two others here from the past......R R R R R R
0:-]
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Where's the link and key words to search on?
Right there on the internet, Greg.
Look it up.
Dan Sullivan
0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >> The private message feature of FightCPS isn't private by any means
> >> because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
> >>
> >> Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
> >
> > What's your evidence Dan?
>
> You missed the confession?
>
> Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
> selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical blindness?
And Greg thought his vision problems and the hair growing on the palms
of his hands came from... well, you know...
0:->
To what? The confession? Your perpetual confusion? Or the two other poor
souls from here out of the past?
Let me help. But I must know what you are asking, first.
Kane
Greegor
What are you talking about?
Where is this admission about reading private mails?
Which thread and which key words would find that?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> This thread did not point to any other message thread.
> What are you talking about?
> Where is this admission about reading private mails?
Does good dad now deny he reads the private messages?
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> This thread did not point to any other message thread.
Yes? You lost the subject under discussion?
> What are you talking about?
Good Dad's reading of private FightCPS posts? I think that's plain
enough, don't you.
> Where is this admission about reading private mails?
Right in this newsgroup. Look it up.
> Which thread and which key words would find that?
That should be a small challenge for a clever little boy like you.
I don't do your work anymore, Greg.
Consider.
YOU constantly demand from me, and others at times, various proofs and
references, links, etc.
We supply them in nearly every instance. You even complain that I post
TOO MUCH in response.
WE, after you have posted some declaration that is obviously off the
top of your pointy little head, request that you provide some credible
evidence for your claim.
We get anything from you simply running away, to smart ass one liners
that are not on topic, to babbling rants about how the world, in the
form of various judges, prosecutors, CPS workers, vendors, and little
girls that wet themselves, are out to get you.
And now you want US to continue to jump through hoops.
Uh huh. Like that's going to happen.
As Dan said, look it up yourself, stupid.
And get a memory improvement book. We aren't that far from the post
that had what you are looking for.
0:->
monkeysgirl
Don't you putrid pack of rabid CPS hyena's ever stop bashing innocent
parents.
Dan's parent bashing tripe is ot here
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dan Sullivan
Interesting.
You didn't claim what I said wasn't true.
You just want to know what the evidence is.
monkeysgirl
Your parent hating drivel is not welcome here.
Dan Sullivan
Has he admitted it to you, Greg?
monkeysgirl
Why do you and Don want to disrupt ASCPS?
Dan Sullivan
How long ago?
Dan Sullivan
How long have you known?
Greegor
> Why do you and Don want to disrupt ASCPS?
I'm sure it's the same reason they want to disrupt FightCPS.
They are system sucks and they KNOW that Family Rights
groups are becoming a threat to the Child Protection INDUSTRY.
Dan wants me to make a denial about what gooddad does?
Dan Sullivan
How long have you known?
Dan Sullivan
What evidence do you have, Greg?
Has good dad admitted it to you?
monkeysgirl
Your OT parent bashing isn't welcome here - you CPS twit.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> monkeysgirl wrote:
> > Why do you and Don want to disrupt ASCPS?
>
> I'm sure it's the same reason they want to disrupt FightCPS.
Disrupt?
I was thanked for helping get over a dozen kids back to their families
on FightCPS in less than a year.
> They are system sucks and they KNOW that Family Rights
> groups are becoming a threat to the Child Protection INDUSTRY.
Not Linda's website.
God dad's advice keeps families from getting their kidsw back.
And Dazeemay's advice makes the parents look foolish.
Not Bob Jarovits' website.
Too stupid to comment on.
> Dan wants me to make a denial about what gooddad does?
I simply asked if you had knowledge of his reading the private messages
on the FightCPS forums.
Greegor
I don't. You throw accusations like that at every opponent.
monkeysgirl
> Greegor wrote:
>> monkeysgirl wrote:
>>> Why do you and Don want to disrupt ASCPS?
>> I'm sure it's the same reason they want to disrupt FightCPS.
>
> Disrupt?
>
> I was thanked for helping get over a dozen kids back to their families
> on FightCPS in less than a year.
Bwhahahahahahah - get a clue dinkhead - you're a CPS suck - you give bad
advice and have been run off every family right's group on the net.
Suicide is painless.
Go for it big guy.
Dan Sullivan
You know, don't you!!!
monkeysgirl
Dan,
We know you hate parents, but it's OT here. There must be a group for
assholes with issues like you?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote > How long have you known?
>
> I don't. You throw accusations like that at every opponent.
You still haven't caught on yet, Greg.
You're dumb as a box of nails.
monkeysgirl
Dan Sullivan
Isn't it about time you tell good dad what's been posted about him on
asCPS?
I'd sure like to see what he has to say.
0:->
> Dan - falsely accusing folk is OT here.
Accusing who, of what?
0:-]
inkspot
Nobody cares but u Dan.
0:->
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>
> Nobody cares but u Dan.
I'd like to hear from the members of FightCPS on that score.
The ones that were told their messages to each other were private.
If they were being read by others might they not care?
And why bother with a facility for private conversations if it turns out
they are not private at all?
