Mom works from 7am- nearly 6pm. This child spent more time with its babysitter than its parents - that's the real tragedy.

Busy mother forgot baby was in van, father says Perry family mourns loss of 'perfect' girl By APRIL GOODWIN Register Staff Writer 06/29/2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry, Ia. - Dennis Engholm, 38, routinely took his infant daughter, Clare, to the baby sitter in the morning, but he had to go to work early Tuesday at Iowa State University.

His wife, Kari, 34, the chief executive officer at Dallas County Hospital in Perry, had a busy day, too. She had a board meeting at 7 a.m. during which board members would agree to sell a medical practice to a doctor whose contract with the hospital was ending. She also was working on plans for a retirement center run by the hospital, set to open this fall.

Kari Engholm always took her 3½-year-old son, Eric, to the child-care center run by the hospital. Tuesday she was supposed to leave Clare at her sitter's house, too. She forgot. Nine hours later, the busy executive found her baby girl dead in the minivan she was driving.

At an emotional news conference Thursday at the Perry couple's church, Dennis Engholm said the family "never could have imagined" this happening.

"Words cannot express the grief and sorrow that our family feels today," he said. "This is a tragic and heartbreaking accident that happened."

He said that 7-month-old Clare was asleep in the van when his wife forgot to drop her off at the baby sitter's. The baby sitter called the Engholms" home at 10 a.m. to ask why the baby had not been dropped off, but Kari Engholm, who already was at work, did not get the message, he said.

"Kari is a loving mother and my best friend," Dennis Engholm said quietly, with tears. "She loved Clare deeply. . . . She is devastated and grief-stricken."

Dennis Engholm described his baby girl as "perfect."

"She had just started crawling and had two teeth. . . . She wasn't even fussy when she was teething."

"A nightmare"

Kari Engholm's sister and Clare's godmother, Diane Van Wyngarden of Des Moines, also spoke at the news conference.

"There was a devastating and tragic accident - a nightmare that no family can imagine," she said.

The Rev. Ray Higgins, priest at St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Perry, said Kari Engholm had a lot on her mind Tuesday.

First, there was the change in the couple's routine, which forced Kari Engholm to drop off both children before an early morning hospital board meeting.

At the meeting the board would decide to sell the Green Street Clinic medical practice in Adel to Dr. Susan Donahue for $55,000 - a decision prompted by criticism that the hospital was not renewing Donahue's contract. Her patients signed petitions and hung signs around Adel in May because they feared they would lose Donahue's services when her contract ends July 31.

Second project

Kari Engholm also was supervising the hospital's launch of an independent and assisted-living apartment complex in Perry, called Spring Valley Retirement Community, set to open this fall.

David Werning, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, said state inspectors found no significant problems in May at the hospital. The facility has 25 beds and 125 employees.

There have never been any particular problems with or recent complaints about the hospital, Werning said. Nor were there any at Humboldt County Memorial Hospital, where Kari Engholm was an administrator before moving to Perry two years ago.

When Kari Engholm left work Tuesday about 5:40 p.m., she drove the few blocks to the Perry child-care center to pick up her son. She discovered the baby in the back seat when she opened the door to let Eric in the van, which is registered to Dallas County Hospital.

Kari Engholm ran inside the center and child-care workers called 911. They also called Dennis Engholm at work and Janice Summerson, a close friend of Kari Engholm's.

Summerson stayed with Kari Engholm until her husband arrived. She said Kari Engholm's grief for those 45 minutes was unequalled by any she had witnessed.

"I've never seen the depth of sadness she showed," Summerson said. "It was truly a mistake."

Kari Engholm was so busy, with so much on her mind, Summerson said. "The woman simply forgot, she was so consumed. . . . She's the CEO of a business."

Not frazzled

Summerson said Kari Engholm was especially busy that day, but not frazzled. Kari Engholm never got frazzled, she said. Summerson talked to her on the telephone briefly about the upcoming raffle at St. Patrick's Catholic Church, and Kari Engholm said, "We'll talk next week, I've got to go."

"I have always known Kari as being a calm, cool, collected, composed, methodical individual," Summerson said. "I guess I've always known she's a very gentle-natured soul."

Perry Police Chief Dan Brickner said the department is investigating the death.

Dr. Dennis Klein, deputy state medical examiner, said the death would be declared an accident on the child's death certificate. Klein, who conducted an autopsy Wednesday, said the baby died of hyperthermia, or elevated body temperature, after being left in the van for several hours.

Brickner said just because the cause of death was declared accidental did not exclude the possibility that police would file charges. He said whether charges would be filed hinged upon Dallas County Attorney Wayne Reisetter's interpretation of the case.

Reisetter is on vacation this week, but said Wednesday criminal charges are possible. Child-protection workers were in Perry Tuesday investigating, he said.

"We're cooperating with police," Dennis Engholm said at Thursday's news conference. "We hope they realize this was truly an accident."

Leave of absence

Kari Engholm took a leave of absence from her work. Dennis Engholm is a computer supervisor at Iowa State University.

Hospital officials said Clare Engholm was born Nov. 3, 2000. She would have been 8 months old next month.

Funeral services for friends, family and parishioners will be held at 10 a.m. Saturday at St. Patrick's Catholic Church. Hastings Funeral Home in Perry is handling arrangements.

Des Moines police reported getting at least two calls on Thursday about children left alone in cars.

One report was made in the 3800 block of Ingersoll Avenue at 12:26 p.m. and the other in the 1500 block of East Locust Street at 12:39 p.m.

Police said that despite the reports, they did not find children left alone at either location.

Officials said awareness of lethal consequences may have been heightened following the death of Clare Engholm.

-- (mom.is@ceo.with.a.busy.life), June 29, 2001

Answers

There's an alarm in my car if I leave the keys in the ignition. There's an alarm if either front seat passenger fails to buckle up. There's an alarm if I leave my headlights on after turning the engine off. Our car is just a low-price cheapo American model.

The technology for adding a back seat pressure alarm exits.

-- helen (g@h.klop), June 29, 2001.

"exists"

-- helen (f@s.dfgh), June 29, 2001.

Is there an alarm to tell a parent that she is so messed up that she views her career as more important than her children?

-- (ding@ding.ding), June 29, 2001.

"Is there an alarm to tell a parent that she is so messed up that she views her career as more important than her children?"

You are a sad, sad, sack of shit, Ding. This woman (to judge by the story) is in agony over her stupid and tragic mistake. There is no evidence whatsoever that she viewed her career as more important than her children, especially since she did not WILLFULLY leave her child in the van. See that? Willful, accidental, difference.

