Evil Step Monster Lashes Out

[FemanonFatal2.0]

It's good to know there are people who put so much effort in convincing the internet they are right.

That's thewho. He convinces no one. His comments are too nonsensical: "There's no such thing as due process."But his aim isn't to convince it's too distract. Just don't fall for the trolling

It doesnt matter if it is thewho or not.  No one will anwser the question.  Femanon brought it up:

find it funny however that you would use this argument to defend parents who have stifled the RIGHTS and happiness of their daughter for years on top of having her imprisoned without due process.

Are kids entitled to "due process"?  What is due process and how does it apply to kids in programs.  Why are people afraid to answer this?

Everytime someone asks a tough question or challenges you, you label them a troll.  Why are you so afraid?

lol I love how you rile yourself up who... try google numskull... the constitution is a pretty well quoted documentation. Besides I already wrote about that here

furthermore... I not only expect, but invite ANYONE who receives a private message from me to feel free to post in anywhere you like, especially this forum if you feel it necessary to do so. I hold no double standard here, and I do my best to avoid such things in life. I may have different opinions, experiences and reasons for my actions then people on this forum, (and this planet) but I know all too well that if I want to be treated with respect I first have to give it. The same goes, if I cross the line, I should expect the logical consequences.

This woman has been crossing the line with Katie for years, but that was Katie's business and all I can do is give my opinion on the matter, however when this woman crossed the line with me, sent me a personal message not only insulting Katie but also insulting me and my fellow posters on this forum I felt it was everyone's right to defend themselves against her attacks. If there were some prior agreement to privacy I would have kept it between her and I, but I have not established that kind of a relationship with this woman and I certainly do not have a professional obligation to protect a message (that was composed to be aimed at all Fornits members not just me) that she willingly sends to me. There was no personal information here, no phone numbers or credit card numbers, this was a message she intended for us to read, I did not seek out this info on my own. The content of this letter is more of the same we have seen her posting on the site, and more of the abuse that Katie has been talking about. I found it relevant to our conversations to share this with the group and if there is some reason why the content in this letter should not have been shared, then she is free to contact me and explain this herself.

At this point this seems to just be the only lame angle you can find on this topic to derail everyone from the fact that this woman went out of her way to turn her step daughters only "support group" (as funny as that is when talking about fornits) against her. This was a perfect display of exactly what we have been pointing out all along and I have no problem doing what I can to make sure that these kinds of mind games are exposed and Dianne's true colors are clear for everyone to see.

[Anne Bonney]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

[TheWho]

Why the hell are you people humoring the who with this discussion? Duh. no comparison between forcefully taking someone's mail after you've imprisoned them and posting a letter someone sends you. This is so moronic. Why do you allow these trolls to control the discussion? They are trying to distract from this woman's sociopathy. Don't let them suceed. STFU

It is called information.  It is funny how this gets to you so much.  Let me break it down a little simpler for you.  2 people are posting on an open forum and another sends an email message to another.  This is implied to be private.  If she wanted the information on the forum she would have done it herself.  When you hand your credit card to your waitress this doesn’t mean she can write your card number down and give it to the bus boy who is collecting card numbers or that she can post your information online.

The same with kids who are writing letters to their families.  If they wanted their parents to read this stuff they would have mailed the letter.  But your argument is that the information was disclosed openly by Diane, so it needs to work both ways.  Dont go crying all over your keyboard when it happens to you or kids in programs unless you think it is wrong for everyone.... it either acceptable or it isn’t.

That is the double standard my friend.

I do see your point, but speaking for Femanon and reading here response she felt the woman was abusive towards Katie and therefore felt compelled to post the email on this forum.  I dont think she makes a habit out of posting peoples private messages on here or would think it is okay to tell kids parents what they say privately in a program setting.
It doesn’t matter if I am a troll or thewho or a sociopath.  You are dismissing the posts because you are simply afraid of the truth!!

Look, I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong.  I have read here enough to know this isn’t going to happen. Just pointing out the double standard here.

[Anonymous]

Bus boys.... daycare... gym class... public school... double standard... forcibly eating own throw up , (how funny) .. sexually abused in every way (my favorite)

[TheWho]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

[TheWho]

@ WHO:
Everytime you make a good point they come out of the woodwork in droves to cover your posts and do everything to avoid the discussion.

If it is you welcome back!

[Anne Bonney]

Nope.  Not even close.  So kindly fuck off now please.

[Nihilanthic]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

Observation before being committed is applicable to daycare or out patient care how? Due process before being locked up is applicable to your analogy how?

[Anonymous]

@WhO!!!??,.....!!

RiGhT On NiGgA!!!!!!!

............ThESe PeePS DoNt REkOgNIZE ur GeNiuS!

... FuK deM mOtHeRfucKers!

i'';M wid Ya WhHOOO!!!

[TheWho]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

Observation before being committed is applicable to daycare or out patient care how? Due process before being locked up is applicable to your analogy how?

Observation before attending a TBS is applicable how?  Daycare?  outpatient care?  Retirement community?

[Anonymous]

100!

[Anonymous]

@WhO!!!??,.....!!

RiGhT On NiGgA!!!!!!!

............ThESe PeePS DoNt REkOgNIZE ur GeNiuS!

... FuK deM mOtHeRfucKers!

i'';M wid Ya WhHOOO!!!

this guest is so funny. I wish some of ya'll would log in, just cause I'd love to send you fan letters!
 :twofinger:  :twofinger:  :birthday:  :nods:  :roflmao:  :rasta:

[Anonymous]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

Observation before being committed is applicable to daycare or out patient care how? Due process before being locked up is applicable to your analogy how?

Niles, I'd love it if you could write to Diane and Micheal Carter, abusive parents and cultic devotees at their website.
http://parents-of-a-troubled-teen.blogspot.com/

[Nihilanthic]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

Observation before being committed is applicable to daycare or out patient care how? Due process before being locked up is applicable to your analogy how?

Niles, I'd love it if you could write to Diane and Micheal Carter, abusive parents and cultic devotees at their website.
http://parents-of-a-troubled-teen.blogspot.com/

Write to what, the blog? Their ass? The wall of their house? their driveway? their lawn in rye grass?  :seg:  

Write WHAT?

Pee pee doo doo you're stupid ?

[Anonymous]

Nope.  I answered plainly and succinctly.  No further discussion of it is necessary as there really is no debate about it.  The law says you can't just commit someone unless you have verifiable proof that they are an immediate[/u] danger to themselves or others. And that's only for 72 hours of observation, then they have to have a judge order the commitment. End of due process discussion.  :seg2:

And  :rasta:  backatya!!!!   :seg:

So what you are saying is that each and every child in daycare needs to go thru 72 hours of observation before being committed to an institutional setting? Most of the daycare kids are doing just fine and are not in immediate danger of anything yet they enter these facilities every day.

Observation before being committed is applicable to daycare or out patient care how? Due process before being locked up is applicable to your analogy how?

Niles, I'd love it if you could write to Diane and Micheal Carter, abusive parents and cultic devotees at their website.
http://parents-of-a-troubled-teen.blogspot.com/

Write to what, the blog? Their ass? The wall of their house? their driveway? their lawn in rye grass?  :seg:  

Write WHAT?

Pee pee doo doo you're stupid ?

I don't know. Something that will wake him up? These people are HORRIBLE.