Oh well, I suppose you have your reasons for not caring, but you do
think it appropriate to assume for others?
Kane
Dan Sullivan
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> The private message feature of FightCPS isn't private by any means
> because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
>
> Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
Someone should offer an explanation.
0:->
I'd love to, but my bias is that if it's private, and the site says it's
"private" then no one but the correspondents should be reading them
So I really don't have a reasonable, logical explanation.
Why would the administrator read private messages?
Other than static from other "posters," I find the silence from the
involved parties deafening, and their absence of comment fascinating.
Kane
a16dn...@yahoo.com
Wow, Dan I see you've takin time out of your busy life helping families
to circle up the manure wagons.
One would think that someone with your wisdom would surely know how a
phpBB message board operates or at least research it before making
themself out to be so stupid..
Unless the only reason is to relate my name and "Private messages on
FightCPS.com aren't private at all" to anyone who google searches
FightCPS... Nice smear campaign... Ever do PR work for Senators?
Do you think EVERY administrator on EVERY phpBB message board can
actually go in and read people's private messages? Do you really
believe the developers of such boards leave loopholes like this open?
No one has the ability to read others pm's.. They would have to know
the individuals password... To read everyones pm's they would have to
know EVERY persons password used on the site...
Anyone who doubts this can ask ANY administrator at any site using the
phpBB Group, probably using any type of message board for that matter..
Go ask the developers themselves, http://www.phpbb.com/features.php
Click on support and ask or
Look under security, *Strong encryption to keep passwords safe in the
database*
BTW....How many "sock" names did you have at our site Dan?
I quit looking after I found 2.... "Drose" and "Oliver Sutton" ...
Most of Oliver's posts ip address matched Drose's and 3/4 of "hers"
matched Dan Sullivan... Some within a half hour of each other and in
the same thread......
I'd stay and chat but I'm in the middle of doing some research for a
couple of families needing help with a CPS case
a16dn...@yahoo.com
Wow, Dan I see you've takin time out of your busy life helping families
Greegor
"Private messages on FightCPS.com aren't private at all???"
It's one of several threads on this subject Dan Sullivan
created on this subject. Gratuitously Dan Top Posted
another thread called:
"Does good dad, forum administrator, deny he reads
the PRIVATE messages on the FightCPS forums?"
The first three messages there shed light on the subject.
It would appear than now Dan Sullivan has his answer.
Apparently Dan manufactured a big LIE and thought that by
applying a lot of BLUSTER he could avoid the need for any
proof.
Dan has been kicked out of at least four Family Rights groups.
He tried denying that he was kicked out of FightCPS.
This lie was exposed and in an attempt to "explain away"
how he was kicked out erroneously, he posted e-mails
that proved he was WELL AWARE that he had been kicked out.
( Proving that he lied when he denied being kicked out! )
Dan has tried (half heartedly) to deny that he was
the Oliver Sutton sock. This hasn't gone well for him.
In another thread Dan told gooddad to go pound some nails.
It looks like Dan got NAILED.
Does good dad, forum administrator, deny he reads the PRIVATE messages
on the FightCPS forums?
1 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 6:00 am
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
2 From: a16dnai...@yahoo.com - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:37 am
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
Wow, Dan I see you've takin time out of your busy life helping families
3 From: Linda Martin - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:52 am
Private messages at FightCPS can't be read by system administrators
because
the software doesn't allow it. If you don't believe me, set up phpBB
and try
it from the administration panel.
Linda
Fight CPS
http://www.fightcps.com
Message Board:
http://forum.fightcps.com
Greegor
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
One where Linda weighed in
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
And the whole accusation was a LIE!
Dan Sullivan started a thread called :
" If Private Messages on FightCPS are being read by good dad, shouldn't
they have a different name? Like "You may think they're PRIVATE
MESSAGES, but good dad, forum administator, will be reading them behind
your back?" ""
1 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:02 pm
Comments?
2 From: 0:-> - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:05 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Comments?
I'll wait for Tim's.
Subject changed: Don's lunatic kookout
3 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:15 pm
Email: inkspot <inky75...@inkydink.net>
Run out of kiddies to sell on usenet Don?
Subject changed: Dans sniveling snitching whine
4 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:14 pm
Dan
Get a clue.
It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
5 From: 0:-> - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:23 pm
inkspot wrote:
> Dan
> Get a clue.
> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
If that is so, why don't the posters of those messages know about this
'duty?'
6 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:57 pm
0:-> wrote:
> inkspot wrote:
>> Dan
>> Get a clue.
>> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
> If that is so, why don't the posters of those messages know about this
> 'duty?'
[F] off Don, you pathetic piece of [s]. But if you must know, it's dem
damn terr'ists - forever vigil - homeward bound - hail to the decider
and stuff like that.
Dubya said there would be sacrifices - so luv it or leave it - Oh you
were kicked out - sorry.
Subject changed: If Private Messages on FightCPS are being read by
good dad, shouldn't they have a different name? Like "You may think
they're PRIVATE MESSAGES, but good dad, forum administator, will be
reading them behind your back?"
7 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:20 pm
inkspot wrote,
> Dan Get a clue.
> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
8 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:34 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> inkspot wrote,
> > Dan Get a clue.
> > It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
> Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
Please explain.
9 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:53 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> inkspot wrote,
>> Dan Get a clue.
>> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
> Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
I didn't say GD - I said the administrator.
10 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:56 pm
inkspot wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > inkspot wrote,
> >> Dan Get a clue.
> >> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
> > Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
> I didn't say GD - I said the administrator.
Ok, the administrator.
Why is it the administrator's DUTY to read the private messages?
11 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:03 pm
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> inkspot wrote:
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> inkspot wrote,
>>>> Dan Get a clue.
>>>> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
>>> Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
>> I didn't say GD - I said the administrator.
> Ok, the administrator.
> Why is it the administrator's DUTY to read the private messages?
Because he's the administrator. Who's responsibility do you think it
should be?
12 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:09 pm
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
inkspot wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > inkspot wrote:
> >> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >>> inkspot wrote,
> >>>> Dan Get a clue.
> >>>> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
> >>> Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
> >> I didn't say GD - I said the administrator.
> > Ok, the administrator.
> > Why is it the administrator's DUTY to read the private messages?
> Because he's the administrator. Who's responsibility do you think it
> should be?
Nobody's responsibility.
That's why the PRIVATE MESSAGES are supposed to be PRIVATE!!!!
Why would an administrator have a duty to read privates messages on
FightCPS?
Is it his responsibility to monitor what members say privately to one
another?
13 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:15 pm
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> inkspot wrote:
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> inkspot wrote:
>>>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> inkspot wrote,
>>>>>> Dan Get a clue.
>>>>>> It's the administrators DUTY to read those messages.
>>>>> Why would reading the PRIVATE MESSAGES on FightCPS be good dad's DUTY?
>>>> I didn't say GD - I said the administrator.
>>> Ok, the administrator.
>>> Why is it the administrator's DUTY to read the private messages?
>> Because he's the administrator. Who's responsibility do you think it
>> should be?
> Nobody's responsibility.
> That's why the PRIVATE MESSAGES are supposed to be PRIVATE!!!!
Oh please - that was before the Patriot Act.
> Why would an administrator have a duty to read privates messages on
> FightCPS?
Terr'ists might plan an attack - CPS scumsuckers might infiltrate the
private list - pedophiles - cubans.
> Is it his responsibility to monitor what members say privately to one
> another?
Yes.
Subject changed: If Private Messages on FightCPS are being read by
good dad, shouldn't they have a different name? Like "You may think
they're PRIVATE MESSAGES, but good dad, forum administator, will be
reading them behind your back?"
14 From: Greegor - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 7:57 pm
Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
Wouldn't that be the order of business before
analyzing why?
15 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:14 pm
Greegor wrote:
> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
the administrator.
> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> analyzing why?
Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
Subject changed: Dans paranoid kookout"
16 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:19 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
> the administrator.
>> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
>> analyzing why?
> Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
> administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
Hmmmmmmmmmm - homos?
Subject changed: If Private Messages on FightCPS are being read by
good dad, shouldn't they have a different name? Like "You may think
they're PRIVATE MESSAGES, but good dad, forum administator, will be
reading them behind your back?"
17 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:19 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
> the administrator.
> > Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> > analyzing why?
> Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
> administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
What a shame, inkspot went blotto; he choked on his own massive
stupidity.
Subject changed: Dan's loser whine
18 From: inkspot - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:28 pm
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
>> Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
>> the administrator.
>>> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
>>> analyzing why?
>> Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
>> administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
> What a shame, inkspot went blotto; he choked on his own massive
> stupidity.
Hey - sorry to leave you here alone, but I got a date.
If you weren't such a big, stupid, ugly SOB you could score without
paying too. :) nite
Subject changed: If Private Messages on FightCPS are being read by
good dad, shouldn't they have a different name? Like "You may think
they're PRIVATE MESSAGES, but good dad, forum administator, will be
reading them behind your back?"
19 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 8:46 pm
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
inkspot wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> >> Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
> >> the administrator.
> >>> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> >>> analyzing why?
> >> Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
> >> administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
> > What a shame, inkspot went blotto; he choked on his own massive
> > stupidity.
> Hey - sorry to leave you here alone, but I got a date.
Mary Palmer, again?
Thought so.
Subject changed: Dan's loser whine
20 From: 0:-> - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 9:39 pm
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
inkspot wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
>>> Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
>>> the administrator.
>>>> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
>>>> analyzing why?
>>> Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
>>> administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
>> What a shame, inkspot went blotto; he choked on his own massive
>> stupidity.
> Hey - sorry to leave you here alone, but I got a date.
Translation: "soooooeeeee, pig pig pig, soooooooeeeee, pig pig pig."
> If you weren't such a big, stupid, ugly SOB you could score without
> paying too. :) nite
It's so sad to see someone with such high regard for himself choke like
this.
You have my condolences. Tell your girl friend "Oink, Oink, grunt,
grunt, grunt."
R RR RR RR RR R
21 From: a16dnai...@yahoo.com - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:35 am
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> > Inkspot claims reading the private messages on FightCPS is the DUTY of
> > the administrator.
> > > Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> > > analyzing why?
> > Now that we know reading PRIVATE MESSAGES is the DUTY of the FightCPS
> > administrator, we just have to ascertain why.
> What a shame, inkspot went blotto; he choked on his own massive
> stupidity.
22 From: 0:-> - Date: Sat, Jan 13 2007 9:30 pm
Greegor wrote:
> Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> analyzing why?
Have you asked Gooddad?
23 From: a16dnai...@yahoo.com - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 12:41 am
0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Has there yet been any proof it takes place?
> > Wouldn't that be the order of business before
> > analyzing why?
> Have you asked Gooddad?
inkspot
Forget IP's - half new mwmbers since Dan was ejected are prolly his
slimers -
In fact - some are burrowed very deep into the FightCPS Forum - if I had
a penny for every one I found, I could take the bus home!!
>
> I'd stay and chat but I'm in the middle of doing some research for a
> couple of families needing help with a CPS case
>
--
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> This one
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
>
> One where Linda weighed in
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
>
> Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
>
> And the whole accusation was a LIE!
Accusation?
inkspot
> Greegor wrote:
>> This one
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
>>
>> One where Linda weighed in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
>>
>> Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
>>
>> And the whole accusation was a LIE!
>
> Accusation?
Yeah dinkhead - as in Dan falsely accusing GD of reading PM's on the forum.
--
inkspot
> This one
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
>
> One where Linda weighed in
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
>
> Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
>
> And the whole accusation was a LIE!
I wonder why Dan would publically attack GD when he knew his nonsense
would be exposed? GD says Dan is stupid. I wonder.
--
Dan Sullivan
inkspot wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > This one
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
> >
> > One where Linda weighed in
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
> >
> > Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
> >
> > And the whole accusation was a LIE!
>
> I wonder why Dan would publically attack GD when he knew his nonsense
> would be exposed? GD says Dan is stupid. I wonder.
All I did was ask a few questions.
inkspot
Yup - and all Dahmer did was take a few young men out to dinner.
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> This one
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
>>>
>>>
>>> One where Linda weighed in
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
>>>
>>>
>>> And the whole accusation was a LIE!
>>
>> Accusation?
>
> Yeah dinkhead - as in Dan falsely accusing GD of reading PM's on the forum.
Falsely accusing?
Whatever would make Dan think that gd read private messages?
0:->
> Greegor wrote:
>> This one
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/d1db14c37796e45a/72e304c52e9c1fd8#72e304c52e9c1fd8
>>
>>
>> One where Linda weighed in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/061f7b1046739c05/0cfce0235127099b#0cfce0235127099b
>>
>>
>> Here is a THIRD gratuitous thread on this Dan Sullivan started.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/0c3ffa24e2c23f4e/bc05a48f236c6ecc#bc05a48f236c6ecc
>>
>>
>> And the whole accusation was a LIE!
>
> I wonder why Dan would publically attack GD when he knew his nonsense
> would be exposed?
Well, your hyperbole about Dan's actions notwithstanding, I too wonder.
<snort>
> GD says Dan is stupid. I wonder.
You do?
Gosh, me too.
Kane RRR R R R RR RR ....oh dear, this is getting rich.
Greegor
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Thread title: Dan's False Accusations Exposed Again
1 From: inkspot - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 4:56 am
Sheesh.
Just when you thought it was safe to trust CPS scum.
2 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 8:27 am
Subject changed: Dan's False Accusations Exposed Again - that's not
true. It's no wonder you people can't beat CPS. Not once did I make an
accusation about good dad reading private messages on FightCPS. All I
did was ask a few questions.
Isn't that accurate and true?
And good dad didn't specifically say he didn't read the private
messages in his long and tedious response.
And Linda Martin said a system administrator couldn't read the private
messages, but good dad is the forum administrator.
So... I'm waiting for the specific and direct denials.
Until then the questions remain... unanswered.
3 From: a16dnai...@yahoo.com - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 1:17 pm
Subject changed:
Dan Sullivan stars in "Playing Stupid" A low budget comedy Co-starring
and Directed by Kane
I see an Oscar in your future Dan
4 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Sun, Jan 14 2007 1:41 pm
Subject changed:
Good dad fails to specifically say whether or not he reads the private
messages on FightCPS
a16dnai...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I see an Oscar in your future Dan
I see you standing in the corner with a dunce hat on your head, good
dad.
Did Linda Martin say it was OK for me to post all the back and forth
emails between her and I that show you banned me without her knowledge?
5 From: Linda Martin - Date: Mon, Jan 15 2007 12:59 am
Dan Sullivan wrote
> Did Linda Martin say it was OK for me to post all the back and forth
> emails between her and I that show you banned me without her knowledge?
Dan,
No, don't post my emails. I knew Good Dad was going to ban you. I
banned
Bob, and Good Dad banned you. Neither of us were happy with the
situation
(you two being argumentative) and we didn't come to any conclusion that
only
one or the other of you should be banned. Actually, it became apparent
over
time that both should be banned because the arguing never stopped. Just
like, here... you're doing the same thing.
