one couple
one family
one child
one tragedy
one horror
one diagnosis
one Ministry
one agenda
one dream
one judge
one ruling
one recovery
one celebration
Monday, October 4, 2010
11 comments:
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ron:
ReplyDeleteYou miss one item at the end of today's blog:
One Lifelong Fight Against Corruption.
The two news footages of yesterday from WLKY News Channel Target 32 Investigates (2007) are frightening documentary of a formidable oppressive power but contain no terrifying image. Try this My Fox news footage from Houston at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZKahoEPJE
There are graphic images of baby in foster care. Viewer discretion is advised.
Lessons from CW
ReplyDeleteCW resurfaced again. Just to name a few CW blogs:
"October 3, 2010 3:42 PM, CW said...
Please do not associate me with Anon 10:01.
I asked a question because I was wondering. No subtext. I truly don't know how her leg was broken. I did not read the comments some anon have posted toward me. I asked a simple question and request nothing more than a simple answer."
---------
October 2, 2010 8:18 AM CW said...
Anon 5:48 - I hear your emotions, clearly.
Simply re: the shoes in the home - you'll find SW are under same rules as anyone else when at work. Must wear close-toed shoes at all times in the event of an accident. This is a WorkSafeBC/WCB issue, not a "smirking SW" issue.
http://www.worksafebc.com/
---------
October 2, 2010 8:20 AM CW said...
Anon 11:28 - you may or may not have a point. But that was just plain rude.
I don't agree with a majority of what most anon's on this web page say. But I actually don't agree with 100% of the way you have shared your opinion.
---------
CW alleged that he/she will not "contribute" in this blog again because Ron had revisited the MCFD Surveillance issue. Failing to keep his/her own words, we see CW again in this blog.
This sheds light on the classic MCFD modus operandi as follows:
1. pretend that they are on the side of righteousness, working hard for a noble cause and offer to "help", hence many people lay down their guard especially when they represent the government (a typical bad guy good guy tactic commonly used by the police and people in power);
2. observing, asking questions at times and fishing for information to cast doubt, to defend the "child protection" industry and to cover up their real objective of aggrandizement;
3. when challenged, refuse to directly address the issues or to answer questions (often citing privacy and matters in court proceedings);
4. when people fight back, they pound on the table, remove their children to retaliate (in this CW case, cowardly withdrew without responding to the surveillance issue and shamelessly resurface).
This posting is NOT directed toward CW per se but for the benefit of those who have not experienced SW first hand. So CW, feel free to read. I am sure you or your colleagues do.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe criteria by which I publish a comment is stated in the Post a Comment opportunity. Recently I have been removing previously posted comments and I am more rigidly scanning and withholding some incoming comments. This is admittedly a subjective reaction to the content but it also harmonizes with my sense of right. It's unfortunate because I remove comments which have good things to say except for an objectionable or offensive paragraph or phrase but I have no means of editing a comment apart from cutting it and posting it under my name with the explanation that it was edited and I am not going to make that effort. So, mind your words.
ReplyDeleteI would also hope:
ReplyDeleteOne inquiry
One lawsuit
One book
ReplyDeleteAdd:
ReplyDeleteOne bully (after one Ministry)
Anon 1:49...No M.O. Just ignoring you. Should I be responding to "you" it because you use no monicker other than Anonymous, thus it is pure coincidence should I remark on a comment of yours. Feel free to ignore me.
ReplyDeleteCW 10:44 PM
ReplyDelete... sounds like a plan. I'm for it!
And to Anon 1:49
ReplyDeleteYou introduced your piece by addressing CW. I wish to remind you that when CW first indicated to abstain from commenting, I invited the writer to reconsider and to stay on. CW presented statements to which we could respond and interact. I have no idea to whom you were writing your description because it certainly did not relate to CW whom you cannot know that well from submitted comments... and that in spite of your statement, "This posting is NOT directed toward CW per se..."
This next statement is directed at every submitter: We all value the comments. STAY ON THE ISSUES AND NOT THE PERSON WRITING.