Mrs. Engholm fucked up, and there's no doubt about that. But to make some stupid Dr. Laura-esque argument that she put her career before her children is totally unsupported and is nothing but opportunistic finger-pointing to advance your own claims at this woman's expense.

I imagine that the Engholms are devastated by this terrible mistake. I cannot begin to imagine the depths of their pain and guilt. I also cannot imagine how a person as stupid, hateful and vindictive as Ding manages to look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 30, 2001.

What the fuck are you talking about? Of course she is in agony. Of course it was a mistake. I said nothing about whether she did it intentionally or not. That has nothing at all to do with whether or not she felt her career was more important than her kids. Look at the article yourself. It talked all about her stupid board meeting and her busy schedule. Like that was an excuse or something. "Oh, poor woman. It's not her fault. Look at her busy schedule!! It could happen to anyone."

Yeah?? Bull FUCKING SHIT, it could. She left her fucking KID in the CAR like a goddamn bag of fucking groceries!! But it's okay, right, cuz she had such a "busy day!!" Right.

-- (ding@ding.ding), June 30, 2001.

"What the fuck are you talking about?"

I am talking about your ignorant claim that this woman felt that her career was more important than her child. There is no evidence of that, either in the news article or in your posts.

"Of course she is in agony. Of course it was a mistake. I said nothing about whether she did it intentionally or not."

Ohhhhhh, yes, you did. Let's revisit. You said "she views her career as more important than her children." Your words. And there is no support for that statement anywhere on this thread.

"That has nothing at all to do with whether or not she felt her career was more important than her kids."

Incorrect. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up.

"Look at the article yourself."

I read it. Did you? It does not support your claim.

"It talked all about her stupid board meeting and her busy schedule. Like that was an excuse or something."

The article talked about it, ignoramus. NOT Mrs. Engholm. In fact, I don't see Mrs. Engholm quoted ONCE in the news story. So where do you get off presuming to speak for her?

"Oh, poor woman. It's not her fault. Look at her busy schedule!! It could happen to anyone."

No one here said or supported anything like that. This was a terrible accident and a terrible tragedy. But you cheapen the tragedy when you claim that she placed her career before her child. This tragedy did not happen to provide you with a soapbox from which to declaim and point your finger.

"Yeah?? Bull FUCKING SHIT, it could. She left her fucking KID in the CAR like a goddamn bag of fucking groceries!!"

Learn to read, idiot. She fucked up. She fucked up badly. She is no doubt in agony. And where, exactly, do you draw the conclusion that she placed her career before her children?

"But it's okay, right, cuz she had such a "busy day!!" Right."

Hmm. Perhaps you can show me where anyone posting here, including me, said that what Mrs. Engholm did was "okay." Perhaps you can show us where anyone defended what she did.

Do you even bother reading what people post, or do you simply respond to what you wish they had said?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 30, 2001.

"Of course she is in agony. Of course it was a mistake. I said nothing about whether she did it intentionally or not."

Ohhhhhh, yes, you did.

No i didn't, you stupid illiterate asshole. WHERE did I say she did it intentionally? Where? You quoted this:

Let's revisit. You said "she views her career as more important than her children." Your words. And there is no support for that statement anywhere on this thread.

Yes, those are my words. And funny thing, the phrase "she did it intentionally" appear NOWHERE in those words. Asshole.

What I DID read was this:

The Rev. Ray Higgins, priest at St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Perry, said Kari Engholm had a lot on her mind Tuesday.

Oh yes, a lot on her mind. Let's see:

1) Stupid hospital board meeting

2) Stupid assisted living project

What was NOT on her mind:

1) Where her fucking KID was.

Kari Engholm was so busy, with so much on her mind, Summerson said. "The woman simply forgot, she was so consumed. . . . She's the CEO of a business."

You're right, they never quoted Engholm, they quoted her close friend. And look what she says. "She's the CEO of a business." Now you tell me, what the fuck does it MATTER that she's a CEO of a business?? Huh?? NOTHING. Unless it's being used as an EXCUSE. "She was so consumed. . . . She's the CEO of a business." If you don't like the way *I* interpret that, then hey, tough shit.

-- (ding@ding.ding), June 30, 2001.

I imagine that the Engholms are devastated by this terrible mistake. I cannot begin to imagine the depths of their pain and guilt. I also cannot imagine how a person as stupid, hateful and vindictive as Ding manages to look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 30, 2001

Hey already done, do you imagine that the child has suffered enough?? Let's let this family go on its merry little way with absolutely no consequences for their actions, after all, the parents have suffered enough, right?

-- a retro-active abortion (abortion_is_legal@USA.com), June 30, 2001.

-- (off@i.say), June 30, 2001.

The people who post on this board seem to be getting dumber and dumber as each day goes by.

Retroactive abortion indeed.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 01, 2001.

ALL MESSAGES AFTER THIS ONE SUBJECT TO THE LOVE DECREE!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 01, 2001.

Alice, you blatantly ignored Unk's post just ahead of your's. I love you Alice, you hairy arm-pitted feminist who probably doesn't wear a bra at all.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), July 01, 2001.

Unk,

Did my observation make you decide on the love decree? I didn't think I was that hard in my post. My apologies if I did get to you, but I had not been here for a while and this stuff got to me for some reason. Anyway, I think your "Love Day" is a good idea.

I love you J. See whatyou made me do?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 01, 2001.

JBT,

I was just tired of the hate. So I decided that we would have one day with love in every post.

I love you JBT.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 01, 2001.

Ha, Unk zapped Alice in Wonderbra. Unk's love is ruthless. I love you Unk.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), July 01, 2001.

Tough love, Unk, tough love. You are going to have a busy day, hope you have a few cold ones stockpiled.

I love all the trolling sons of bitches who post here.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 01, 2001.

Since I had no idea what Unk meant by the "love decree", I couldn't possibly have blatantly ignored it. But now that I know what it means, I just want to say that I love you, Paracelsus, you simple- minded, stereotyping dittohead.

Andrea Yates was a homeschooling stay-at-home mother who deliberately drowned every one of her five children. Following the logic of radical conservatives like the original poster on this thread, she should have been a model mother. But she wasn't. Maybe the truth is that motherhood is more complicated than a "one size fits all", stay- at-home = good, working = bad paradigm.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), July 01, 2001.

I love Unk, even though he has lifted the fatwa on non-loving posters, which is a good idea. I love Ain't, because he's my evil twin. I love Cherri, because she stirs up so much shit. And I love my leash-trolls, who all eat Ken-L-Ration.

And to my thread-opponent, I love you! I love you, you braindead opportunist!

"No i didn't, you stupid illiterate asshole."

Okay, that's one out of three. I am not stupid; I am likely far more intelligent that you. I am not illiterate; in fact, I am literate in several languages. I am, however, an asshole, and an avowed, admitted one at that. So your observation that I am an asshole is correct, even if it is not actually a revelation.

"WHERE did I say she did it intentionally? Where? You quoted this:

>>>>>>>>Let's revisit. You said "she views her career as more important than her children." Your words. And there is no support for that statement anywhere on this thread.

That's right. There is no support for that statement. You claim that she views her career as more important than her children, but you don't know that, we don't know that, the news article doesn't say that, and no one is quoted as saying that. So you must simply have decided that on your own, ascribed that motivation to her and therefore have decided that's why she left her child in the van to die.

What a sick bastard you are.

"Yes, those are my words. And funny thing, the phrase "she did it intentionally" appear NOWHERE in those words."

That's right, Counselor, they don't. But another funny thing is that the phrase "my career is more important to me than my children" doesn't appear anywhere in the news story, but you don't let that stop you, do you? So if you can read her mind, then I can read YOURS. Either both your guesses and mine are accurate, or neither guess is. Which will it be, dimwit?

"Asshole."

You really do have a talent for stating the obvious. I've admitted to being a willful asshole on this board, too. You really need to get caught up on things.

"What I DID read was this:"

Boring justification for finger-pointing and condemnation SNIPPED

"Kari Engholm was so busy, with so much on her mind, Summerson said. "The woman simply forgot, she was so consumed. . . . She's the CEO of a business."

Ah, yes. Did Mrs. Engholm say that? No, she didn't. Asshole.

"You're right, they never quoted Engholm, they quoted her close friend."

Who, unless I miss my guess, is likewise incapable of reading Mrs. Engholm's mind. Sort of like YOU.

"And look what she says. "She's the CEO of a business." Now you tell me, what the fuck does it MATTER that she's a CEO of a business??"

It doesn't matter at all who she is or what she does for a living. The kid's dead. Why the fuck do you have to point a finger? Go jump on Andrea Yates; she MEANT to off her offspring.

Now, you really do suck at this. I didn't say I agreed with what the good Reverend said. I didn't say there was any excuse for what Mrs. Engholm did. I said it was a tragedy, and that you were an asshole for pointing the finger at this woman. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

"Huh?? NOTHING. Unless it's being used as an EXCUSE."

If the Reverend uses it as a excuse, then you need to climb all over his ass, and not Mrs. Engholm's. If Mrs. Engholm used it as an excuse, then I would stand beside you in excoriating her. But she didn't, and so your indignant behavior is misdirected, Bunky.

"She was so consumed. . . . She's the CEO of a business." If you don't like the way *I* interpret that, then hey, tough shit."

Actually, Ding, what troubles me is your poor reading skills. Perhaps you could have derived some benefit from a school voucher. Then again, perhaps not. Some people just can't be helped.

Retroactive, you are likewise a sack of shit.

"Hey already done, do you imagine that the child has suffered enough??"

The child is dead. I imagine that little girl has suffered quite enough. What sort of ridiculous question are you trying to pose?

"Let's let this family go on its merry little way with absolutely no consequences for their actions,"

Who said that? Not I. Perhaps you can show me where I advocated no consequences?

"after all, the parents have suffered enough, right?"

As I said, I cannot begin to imagine the depths of their pain and suffering. But what consequences they suffer is up to the legal system in Des Moines, not to a cluster of online finger-pointing primates who hoot and click excitely as they clamor to be the first one to cast a stone.

Fucking get over yourself.

Alice, excellent point. I love you. Will you have my two-headed love child?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 01, 2001.

hey already done, you're really a dense piece of shit aren't you? You go around wringing your hands, belching out the hell the parents must be going through, well, how about the fucking child?? Can you even begin to imagine how it must feel to roast alive wondering , "why do I feel so sick? why won't mama come help me?" Exactly what were the child's last thoughts as life finally left her little body. Obviously, her parents are much too busy to deal with such trivial things as raising a child, protecting a child.... It's first degree murder or we call it a retroactive abortion and let the adult woman walk, she will never be a mother in my book. Parents don't leave their children to die in hot automobiles.

-- retroactive abortion (abortion_is_legal@USA.com), July 01, 2001.

We already have alarms for a front seat passenger riding without buckling the seat belt.

What we need is basically the same technology wired to all the seats in a vehicle that will trigger an alarm when the vehicle is turned off and seat belts are still buckled -- car seats are buckled in place. Rather than a dinging alarm, I would add a voice alert with words to the effect that a child may still be buckled into place within the vehicle.

If the carseat is not unbuckled within a certain period of time, the secondary alarm would be honking the horn and flashing the lights etc. If the parent has already made it into a building before hearing the voice alarm, then maybe someone else will see/hear the alarms and find the child before it's too late.

-- helen (got@one.somewhere), July 01, 2001.

"Yes, those are my words. And funny thing, the phrase "she did it intentionally" appear NOWHERE in those words."

That's right, Counselor, they don't.

Thanks for admitting it. As I said, I NEVER said she did it intentionally.

But another funny thing is that the phrase "my career is more important to me than my children" doesn't appear anywhere in the news story, but you don't let that stop you, do you? So if you can read her mind, then I can read YOURS. Either both your guesses and mine are accurate, or neither guess is. Which will it be, dimwit?

Ahh, a new variation on "You started it first!!!!" LOL

"Asshole."

You really do have a talent for stating the obvious. I've admitted to being a willful asshole on this board, too. You really need to get caught up on things.

You just admitted to it in your REPLY. Please explain how I can get "caught up on things" within a single post.

"What I DID read was this:"

Boring justification for finger-pointing and condemnation SNIPPED

Yes, SNIP the evidence. Make it go away! I should try that sometime.

"And look what she says. "She's the CEO of a business." Now you tell me, what the fuck does it MATTER that she's a CEO of a business??"

It doesn't matter at all who she is or what she does for a living. The kid's dead.

Exactly. So why did she mention it?

Why the fuck do you have to point a finger?

"Point a finger???" It was HER fault!! You don't think it was her fault???

Go jump on Andrea Yates; she MEANT to off her offspring.

Oh yeah?? Did YOU read her mind??? LOL LOL

Actually, Ding, what troubles me is your poor reading skills.

MY poor reading skills? YOU'RE the one that insisted that I accused her of doing it intentionally and then provided NO proof whatsoever. Perhaps you forgot that. What troubles me is not only your poor reading skills, but apparently your short-term memory problem.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 01, 2001.

"hey already done, you're really a dense piece of shit aren't you?"