Linda
Fight CPS
6 From: Dan Sullivan - Date: Mon, Jan 15 2007 2:39 am
Linda Martin wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote
> > Did Linda Martin say it was OK for me to post all the back and forth
> > emails between her and I that show you banned me without her knowledge?
> Dan,
> No, don't post my emails.
Why not, Linda?
> I knew Good Dad was going to ban you.
Not according to what you said to me in your emails.
If you're admitting you lied to me in your emails why shouldn't I post
them here for everyone to see?
> I banned Bob, and Good Dad banned you.
That's exactly what I have been saying.
> Neither of us were happy with the situation
> (you two being argumentative) and we didn't come to any conclusion that only
> one or the other of you should be banned.
Bob wasn't arguing.
Bob had been violating the FightCPS Registration Agreement by posting
messages that were offensive and abusive... and he refused to stop
after you posted two or three messages warning him to stop.
> Actually, it became apparent over
> time that both should be banned because the arguing never stopped. Just
> like, here... you're doing the same thing.
The question, Linda Martin, is did you lie to me in your emails or are
you lying now?
>From what you said in your emails, I believe you're lying now.
I'd ask you if good dad was able to read the FightCPS private messages
as forum administrator, but who could believe anything you'd answer?
0:->
Who here that was here then can forget Loyal Fan. Dan's mentioned him,
as I have, a few times recently. "Chuck"
Here's what he had to say about Dan's methods, which we all know he used
from other posts he shared, and especially what he had to say to a
critic of Dan not unlike you and your present cronies for grunting and
lying all in the same breath.
The reference to "whore" here, in case you missed it, is to you, Greg
Hansen:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/05f2cd5a51525413?hl=en&
From: Loyal Fan - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 25 2003 3:57 pm
Email: Loyal Fan <nos...@inet.com>
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Neal Feldman wrote:
> Loyal Fan wrote:
>> Greg Hanson wrote:
>>> Ron blamed the death of Logan Marr onto the fact that
>>> the mother fought CPS, even though CPS had no
>>> acceptable reason for removing that child.
>> If they did not have a reason you dont want to give them one.
> What kind of Gestapo CPS Apologist pap is this?
> If they had no reason they had no reason... so how does fighting an
> illegitimate and unconcionable removal 'give them a reason'?
> Explain that one if you can, oh 'Loyal Fan' of Gestapo CPS apparently.
I can explain it like this. I have no service plan, I signed nothing.
I have full legal, parental and protective custody. I listened, I
learned and I prevailed.
It would seem you, like Greg, like Jennifer, were absent from class the
day it was taught what not to do to antagonize your CW.
I learned fast how to pick and choose my fights wisely. I won them all.
>> Act out and you you have given them ample reason to stall, deny,
>> delay, do whatever they can to drag the heels and dig in.
> You have? How so? Please show the Constitutional basis for your
> claim... and how your claim justifies the violation of the
> constitutional, civil, human, due process and parental rights of the
> parents, children and family.
> This ought to be interesting.
One question at a time a time Hot Pepper King. You answer mine above and
I will give you one in return.
>> You do what you have to in order to get the child out as quickly as
>> possible.
> If they ordered you to prostitute yourself would you do so?
I would sleep with my disgusting case worker yes. If the price they paid
was a moment more with my child, most certainly. If they would give her
back to her mother, I would have slept with whole office.
> If they ordered you to kill your spouse would you do so?
No, but I would have offered my life if meant the child was returned.
> If they ordered you to assassinate the president would you do so?
I am not a big fan of Bush so thats an unfair question.
But none of these things is what they asked Jenn and her skell husband
to do. They asked them to stay clean and they could not do this for the
sake of the children.
> All of these are just as illegal or immoral of demands as the ones they
> do which violate the constitutional, civil, human, due process and
> parental rights of the parents, children and family.
> I dare you to prove otherwise.
I won without a gripe about anything you have said above. Only the
guilty have to look for a hole in order to escape from. I walked through
the front doors.
>>> Jennifer: What drug showed up in the UA?
>>> I personally make a HUGE distinction between
>>> Marijuana and crack/Heroin/Meth.
>> Wow, for a person who dont use drugs you have a distinction? How would
>> you know what the effects are of any unless you have indulged?
> I have never jumped off the top of a skyscraper 80+ stories tall and
> landed as gravity would have it on the pavement... but I have a pretty
> good idea what the result would be, and that it would in all likelyhood
> be quite different than falling off a 6 inch diameter rock.
> Your pathetic attempt at an argument is entirely laughable.
The only thing pathetic is your attempt to defend yourself and the
whore. And no one finds that laughable, its quite sad.
> There is clearly a difference between Marijuana and Heroin/Meth. Any
> sane person would know this. You clearly define yourself here.
That they are all illegal?
>>> Are they making a HUGE deal out of POT?
>> It is illegal, no?
> So is jaywalking. So do you propose removing the kids of all jaywalkers?
Which poses a more imminent risk of harm to a child?
>> I dont think they jump for joy if one is less the evil than the other.
>> They are all on the list that will take your children away.
> The whim of Gestapo CPS goosesteppers is the only list for removal that
> exists. You seem to have no problem with that. Why is that?
Please show us that list of whim's. Is the hot pepper in the kids mouth
whim on that?
>>> Or were heavier duty drugs in the UA?
>> You just dont get it huh? Drugs is drugs Greggy Pooh.
> Yeah right... and 2 and 2 trillion are both numbers so they are equal.
> Yeah, anything you say, you Gestapo CPS Apologist nitwit.
We know who the nitwit is. Are you constantly reminded of your failures
as a parent?
...........................
Greegor
poetic.
Firemonkey and Loyal Fan come to mind.
When things get desperate the socks all come rushing to Dan's defense.
0:->
have gotten help from Dan, and quite a few that haven't.
Greegor wrote:
> When fabricating sock "references", always choose names YOU think are
> poetic.
Like Greegor?
> Firemonkey and Loyal Fan come to mind.
Yes, they do.
> When things get desperate the socks all come rushing to Dan's defense.
With a name coined out of respect for Dan you are surprised?
So Chuck Kimmel, he of the case that resulted in Dan finding some out of
the way but vital research on a new form of brittle bone disease
confined to premmies, was a sock?
That's Loyal Fan, child.
And he fooled me well enough to motivate me to send the information to
every states Attorney's General in the country, and all the CPS offices
I could round up. I might have missed one, but I don't think so. I know
I got Iowa.
E-mail, ain't it grand though.
I don't recall if Firemonkey has posted with her own name here, but she
has to me personally.
Looks pretty genuine to me, but gosh I can be fooled by a sock.
You, of course, can't be fooled and used ......RR R R R R R
Not when you are jacking one off publicly.
Greg, I know that Dennis has posted here as a sock. Why are you so
silent when your buddy does it, not asking for a moment if the poster is
a sock, but you seem to want to call everyone that claims they have been
helped by Dan a 'sock.'
Is this just a coincidence?
Or weren't you calling Chuck a sock?
If he is he's a very happy one with a baby sock he got back from CPS.
Just as his posts indicate.
You carried on some conversations with him as though he were a real
enough person, Greg, and himself with his story just as he told it.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=7QFLOw8AAAD2UHMxhnH-uqRDTe1BsS6z&scoring=d&hl=en
He had some interesting things to share. You should read. It's once
again a case of you attacking, NOW, a parent that beat CPS with Dan's help.
You certainly have a funny way of advocating for Parent's Rights, Greg,
if this is an example.
Now, you've added Firemonkey?
How strange it is.
How strange.
Can't you just celebrate their victory with them?
0:->
Greegor
person makes a good personal reference.
0:->
> Kane, Tell me you think an unidentified
> person makes a good personal reference.
Chuck is unidentified?
Firemonkey is unidentified?
Why have you talked to them as though they were real and telling a real
story about their travails with CPS then?
Just too too clever of you?
While I can't recommend it myself, given the quality of your
relationship with Loyal Fan, you could, if you wished, find Chuck
Kimmel, call him, talk to him personally, and have him verify or refute
the story of his getting his daughter back with Dan's help, as he
described in many posts to this ng...ascps.
He might even had an e-mail addy.
But you won't look. You won't ask.
What you are is so obvious these days, Greg, that you are 100% predictable.
You are a coward, a liar, a self deluded clown, trying to tough out
something you have no guts for but want to look like you do.
Chuck was and doubtlessly is many times the man you are.
Hell, so is Firemonkey....R R R RR ...and lostintranslation.
And you may swap the genders so as not to offend them. Comparing them to
men in reference to YOU is a questionable analogy by me.
I apologize to them in advance and hope they won't bitch slap me as they
have you and your cronies.
What a pack of "pussies" you are. Whoa, did it again!
Pussies are far more courageous than you.
R R RR RR R R R R R
Greegor
> Can't you just celebrate their victory with them?
With who?
Dan Sullivan
Certainly not with Lisa Watkins who's been without her daughter due to
your SIX YEARS of monumental bungling.
Why haven't you been able to put all that great advice (from all your
Family Rights activists) together and get the little girl back to her
mother, Greg?
Whose fault is it you've failed time after time, year after year, Greg??
0:->
You snip ... that is abort, my comments without indicating you have,
then you ask me a question already answered by me in the post you
butchered.
Still demonstrating your courage and honesty, I see.
Here is my post in full, where it is obvious "who," as in "with who?"
As you and any reader can see, the families that beat CPS are here in
the form of two of them, named. Clearly. That IS who.
You may add any others you wish when you are overcome by a fit of
honesty. 0:->
.... seems to rest on a solid foundation of attacking all parents that
Like Greegor?
Yes, they do.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=7QFLOw8AAAD2UHMxhnH-uqRDTe1BsS6z&scoring=d&hl=en
How strange it is.
How strange.
Can't you just celebrate their victory with them?
0:->
Greegor
0:->
The posters, such as the one you responded to some time back and I
responded as above.
Say, doesn't this fall within your guidelines of irrelevance for cause
of late chronology?
R R R RR
You didn't answer me then, why would I think you would now.
You abused the poster. Greg. No one missed that.
0:->
Greegor
Firemonkey
firemonkey
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > >> The private message feature of FightCPS isn't private by any means
> > >> because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
> > >>
> > >> Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
> > >
> > > What's your evidence Dan?
> >
> > You missed the confession?
> >
> > Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
> > selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical blindness?
>
> And Greg thought his vision problems and the hair growing on the palms
> of his hands came from... well, you know...
Greegor
D > because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
D > Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
Greg wrote > What's your evidence Dan?
Dan Sullivan wrote > You missed the confession?
D > Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
D > selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical
blindness?
K > And Greg thought his vision problems and the hair growing
K > on the palms of his hands came from... well, you know...
Firemonkey wrote:
> To bad he has that premature ejaculation thing with that too..
It's always amusing to watch the pack try to compensate
when the original issue goes badly for them. After Dan
started three message threads and made a BIG STINK,
the entire brainstorm about Private Messages was resolved
soundly. All that is left for the pack is this sort of name
calling and sexual innuendo.
Like a whipped bully they chafe at their defeat.
0:->
> D > The private message feature of FightCPS isn't private by any means
> D > because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
> D > Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
>
> Greg wrote > What's your evidence Dan?
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote > You missed the confession?
> D > Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
> D > selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical
> blindness?
>
> K > And Greg thought his vision problems and the hair growing
> K > on the palms of his hands came from... well, you know...
>
> Firemonkey wrote:
>> To bad he has that premature ejaculation thing with that too..
>
> It's always amusing to watch the pack try to compensate
> when the original issue goes badly for them.
Original issue? You mean your declaration that you wanted to sue the
state, and you pointing out the longer it takes to get the child back
the more money you think you will get?
That original issue?
> After Dan
> started three message threads and made a BIG STINK,
Hell, I keep five or six or more going with you simple twits all the
time, and sometimes in three newsgroups. With anyone and everyone
jumping in helter skelter, and those that wish me dead babbling on the
fringes try to distract me from whippin' butt on you, Doan, Michael, Ken
or other fools that come here with their ignorant blathering claims
based on NOTHING but their delusions.
And you can't follow Dan's three threads?
> the entire brainstorm about Private Messages was resolved
> soundly.
Oh, then I missed Linda's turn around to PROVE that Dan was thrown off
by her, where she said he could post the messages exchanged between them.
Could you point me to, rather than your delusions, the evidence that
resolved the private message issue?
You know, the one where Dan asked if Tim/Gooddad had read private
exchanges between two people in a private chat?
> All that is left for the pack is this sort of name
> calling and sexual innuendo.
Aw, no on but us name calls or resorts to sexual innuendo.
Hell, Greg, you conduct your life here by innuendo and insinuation
without proof.
We're just pokin' fun at you because you are so impotent.
No proof of claims. No evidence. Nothing but questions you pretend to
claim to insinuate to make and innuendo that the other poster, your
opponent has something to be as ashamed of as you should be for what you
did to the little girl, and the outcome that cost her mother and she so
very much.
You'll never be able to dodge this with claims that "Dan was kicked
off," r r r rR R R RR! RR! RR! RR! RR! RR! RR! RR!
He didn't give his girl friend's little girl cold showers, and come
running with towels, and push a little girl's head under the shower for
shampoo "correction."
Now did he, Greg?
He got ACCUSED of molestation. And then what happened Greg?
What did the forensics and the evaluation show about Dan, Greg?
Now Lisa's little girl got removed for you bullshit bathroom lurking,
and what was found when YOU were evaluated, Greg?
Oh, yes. Nothing.
Because, Greg, you would NOT submit to one.
Dan, knowing he was innocent, and wanting his children, and wanting to
be exonerated submitted to evaluation, AND BEAT THE STATE SOUNDLY.
Those who cannot or will not submit...what have they done? What is most
likely they have done? Hmmmmmmmm?
>
> Like a whipped bully they chafe at their defeat.
>
"Defeat"
Good dad and Linda are chafing?
Dan made a perfectly reasonable request, given that YOU, Greg, (Linda
and Tim must surely just love YOU to pieces) started this bullshit by
claiming he was "kicked off."
You avoided the circumstances involved in him being asked to leave...the
offenses of other players, and the lies that seem to be lurking that Dan
asked to have cleared up.
Where's the proof from THEM, in the form of correspondance that Linda
kicked him off, and that it wasn't Tim independently protecting his
thoroughly discredit buddy, Constitutional Bob, I think I refer to him as?
Come on, oh victorious one.
Show where Linda backed her claims.
Show where Tim proved he had Linda's approval OPENLY and known to Dan at
the time.
Come on, Greg.
YOU were the instigator of all this. YOU.
In your attempt to discredit a long time foe of CPS (now isn't that
strange, you little Parent's Rights advocate, you) who has repeatedly
defeated CPS and helped family after family get their children back and
beat allegations, you claimed something that was not true, of if it was,
was not ethical, or even valid according to the rules presented by that
support group in their FAQ.
No, Greg, YOU SCREWED LINDA AND TIM.
Now you have TWO parent support resources you have fucked over.
You getting enough narcissistic attention yet?
I wonder what the state of Iowa will do with you when they get tired of
your bullshit.
0:->
Firemonkey
merely a bad boyfriend. You have a thing for mentally ill women,
hopefully with little girls, you beat them, you wreck havoc on them and
their children, then blame it on them being mentally ill while you
refuse to be evaluated yourself
Some of the things that becomes crystal clear in reading your posts;
you hate women
you hate children
you hate families
you hate winners
you hate people who have an education
you really hate authority
Your behavior with that little girl was disgusting.
Get the hell out of here and start a perp news group.
Or, lmfaf. a narsissistic personality disorder support group
FY, you are less than nothing.
0:->
> greg, none of this is your fight. This is not your cause. You were
> merely a bad boyfriend. You have a thing for mentally ill women,
> hopefully with little girls, you beat them, you wreck havoc on them and
> their children, then blame it on them being mentally ill while you
> refuse to be evaluated yourself
> Some of the things that becomes crystal clear in reading your posts;
> you hate women
> you hate children
> you hate families
> you hate winners
> you hate people who have an education
> you really hate authority
>
> Your behavior with that little girl was disgusting.
>
> Get the hell out of here and start a perp news group.
>
> Or, lmfaf. a narsissistic personality disorder support group
>
> FY, you are less than nothing.
Well, it looks like Greg, for all his venomous trying, hasn't been able
to drive out a few parents here.
Let me see. Firemonkey. Lostintranslation. Sherry. Betty. Who did I miss?
Oh yes, the parent, Dan Sullivan.
Anybody else?
Given the size of the anti family crowd, and the energy they seem to
bring to their attacks to drive you folks out here, well, here you still
are.
Looks like they are losing.
R R R R R R
Kane
Greegor
D > because good dad, the FightCPS forum administrator, reads them?
D > Just when you thought you found people you could trust.
Greg wrote > What's your evidence Dan?
Dan Sullivan wrote > You missed the confession?
D > Has it ever occurred to you, Greg, that you might be suffering from
D > selective reading comprehension and neurosis induced hysterical
blindness?
K > And Greg thought his vision problems and the hair growing
K > on the palms of his hands came from... well, you know...
Firemonkey wrote:
> To bad he has that premature ejaculation thing with that too..
Greg wrote
> It's always amusing to watch the pack try to compensate
> when the original issue goes badly for them.
...
Kane wrote > original issue?
The thread topic Dan started about reading Private Messages.
Or are you saying I FORCED HIM to do that? :)
Greg wrote
> After Dan started three message threads and made a BIG STINK,
Kane wrote
> Hell, I keep five or six or more going with you simple twits <snip!>
Greg wrote
> the entire brainstorm about Private Messages was resolved soundly.
Kane wrote
> Oh, then I missed Linda's turn around to PROVE that Dan was thrown off
> by her, where she said he could post the messages exchanged between them.
What does that have to do with Private Messages?
Or the fact that Dan knew FULL WELL he WAS kicked out?
Kane wrote
> We're just pokin' fun at you because you are so impotent.
So you're picking on the weak? Weak li'l ol' me? ROFL!
> He didn't give his girl friend's little girl <snip!>
Now who's distracting?
G > Like a whipped bully they chafe at their defeat.
K > Good dad and Linda are chafing?
The pathetic games you play are chafing, Kane.
You ply illogical crap and hope nobody notices.
> Dan made a perfectly reasonable request, given that YOU, Greg, (Linda
> and Tim must surely just love YOU to pieces) started this bullshit by
> claiming he was "kicked off."
Dan's OWN e-mails made it quite clear he KNEW he was ejected.
K > You avoided the circumstances involved in him being asked to
leave..
Those circumstances don't change the fact he was ejected and knew it.
K >.the offenses of other players, and the lies that seem
K > to be lurking that Dan asked to have cleared up.
Kane wrote
> Where's the proof from THEM, in the form of correspondance that Linda
> kicked him off, and that it wasn't Tim independently protecting his
> thoroughly discredit buddy, Constitutional Bob, I think I refer to him as?
Oh yes! Bob J. has been welcomed back onto FightCPS.
Didn't your moles tell you that?
Kane wrote > YOU were the instigator of all this. YOU.
You are the only person saying this.
I expect your pack will now sing along like a chorus (of hyenas!).
Kane wrote
> No, Greg, YOU SCREWED LINDA AND TIM.
> Now you have TWO parent support resources you have
> [f-bomb]ed over.
> You getting enough narcissistic attention yet?
> I wonder what the state of Iowa will do with you when
> they get tired of your [bovine excrement].
You're goofy! This is as bizarre as your claims that started
our own DHS investigation going just to sue for MONEY!
The claim I am a shill for CPS was even funnier, coming from you, Don!
krp
"Firemonkey" <hone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169326040.1...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> To bad he has that premature ejaculation thing with that too..
Whatever credibility you HAD you shot up the ass!
Firemonkey
consequence to me. Go away crazy person.