Greegor 2009-01-24 00:59:36
How do we know the tot wasn’t hungry and having residual breast feeding
Isn’t that MORE likely than a sexual connotation in a 4 year old?
Would it be normal for a 4 year old to have boundaries
making them avoid contact with b******?
Do we really know that the tot rubbing their face
in clothed b**** wouldn’t have done the same
thing with a soft tummy?
You’d start a s** abuse WITCH HUNT over this?
0:-> 2009-01-24 00:59:52
Was his name Greg?
Nope. Few 4 year olds have any desire to nurse.
Yes. They have all kinds of boundaries by 4, Greg.
You’d have to ask the aide that it happened to. Usually they are quite
aware of innocent contacts vs sexual ones. Ask a woman.
Nope, but an investigation into what other things are happening in this
child’s life to warrant his behavior.
You afraid of an investigation, Greg?
Given things you’ve written about yourself, and you seeming
unconsciousness about sexuality, including your own, I don’t think
YOU’D be a good judge of what a child’s behavior indicated.
I think women are born with a built in detector that grows more
accurate over time.
Can you guess why this might be?
When I worked in mental health work I found that all of the children
the agency treated had such problems. Most traced to sexual abuse by
Teachers and aides have to be aware of such behaviors both for their
own protection and that of the children.
You’d be amazed how often it works out they were right.
Do you know why these thing get reported now and did not so much in the
At one time such things never got past the principal’s desk. The bad PR
you see. So many a child went back home to an abuser. No help, more
The times they are a changin’ Greg. Bother you does it? Good.
Greegor 2009-01-24 02:47:05
That’s not very Freudian of you!
0:-> 2009-01-24 04:35:37
Greg the Oblivious replies:
0:-> 2009-01-24 04:35:49
Greegor 2009-01-24 08:24:31
0:-> 2009-01-24 10:18:17
There no remedy for that kind of choking. Sorry.
Greegor 2009-01-24 12:02:52
How did Freud interpret choking? Please explain!
You think a 4 year old touching b****** is sexual?
0:-> 2009-01-24 12:03:05
Can’t. Don’t know. Wasn’t and aren’t a Freudian. Too many years since
my college days when he was the subject of lecture and study. Want me
to dig in my files?
First I’d have to know what you are looking for, and of course there is that fee thingie.
Sure, if he’s been sexually molested by a female or a couple including
Do you really think 4 year olds aren’t or can’t be sexual?
Please. Newborns have erections both by friction and spontaneously.
Females lubricate early on for similar reasons.
Now the question is, was this spontaneous or not.
I know, you don’t want anything investigated that isn’t proven, thus,
of course, by circular reasoning impossible to investigate.
Cute … and common to the criminal mind. You aren’t I presume?
Greegor 2009-01-24 12:03:24
So you DO think a 4 year old’s interest in b****** is sexual!
Can only be the result of molestation? Right.
0:-> 2009-01-24 19:10:56
Of course. Among other things.
If it is a sexual interest, yes, there can be an indicator of
I actually doubt it was the case here, but we didn’t interview the boy,
did we Greg?
And if those that did found more going on, then they aren’t going to
release it to the public for two reasons, Greg.
One, an ongoing case. And two, a minor whose privacy must be protected,
legally in most states.
Notice the word accused in the title?
Greegor 2009-01-24 19:11:36
G > Can only be the result of molestation? Right.
Do you believe that this would be probable cause to justify an
Would Dan Sullivan advise the family to COOPERATE
with this sort of an assenine witch hunt?
Would a Judge issue any sort of court order based on this incident?
What would the primary DEFENSE against such an assenine investigation
0:-> 2009-01-24 19:11:50
Yes, based on the reaction of the teaching aide.
Or we society could ignore such things and wait to see if he turns out
to be dangerou perv.
Darned if I know.
Would you find it too difficult to use a new reader with a spell checker?
What do you think?
You tell us.
0:-> 2009-01-24 22:37:44
I don’t know. But my best guess is, no.
In fact I don’t “advise” them to either, as it would be bad legal advice
if I were giving it as such, and as non-legal advice I don’t think one
should, guilty or innocent, forget that it’s innocent until proven
guilty in this country.
No one is “required” to cooperate with an investigation, Greg.
My argument is that there should be an investigation to determine if
what the teaching aid thought she was experiencing was true or not.
What have you got against an investigation? No one is immune from them,
What Constitutional provision is being violated in this case, Greg?
Or get stupid and ask another pointless question. Do you know what Dan
would advise this family, or is this another of your childish innuendo
Greegor 2009-01-25 08:21:33
That all SOUNDS nice, but was it you or Ron who
explained that caseworkers are actually trained on
how to CON their way into such homes?
Especially considering the disproportionate number
of lower income families targeted, are you
going to pretend that everybody has a “Dream Team”
or an attorney like Klicka to fend off such c***?
The old “all the justice you can buy” thing is not
an acceptable answer, is it?
0:-> 2009-01-25 08:21:44
Neither. You might want to rephrase your question though.
No “conning” takes place.
They get reported more, and more often do more neglect…something more
dangerous than all the other abuses put together, for fatalities. Notice?
Nope. That’s life. Shall we not arrest, charge, and try bank robbers
based on their inability to afford top lawyers?
Nope, but it’s the truth.
And your solution would be……………………?
R R RRR RRRR You’ve never answered my question.
Just how stupid ARE you, Greg?
Greegor 2009-01-25 12:58:10