Actually, no. I'm highly intelligent, very well educated, can speak, read and write several languages, and I have considerable experience in a number of fields. I can also spell, punctuate, and capitalize letters properly, which you apparently cannot.

Ignoramus.

"You go around wringing your hands,"

I have not wrung my hands. I have responded to the Philistine-like behavior of two posters (you included) who apparently want to have this woman stoned or hung in the village square for her tragic mistake.

"belching out the hell the parents must be going through, well, how about the fucking child??"

The child is dead. No amount of shrieking from you will change that.

"Can you even begin to imagine how it must feel to roast alive wondering , "why do I feel so sick? why won't mama come help me?"

Yes, I can. But that is irrelevant now. The child is dead. Attempting to play on people's sympathies in order to get them to condemn the mother along with you is a lame and transparent tactic.

"Exactly what were the child's last thoughts as life finally left her little body."

I don't know. Neither do you. But that won't stop you from speculating, will it?

"Obviously, her parents are much too busy to deal with such trivial things as raising a child, protecting a child...."

You do not know this for a fact. Neither does Ding. In fact, the very fact that they have a three-and-one-half-year-old child who is NOT dead proves you wrong. Obviously they can and DO have the time and ability to raise and protect a child.

"It's first degree murder"

First degree? You are claiming that this is premeditated murder? You are a drooling moron. Or else you are pulling my leg.

"or we call it a retroactive abortion and let the adult woman walk,"

Pfffffft. Here we have another pro-life loony tune, looking for a tragedy to manipulate for his/her own purposes. This woman made a tragic and terrible mistake that cost her and her family their infant daughter. Let the family and the Des Moines legal system work out the rest.

"she will never be a mother in my book."

She already IS a mother, whether you like it or not. You know, if you feel so strongly about all this, why don't you contact the authorities in Des Moines and tell them they should take the toddler away from the Engholms? See what they tell you. And be sure to report back to us on how it goes, fool.

"Parents don't leave their children to die in hot automobiles."

Parents are imperfect human beings, and human beings fuck up sometimes. Sometimes those mistakes are more tragic than others. This one was especially tragic, but that doesn't make it murder.

Helen, that is an excellent idea. I don't know why automakers haven't tried to market something like that.

I love you, Helen. Will YOU have my two-headed love child?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 01, 2001.

Hate to butt into an argument, but does anyone know how to get an engineer to put an idea into practice? I don't want to patent this alarm idea, just get it or something better into use.

-- helen (take@break.for.a.minute), July 01, 2001.

ADH, yes. I will gladly have your two headed love child. But which one do we spank when they argue?

-- helen (got@n.alarm), July 01, 2001.

"Thanks for admitting it. As I said, I NEVER said she did it intentionally."

You need to read more closely. If you accept that, then you must now accept that Mrs. Engholm did NOT place her career above her children (especially since she was never quoted in the article). Either both our suppositions are right, or they are both wrong. You have chosen the "both wrong" option. Thank you for playing.

"Ahh, a new variation on "You started it first!!!!" LOL"

No. It's called "using your opponent's spurious tactic against him," followed by the "choose both true or both false" gambit. You chose "both false." Again, thanks for playing.

"You just admitted to it in your REPLY. Please explain how I can get "caught up on things" within a single post."

No, I have admitted to being an asshole on this board more than once. Not my fault if you don't know the players in the game. Do you need a program to help you along?

"Yes, SNIP the evidence. Make it go away! I should try that sometime."

You presented no evidence, fuckwit. Mrs. Engholm was not quoted ONCE in the story, so you cannot presume to speak for her. Besides, the "evidence" you gave supports MY argument, not yours. Thanks for the assist!

"Exactly. So why did she mention it?"

Mrs. Engholm didn't. Not in the story, anyway. Do I get to call you a liar now?

"Point a finger???" It was HER fault!! You don't think it was her fault???"

Didn't say that. It is her fault. But you don't need to go shrieking about how this woman's preoccupation with her career caused her child's death, ESPECIALLY since you have no evidence to support your foul and objectionable claim.

>>>>>Go jump on Andrea Yates; she MEANT to off her offspring.

"Oh yeah?? Did YOU read her mind??? LOL LOL"

You must not be following that particular chain of events and concomitant set of news stories. Go read. Let the facts sink in. Then return. Your apology will be most welcome, and gracefully accepted.

"MY poor reading skills? YOU'RE the one that insisted that I accused her of doing it intentionally and then provided NO proof whatsoever."

Ding, I used YOUR tactic of claiming something without proof. You said she placed her career before her kids; I said you claimed it was intentional. There is NO PROOF OF EITHER ASSERTION. Both are wrong. BOTH. Do you not see that?

Damn, you're stupid.

"Perhaps you forgot that."

Nope. Didn't forget it. In fact, I WANTED you to go for that. You are proving to be ridiculously easy to manipulate.

"What troubles me is not only your poor reading skills, but apparently your short-term memory problem."

I've got neither problem, though you appear to have both. For my part, I can remember what was in the news story at the top of the thread. You, however, seem to have a big problem confining yourself to the words in it.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 01, 2001.

I gave it some thought, and you know, Ding, a single child's death can so easily be accidental. But the deaths of FIVE children? You don't think Andrea Yates MEANT to kill her kids? I don't need to read Andrea Yates' mind, as she ADMITTED to killing her children, Ding.

"The investigator quoted by the Chronicle says that in "zombie like fashion" Yates admitted to drowning each of the children in a bathtub. And in the most chilling detail, she allegedly describes a scene in which her oldest child, Noah, age 7, came into the bathroom and saw her drowning his 6-month-old sister Mary. According to the account, the boy tried to escape but she dragged him back into the bathroom where she drowned him too."

It's kind of hard to claim you "accidentally" drowned four of your five kids, then chased the remaining one down, caught him, hauled him back to the bathroom and "accidentally" drowned him, too. But I'd love to see you try, Ding.

Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/22/flock.otsc/index.html

And there's plenty more out there. Go ahead. Tell me she didn't mean to do it, Ding. And while you're at it, tell me this guy from Syracuse, New York didn't mean to knife his three kids, killing two of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/01/child.stabbing/index.html

Quite a few parents out there who are INTENTIONALLY offing their kids. If you're going to get indignant about infanticide, Ding, then get indignant about the parents who WILLFULLY kill their children.

Not about some pathetic woman who unintentionally fucked up and has to live with the memory of it for the rest of her life.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 02, 2001.

"Can you even begin to imagine how it must feel to roast alive wondering , "why do I feel so sick? why won't mama come help me?"

Yes, I can. But that is irrelevant now. The child is dead. Attempting to play on people's sympathies in order to get them to condemn the mother along with you is a lame and transparent tactic.

man, you cum sucking piece of shit, so the woman shouldn't be condemned at all, huh? the kid is already dead, so who gives a flying fuck what the child went through, huh? Rot in hell bastard.

-- a retroactive abortion (abortion_is_legal@USA.com), July 02, 2001.

"man, you cum sucking piece of shit,"

You really must read the threads more closely. I have clearly stated my taste for pussy on another thread. Those who falsely accuse me of being gay sometimes get beaten down harshly. Some of them even stop posting here after I get done with them. You could be next.

"so the woman shouldn't be condemned at all, huh?"

Not by YOU, no. You have no standing to condemn this woman. She fucked up, and your shrill bleating won't do a thing except get you all worked up. You should leave the condemning to the District Attorney in Des Moines, since he or she will be the one to decide how (or if) the matter will be prosecuted.

"the kid is already dead, so who gives a flying fuck what the child went through, huh?"

I didn't say that, but I did say that the matter was irrelevant. You are engaging in an appeal to emotion so that others will condemn Mrs. Engholm along with you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

"Rot in hell bastard."

Not going to happen.

BTW, you really need an education, because your writing style and reasoning capabilities are both really slack. I hope you get that education.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 02, 2001.

I've decided to try your tactic of SNIPping whatever I don't like out of your article.

[boring idiotic drivel SNIPped]

Hey, it works!!

You keep insisting that I have no evidence even through I have provided plenty. YOU require that I get a quote directly from Engholm that she put her career before her kid, even though YOU don't have a quote from Yates saying she MEANT to kill her kids. So, it's okay for YOU to fail to provide direct quotes from the accused, but it's not okay for ME.

To reiterate, my evidence is the following:

1) What her reverend said

2) What her close friend said

3) What the article said

4) Her dead kid.

The child is dead. The article, the reverend, and her close friend all talked about how busy she was and all that she had on her mind. The conclusion is clear, she DID have a lot on her mind. What did she have on her mind? Her CAREER. What didn't she have on her mind? Her KID. If her kid WAS on her mind, then the kid wouldn't be DEAD.

Now, there ARE other possibilities. For example, she could claim she was insane. In that case, she may have been suffering from delusions that prevented her from remembering that she left her kid in the car. In that case, she WOULDN'T have pu her career before her kid. However, nothing I read in the article indicated that she was insane.

Meanwhile, you claimed I was making an argument that I never made and chalked it up to "Well, if you can READ someone's MIND than so can I." But I wasn't READING anyone's MIND. I was using the available EVIDENCE to draw a CONCLUSION. Do you have any EVIDENCE that I claimed that she did it intentionally? If so, then present it. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

Obviously, you don't consider the evidence that I presented to be evidence. This, however, is not my problem.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 02, 2001.

"I've decided to try your tactic of SNIPping whatever I don't like out of your article."

No, you really must try harder. My tactic is SNIPPING out any irrelevancies that my opponents post. I have posted no irrelevancies, but you seem bent on building your argument on them.

"Hey, it works!!"

Not if I repost it, it doesn't. You don't get off that easily.

"You keep insisting that I have no evidence even through I have provided plenty."

No. The only "evidence" you have posted supports my argument that you do NOT know for a fact that Mrs. Engholm placed her career ahead of her children. You DID say that, and you have NO evidence of it.

"YOU require that I get a quote directly from Engholm that she put her career before her kid, even though YOU don't have a quote from Yates saying she MEANT to kill her kids."

Go read the links, idiot, and then go to law school. Statements to law enforcement authorities carry all the legal weight of words direct from someone's mouth. You have failed again. But don't stop trying, as you are now my leash-troll. You are my toy. Accept it.

"So, it's okay for YOU to fail to provide direct quotes from the accused, but it's not okay for ME."

No. Quotes from a family friend do not equal statements made to police. I have evidence. You have none.

"To reiterate, my evidence is the following: 1) What her reverend said"

Not what Mrs. Engholm said.

"2) What her close friend said"

Not what Mrs. Engholm said.

"3) What the article said"

But not what Mrs. Engholm said. BTW, are you actually placing TRUST in the liberal media? SNICKER.

"4) Her dead kid."

Now that's just bullshit. The fact that her child is dead does not in any way prove that she places her career ahead of her children. If someone with a Gore bumpersticker on their car hit my car, would it be correct to say that "all Gore supporters are bad drivers?" NO. Nor is it correct to present her dead child as "evidence" for something you apparently cannot prove. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"The child is dead. The article, the reverend, and her close friend all talked about how busy she was and all that she had on her mind."

THEY are using the apparent excuse. SHE is not. Your upset is aimed in the wrong direction.

"The conclusion is clear, she DID have a lot on her mind."

So they say. But that still does not prove your claim that she placed her career ahead of her children. You said it, now you prove it.

"What did she have on her mind? Her CAREER."

Unproven. You don't know that. And you have no proof of it.

"What didn't she have on her mind? Her KID."

Unproven. You don't know that. And you have no proof of it.

If her kid WAS on her mind, then the kid wouldn't be DEAD.

Unproven. You don't know that. And you have no proof of it. You seek to use the dead child as an excuse to condemn this woman. What a sad, sad life you must have, to heap more scorn on a family that already has this tragedy to deal with.

"Now, there ARE other possibilities. For example, she could claim she was insane. In that case, she may have been suffering from delusions that prevented her from remembering that she left her kid in the car. In that case, she WOULDN'T have pu her career before her kid. However, nothing I read in the article indicated that she was insane."

So why bring it up?

"Meanwhile, you claimed I was making an argument that I never made and chalked it up to "Well, if you can READ someone's MIND than so can I."

Exactly.

"But I wasn't READING anyone's MIND."

Sure you were. You made a conclusion unsupported by any direct evidence. Have you ever tried that in a courtroom, Counselor? Do so, and see what the judge says.

"I was using the available EVIDENCE to draw a CONCLUSION."

You were using statements by individuals not involved with the incident (and who did not witness it) to convince readers to accept your emotional condemnation of this woman. You used no evidence, but you certainly leaped to a conclusion. You'd be harshly spanked by a judge if you tried that in any courtroom in this country

"Do you have any EVIDENCE that I claimed that she did it intentionally? If so, then present it."

Do you have any EVIDENCE that she placed her career ahead of her children? If so, then present it. Be aware that the statements of uninvolved third parties are not admissible in court, and therefore are not "evidence."

"Otherwise, you're full of shit."

Chuckle! You can't prove your point and you can't win, so you're reduced to calling me full of shit. You're on the run, leash-troll. You are my pet now.

"Obviously, you don't consider the evidence that I presented to be evidence."

Neither would a court.

"This, however, is not my problem."

It is if you're in a courtroom. Which is where this case could end up. And in said courtroom, your "evidence" wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel. Get it?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 02, 2001.

I provided the evidence. You can keep plugging your ears and yelling "No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" all you like. It's actually kind of fun to watch. This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one. If you want to fantasize about me being "harshly spanked by a judge" though, feel free. Whatever turns you on!

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 02, 2001.

Good job ‘ding’! You have joined a long list of posters that regularly eat ADH alive. Problem is, he is too absorbed with himself to realize that HE is the meal.

When you have finished, please bury what’s left of the carcass.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), July 02, 2001.

Why does Already do that? I think he hasn't had enough people tell him that he is loved. I love you Already. God loves you Already. Look in the mirror for your daily affirmations, "I'm good enough... and by golly people like me!"

Recently, in the news, a twenty year old did the same thing to her child, forgot the baby was in the back seat. The baby died after three hours in 130 degrees. Sorry, speaking as a busy mother of three, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could forget a child is sitting in the back seat. Throughout the day I constantly think about my children, what they might be doing, and when I get to see them next.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 02, 2001.

You really must read the threads more closely. I have clearly stated my taste for pussy on another thread. Those who falsely accuse me of being gay sometimes get beaten down harshly. Some of them even stop posting here after I get done with them. You could be next.

"so the woman shouldn't be condemned at all, huh?"

Not by YOU, no. You have no standing to condemn this woman. She fucked up, and your shrill bleating won't do a thing except get you all worked up. You should leave the condemning to the District Attorney in Des Moines, since he or she will be the one to decide how (or if) the matter will be prosecuted.

"the kid is already dead, so who gives a flying fuck what the child went through, huh?"

I didn't say that, but I did say that the matter was irrelevant. You are engaging in an appeal to emotion so that others will condemn Mrs. Engholm along with you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

all right cum drippings, scare me away.... I don't understand the liberal mind that says this person should be protected from condemnation... ALL of society should rise up in anger over this! This, by any definition, is at least manslaughter. Yet, as a fucked up liberal, you see nothing wrong here but a simple little *accident*, and we should all just quietly go about our business. We, as a society, have no business in cases of child abuse, child neglect that leads to manslaughter, right?? Your whole argument is making you the asshole here, "mama has suffered enough, leave here alone!" It isn't often that we get the chance to see a liberal cum so unglued and spit and sputter like this. After all, this was just a retro active abortion, wasn't it?

-- a retroactive abortion (abortion_is_legal@USA.com), July 02, 2001.

This IS a heart-breaking story. I can't imagine how I'd feel had I made such a fatal error. It's pretty easy [at least for ME] to get in the habit of doing one thing and continuing to do that thing until I finally realize that the thing I've always done is NOT the thing I must do today. I drove halfway to Fort Worth the first day I started a new job in Dallas. For three years I'd made that drive to Fort Worth and I think I was on auto-pilot. I got halfway to the car on my way to buy milk and bread the first week I was a mother. I might have slapped my forehead and uttered, "D'Oh", as I realized I'd left the baby alone in the house asleep.

We visited some friends in Boston one year and, after an afternoon of enjoying old memories with the male of the couple, he jumped up and said, "I forgot to pick up Karen Lee from school." He'd left four kids [in the carpool] standing on the street wondering where he was. My dad once forgot to pick up my daughter from Montessorri school. Who knows why he forgot? It certainly wasn't because he was a busy CEO.

Life is full of instances where we forget the things most important to us. We go back and engage in the "I should have" or "If only I" discussions with ourselves, and most times we're offered a second chance to put in that alarm system or put the yellow sticky on our foreheads. This woman and her husband don't get that second chance. I don't know what the courts will decide, but I sure wouldn't want to be the person(s) making the judgment.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 02, 2001.

Yes we all forget from time to time, Anita. You could turn your head for a moment and a child could drown in a pool or jump in front of traffic. We all expect (to a certain degree) these kinds of accidents. But to forget your child the entire work day?!

She had to pack the car with the twenty five pounds of diapers, extra clothes, food, baby wipes, and on and on. Pick up the child, place the child in the car seat and take the extra minutes to secure the child in the seat. Put the car in reverse and look behind to see the smiling child staring back at her. Occasionally look in the rear view mirror on the way to work to see the child in her peripheral vision. And then to forget for the rest of the day?! We can get side tracked for a few moments, minutes, maybe even an hour, but not the entire day. Sorry, I still don't understand. Not even a phone call to the babysitter checking that everything is alright?! It's not anywhere close to "auto pilot" and forgeting that you no longer work at a particular place, Anita. She has forgotten about her child, not an object or a meeting. I can't imagine going that long without the thought of my child popping in my head. I can't imagine.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 02, 2001.

We have extreme heat here in the summer. I have a particular horror of having this happen to the point where I have nightmares. Thirty minutes or less, depending on the outside temps, is all it takes to kill the child.

I have noticed that this seems to happen in vans fairly often. I wonder if a child is very visible if placed in the back seat if the driver's seat is high backed. Van windows are higher from the ground, and most vans don't have a rear-compartment door on the driver's side.

This was a break in the woman's routine. Many people with regular child care do not take a diaper bag. They leave the baby's stuff at the sitter's. In virtually every case of this I have heard of, the parent or caretaker who left the baby was not the primary caretaker. In two cases the caretaker had several other children in her care and simply forgot who was still in the van.

Does anyone know how to get an baby-on-board alarm system for a car out of my head and into an actual car?

-- helen (hot@as.hell.already), July 02, 2001.

"I provided the evidence."

No, Ding. You provided the reasons why you want to see this woman condemned. Evidence it is not. It would not stand up in any courtroom in this country. You have failed again.

"You can keep plugging your ears and yelling "No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" all you like."

There's no ear-plugging going on here. I have listened to you. Your problem is that you simply don't have any hard-and-fast evidence to back up what you say. You've got REASONS, but those reasons are not enough to prove what you have claimed. Oh, BTW, attorneys like to get people like you on juries; people who are slow on the uptake, easily fooled, and likely to be swayed by emotional arguments. Look for your jury duty summons in the mail any day now.

"It's actually kind of fun to watch."

Actually, it's not. What an undignified way to remember a child's tragic death.

"This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one."

You asked for evidence, and I gave you courtroom-ready evidence. There's none better, Dudley. And if placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, then why are you screaming so loudly about it.

"If you want to fantasize about me being "harshly spanked by a judge" though, feel free. Whatever turns you on!"

Doesn't do much for me one way or the other. I just can't stand to see some Philistine asshole draw unsupported conclusions that lead to the condemning of people he's never met because of events he didn't witness.

Telinet bleated:

"Good job ‘ding’!"

No, bad job, Ding. Ding has failed. You are failing, too.

"You have joined a long list of posters that regularly eat ADH alive."

No one has ever eaten me alive, and no one ever will. I win all debates I participate in, because I do not participate unless I am absolutely certain I can prevail. More posters here, yourself included, would do well to remember that. No one ever beats me, Telinet. You never will, either.

"Problem is, he is too absorbed with himself to realize that HE is the meal."

Giggle! Just as Ding cannot prove his points, so too are you unable to prove yours. You are ignorant. You are foolish. You are my inferior. And you are wrong.

"When you have finished, please bury what’s left of the carcass."

I cannot be defeated, and I cannot be killed. I am your nightmare. I am the poster you cannot defeat. I am your master.

The quoth Maria:

"Why does Already do that?"

Why does Already do what? Disagree with disagreeable people? You must be more clear, Maria.

"I think he hasn't had enough people tell him that he is loved."

On the contrary. I have a very satisfying life, with beloved family members and an affectionate lady. You would not be trying to engage in that armchair psychoanalysis that you so often ridicule, would you?

"I love you Already."

Well, that's a great help! Thank you, Anita, and I love you too!

"God loves you Already."

I think not, since there is no god.

"Look in the mirror for your daily affirmations, "I'm good enough... and by golly people like me!"

Not necessary. My life is satisfying. This board is merely entertainment for me. It is tremendously entertaining to slam down ignorami like Ain't, Shadow, Remember, Ding and others, only to watch them squirm, struggle, scream and eventually disappear from the boartd entirely. Ding will disappear soon. So will Telinet.

"Recently, in the news, a twenty year old did the same thing to her child, forgot the baby was in the back seat. The baby died after three hours in 130 degrees. Sorry, speaking as a busy mother of three, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could forget a child is sitting in the back seat."

I can't understand it, either, but that does not give Ding license to shit on the mother. At least Helen is trying to go somewhere positive in the wake of the tragedy. Ding and this asshole "retroactive abortion" are just using the tragedy to make some sick point or another.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 03, 2001.

"all right cum drippings, scare me away...."

I don't scare people away. I embarrass them until the only course of action left is for them to run away with their tails between their legs.

"I don't understand the liberal mind that says this person should be protected from condemnation..."

Now, this is why you should know the people on this board better. I am not a liberal. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. See? Now you're just fucking up worse and making yourself look bad.

People who disagree with you are not automatically liberals. You are not INTELLIGENT enough to be the model that all conservatives should style themselves after. Go crawl back under your rock.

"ALL of society should rise up in anger over this!"

In this case, the DA in Des Moines ACTS in society's interest by pursuing the case. You really are stupid. We are a society of laws, not of torch- and farm-implement-wielding mobs. Dumbass.

"This, by any definition, is at least manslaughter."

Maybe, maybe not. Are you conversant with Iowa law?

"Yet, as a fucked up liberal,"

WRONG, DIPSHIT. You are going to be taken apart for that. You are too stupid to speak for me and other conservatives.

"you see nothing wrong here but a simple little *accident*,"

No accident that YOU need to do anything about.

"and we should all just quietly go about our business."

Including the DA in Des Moines. I particularly think he should go about his business, and pursue this case using his best judgment. You, however, have already decided that we're talking about manslaughter. Guess we can do away with our legal system so long as we have you around, huh? Can we toss out that pesky Constitution, too? Dipshit.

"We, as a society, have no business in cases of child abuse, child neglect that leads to manslaughter, right??"

We, as a society, have laws and a legal system to deal with all those things. And there is also a DA in Des Moines that is conveniently ready, willing and able to take on the Engholm case. Yet YOU don't seem to want that to happen. When the DA takes on the case, that IS society addressing the matter, you moron. Just because you can't get a mob to join you in the village square to stone this woman doesn't mean that society (and I) don't care. Society already has it well in hand and does not need YOU to tell it what to do, fool.

"Your whole argument is making you the asshole here, "mama has suffered enough, leave here alone!"

Ah. Perhaps you could show us where I said that -- and where I said she should receive NO punishment. Perhaps you could read all the places where I said that Des Moines DA should pursue this case, and then tell me where I am advocating letting Mrs. Engholm off. Perhaps you could tell me how taking this woman to court equals doing nothing to her. Perhaps you could explain all that to us.

You are a fucking illiterate.

"It isn't often that we get the chance to see a liberal cum so unglued and spit and sputter like this."

Really? I don't see any liberals on this thread, except maybe Anita. All I see is a nutjob who doesn't even know who or what he is arguing with. All I see is a loon who's arguing with another CONSERVATIVE. All I see is a foolish person who doesn't even READ what he responds to, and therefore digs his own hole deeper.

"After all, this was just a retro active abortion, wasn't it?"

Ignorant illiterates like yourself sometimes make me ashamed to be a conservative. No. It was a tragedy, as I have said repeatedly.

Anita, good points. Please recognize that I do think this matter should play out in court, and that the legal system should determine what sanction, if any, to place on Mrs. Engholm. Condemning her online is no help to anyone.

"I don't know what the courts will decide, but I sure wouldn't want to be the person(s) making the judgment."

Well-said. Obviously Ding and Retroactive have no such compunctions. I wonder where they fall on the Yates case?

"Does anyone know how to get an baby-on-board alarm system for a car out of my head and into an actual car?"

Helen, automotive engineering is not my forte. But perhaps someone here knows something about that.

Got to go. I'm closing on the purchase of some properties today, and the bankers and attorneys won't wait.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 03, 2001.

"I provided the evidence."

No, Ding. You provided the reasons why you want to see this woman condemned. Evidence it is not.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL

It would not stand up in any courtroom in this country.

I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime.

"You can keep plugging your ears and yelling "No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" all you like."

There's no ear-plugging going on here. I have listened to you. Your problem is that you simply don't have any hard-and-fast evidence to back up what you say.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!"

"It's actually kind of fun to watch."

Actually, it's not.

So now you're telling me what I think is fun to watch? You're really into this mind reading thing, aren't you? And really, it IS fun to watch. I can even provide a DIRECT QUOTE from the person in question.

"It's fun to watch," I said.

There. See?

And if placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, then why are you screaming so loudly about it.

Because I don't think it's very nice. Believe it or not, it's possible for something to be not very nice and still not be a crime. Were you not aware that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime? Might want to check those law books you're so fond of. LOL.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 03, 2001.

Already, "I can't understand it, either, but that does not give Ding license to shit on the mother."

Last I looked it was a free country where people can speak out and "shit on" whomever. Someone who can forget about their child for that long deserves a few blows from some unknown forum member and a lot more in my mind. And another thing, who are YOU giving out licenses anyway? Sorry, I didn't know you held such power.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 03, 2001.

Parenthood is not the hardest job in the world

-- (working@mother.busy), July 03, 2001.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL"

It is not evidence simply because you claim it is, Ding. You have not proven what was on Mrs. Engholm's mind. Citing what others SAY was on her mind does not prove what was, in fact, on HER mind. You don't know much about proving your assertions, and you have failed again to prove them.

"I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime."

Oh? Then why are you screaming so loudly about this? In any event, the fact that you are not a lawyer is readily apparent. You'll fit in just fine on a jury, though.

Ding, the fact of the matter is that YOU claimed that Mrs. Engholm put her career before her children, but the only "evidence" you have presented actually supports my contention that don't HAVE any evidence to support your claim. You have not quoted Mrs. Engholm. You have no statement from her. You have no quotes from her. You only have what others have said. That is not evidence. You are wrong. Everything you are saying simply supports what I've said.

>>>>>"It's actually kind of fun to watch."

>>>>>Actually, it's not.

"So now you're telling me what I think is fun to watch?"

No, you ignorant sack of shit. I was telling you that I don't think it is any fun to watch. If you think it's fun, then you're sicker than I thought.

"You're really into this mind reading thing, aren't you?"

Nope. You just ASSUMED an incorrect meaning. I spoke for myself, not you. But again, if you think it is fun to argue over a child's death, then you are sicker than I thought, Ding.

"And really, it IS fun to watch. I can even provide a DIRECT QUOTE from the person in question."

"It's fun to watch," I said.

"There. See?"

That's all fine and dandy, Ding, except that I said that I didn't think this was fun to watch. Once again you fail. Oh, and if you were trying to speak for ME and say that I thought this was fun to watch (which, you will notice, I didn't accuse you of), then you would AGAIN be wrong. Lousy track record there, guy.

>>>>>"And if placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, then why are you screaming so loudly about it."

"Because I don't think it's very nice."

Fine. Except that you can't prove that Mrs. Engholm did that.

"Believe it or not, it's possible for something to be not very nice and still not be a crime."

Believe it or not, it's possible for something to look one way, but be totally another. You have no idea what sort of person Mrs. Engholm is, but you appear to have decided FOR HER that she puts her career before her children (demonstrably false, because she has another, older child) and that she's "not very nice." You really seem to feel that your assessment of the situation is, by definition, accurate and error-free. Yet you admittedly are not an attorney and you can't even present a quote or a statement to police from Mrs. Engholm? What a ridiculous assertion.

But to return to your claim that what she did was "not very nice" and "not . . . a crime," well, we don't know that for a fact, either. Based on the sketchy information we have here, we could very well be looking and child endangerment charges. We could be looking at involuntary manslaughter charges. Most likely, we are looking at at least child neglect charges, depending on how Iowa state law is written. But you and this "retroactive abortion" jerkoff need to let the Des Moines DA and the Iowa legal system work that out for themselves before you get a rope to string Mrs. Engholm up. People OTHER than you will decide what happens to this woman, and based on your demonstrated behavior and lack of reasoning skills, I'd say that's a good thing.

"Were you not aware that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime?"

I'm aware of it. If you will go back and reread this thread, you will see that my whole problem with you is that you've decided something about this woman with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Now you go back and consider the potential charges that I listed above. See what an ass you're making of yourself?

"Might want to check those law books you're so fond of. LOL."

Actually, it wouldn't hurt YOU to read "Rules of Evidence." That'd stop your inane laughing real quick.

Maria said that:

"Last I looked it was a free country where people can speak out and "shit on" whomever."

Maria, if Ding were accusing you of being a bad mother and of putting your career before your children, what, exactly, would you think about that? Under the right circumstances (or the wrong ones, depending on your point of view), you could slap him with a defamation suit and probably win.

"Someone who can forget about their child for that long deserves a few blows from some unknown forum member and a lot more in my mind."

Hmm. So, Maria, you're handing out sentences for Mrs. Engholm and licenses for "unknown forum members" to give her "a few blows" and "a lot more?" I didn't know you held such power. Giggle!

"And another thing, who are YOU giving out licenses anyway? Sorry, I didn't know you held such power.

I'm not handing out licenses; I'm exercising my freedom of speech, which OUGHT to make a lot of sense to you. Here we have a third party talking shit about this woman without proof, and I'm responding. Ding's exercising his freedom of speech and so am I. Did you miss something there? The best solution to speech that pisses you off is not to shut off the source of the offending speech - - the best solution is MORE SPEECH. And that's what I'm doing here, Maria.

I haven't told Ding to shut up. I've simply told him he has no proof for his assertions. And he doesn't.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 04, 2001.

BTW, Maria, you have just had an ass-whipping at the hands of ADH. Next time we meet, maybe you won't try to censor me or deny me my First Amendment right to free speech.

Now I'm going to gorge on ribs, beans and tater salad.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 04, 2001.

It is not evidence simply because you claim it is, Ding.

And just because you claim it isn't doesn't mean it's not. LOL.

"I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime."

Oh? Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?

Geez, I already answered this. I said it wasn't very nice. Your short-term memory problems are acting up again. I mean, check this out:

You have not quoted Mrs. Engholm. You have no statement from her. You have no quotes from her.

You just said the same thing three times! So are you saying that I don't have any quote from her or what? LOL

You only have what others have said. That is not evidence.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" Really, this IS fun.

But again, if you think it is fun to argue over a child's death, then you are sicker than I thought, Ding.

I wasn't referring to arguing over a child's death. I was referring to watching you continue to deny the evidence I have presented. That, coupled with the overt S&M tone pervading your posts, makes this a hilarious situation indeed.

But to return to your claim that what she did was "not very nice" and "not . . . a crime," well, we don't know that for a fact, either.

Yes, with the little ellipses there it makes it look like I said that what she did wasn't a crime. Of course we all know that I never said that. What I said was that what I was accusing her of was not a crime. Which it is not.

"Were you not aware that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime?"

I'm aware of it. If you will go back and reread this thread, you will see that my whole problem with you is that you've decided something about this woman with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 04, 2001.

"And just because you claim it isn't doesn't mean it's not. LOL."

Do I really need to present citations from Rules of Evidence? You claimed you knew what she was thinking. You haven't presented a single scrap of evidence or statement FROM MRS. ENGHOLM to prove your point. