Post by mmrpurdueDoes this story upset you?
Huh? What kind of question is that? The story would upset most
people, one would think.
Does the story fail to upset you?
Kane View profile
More options Nov 9 2003, 7:28 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
From: ***@subdimension.com (Kane)
Date: 9 Nov 2003 16:28:57 -0800
Local: Sun, Nov 9 2003 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: Only COLD SHOWERS for kids in NJ. Hard to take when no
fat on body.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 9 Nov 2003 15:47:16 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
wrote:
(.....)
You should have some sympathy for that, Greegor the Whore.
(......)
Post by mmrpurdueWhat are you talking about, Greg?
Cold showers, Dan. You never gave me any benefit of doubt,
but you sure are motivated to give these fosters the
benefit of the doubt.
What in heaven's name are you talking about. You yourself revealed
your purpose in giving those cold showers to the child.
And have you forgotten the towel standby and the physically forcing
the child's head under the shower to get the shampoo out?
Post by mmrpurdueI gave YOU the "benefit."
Yeah, I felt it. :)
No you didn't. You have an agenda that is so precious to you you feel
nothing but what suits you.
Post by mmrpurdueCan't you do anything but lie about the facts, Greg?
Is this where you give me the benefit of doubt?
He already did, long ago.
Post by mmrpurdueAfter they ripped me for fast cold
ones just to rinse off pee?
That's not true, Greg, and you know it.
Yes it is.
Then why did you post that you used the cold shower as punishment?
Motivationally no, but procedurally yes.
Yet soon you are going to try and defend the proceedure as it relates
to the CPS case against the mother, right?
Procedurally, the length of time was dictated
to be minimal, JUST to rinse off pee.
It doesn't matter what you say now, Greg. You already admitted that
you did it to punish her. The fact that it also happened to rinse her
isn't very relevant to the issue.
"Just to rinse off pee" refers to the amount
of time and exposure to cold, an important
factor don't you think?
Did you make her take a shower "just," that is 'only,' to rinse off
the pee?
Post by mmrpurdueYou claimed you forced an unrelated little girl
to take cold showers as punishment.
Loco Parentis is law and trumps "unrelated", Dan.
It does? How so?
The schools are by law in loco parentis (it, In Loco Parentis isn't a
law at all numbbutt...it means "place of the parent") of the child.
Would that give the school the right to make her strip naked and take
a cold shower under the eye of or administered by a man not her
father?
As a punishment they couldn't even get away with it using a women
attendant. Only to clean the child.
Keep ON harping on the "unrelated" part, it shows
that you don't know the law. Your problem not mine.
Show us in law where being in loco parentis to the girl gives you the
right to make her strip naked and to punish her.
Is this where you gave me benefit of doubt?
Until you admitted to these things yourself.
Post by mmrpurdueNot "just to rinse off pee."
Well, I admit that we switched from nice
warm happy showers to fast cold ones after
the warm showers promoted MORE daytime peeing.
Warm showers were positively encouraging this
negative behavior.
Really? Just how happy were these warm showers?
I've run across nothing you've posted about the little girl that
would
leave me to believe or even speculate that she was mentally
developmentally delayed or disabled. Normal six or seven year old
children don't want to pee themselves. It's usually caused by
something else.
And in your case YOU I'd bet. The girl will be back to visit you one
day, Greegor. I hope for your sake you either take up martial arts
and
carry a weapon, or you get your miserable butt out of there before
she's old enough to take care of you where her g'father failed.
However, the showers also switched to a two
part arrangement. Cold shower JUST to rinse off
pee, and then her mother shampooed her hair with
a warm shower shower.
I seem to recall you admiting that once you were the master of
shampoo
for the girl.
From a procedural and
time involved standpoint, "JUST" is correct,
but we never denied the aversive intent.
I love it when cruel adults start using sly weasel words. Aversive
for
instance. You mean pain and or humiliation, don't you?
The kid was NOT made to take a full blown
shower in cold water.
Weasel.
Particularly because
hair washing doesn't work so well that way.
One doesn't have to wash their hair to shower, full blown.
Warm hair wash also warmed up the child after
the momentary discomfort from washing off pee.
This is suddenly, after what, a couple of years, starting to become a
much more involved explanation. Why now and not back when the
question
was first discussed and YOU posted your reasons then...different than
now.
What has changed?
Message was clear: Don't CHOOSE to pee yourself.
You really believe she "CHOOSE" to pee herself and was not motivated
by what was happening in her life at home?
And while in hindsight we would not do this
again,
Well, best not to talk about it anyway...and you WOULD have the
problem she might tell someone...oh, sorry...she did didn't she?
we feel vindicated in that IT WORKED.
You mean she got older and had better bladder control. Every child,
with extremely rare exceptions, outgrows wetting. They even do it
when
there are emotional causes, even fear. Just takes some time.
How can you argue with EFFECTIVENESS?
What's to argue?
What makes you think your method was the cause of the end of her
wetting herself?
Just because you wish to delude yourself doesn't mean we have to
accept it.
The effectiveness also disproves much of the
other chattering conjecture about the nature
of the problem.
Really? There couldn't have been a psychological cause? You perhaps,
usurping her space and her mother's time and attention?
You bossing her around? YOU standing by as towelboy?
As any parent dealing with
a childs wetting problems can tell you, finding
an effective solution can be extremely difficult
and expensive.
Actually it isn't all that tough. One needs to first accept that
issues neither the child or the parent really controls may well be at
work.
Being matter of fact about it usually brings about a cure much faster
than getting all upset and punishing. The child doesn't like being
wet
and smelly, unless they are mentally ill, and will work toward
controlling it if they can.
The most common cure for children wetting is simply growing a bit
older.
But you have blended and confused details
of this over and over, to suit your needs
for propaganda.
You have have had years or more of opportunity to clarify. You have
not done so until now.
Have you finally figured out a story that you think sounds plausible?
I notice you still are defending punishment for wetting though. Just
how stupid are you?
This was a problem that had been completely
SOLVED and was in the PAST, several weeks before
the physical child removal.
You may have thought it solved. The g'father apparently had some
concerns and CPS had some concerns that you might find yet other
reasons to enter the bathroom with the naked little girl.
It had long since
ceased to be an issue of ANY consequence, except
that caseworkers had stepped in doo doo
What dirt and doo doo was that?
I have the funniest feeling you haven't shared some things with us,
yet you cry to be believed about CPS. Most of us are relieved that
they intervened.
Finally, CPS does something right.
and were
climbing the walls to come up with some dirt.
Looks a whole lot more like they found out about your water sports
activity with the child, and felt that there was some risk to the
child. Punishment freaks can go just about anywhere their strange
little minds wish to take them.
CPS musta known that is wasn't a psych problem
also,
Psych problems can be overcome by children. They do it all the time,
without a single bit of help other than just having caring and
attentive parents. They may have given you the benefit of the doubt
you are whining about.
as they NEVER suggested any psych help
or psych investigation with the child.
Of course, because they know what I and millions of other people
know...you can't punish a child out of wetting themselves. They
outgrow it or are given adequate supports to overcome it, either
medically, if that is the problem, or psychologically if that is.
If they truly thought that it was a medical or
psych problem rather than as WE explained it,
they would have gotten her to a psych right?
The problem was over, was it not? Why would they then decide to
reopen
it with a psych eval? But then we don't really know, and I suspect
YOU
might not be privy, to whether or not she actually had one. The
mother
may have been warned NOT to discuss this with her nutcase boyfriend
cum fiance.
Post by mmrpurdueThere was no CALORIE shortage goin on
in our house! :)
How much food did YOU buy every month
with your "pin money?"
Best estimate was take was 480/month,
gas couldn't possibly have been 80/Month.
400 a month toward groceries ESTIMATE.
Why?
Is that the total you earned with cans and bottles or the amount
spent
on food? What else didn't you pay for to have that much for food?
Post by mmrpurdueOr are you referring to the food that the
little girl's mother bought with
her earnings?
That mostly went to rent and utilities.
Why don't you just get a job? Most would pay considerably more than
collecting bottles and cans for deposit or recycle.
You could actually call yourself a man.
Now wouldn't that be a pleasant change?
Kane
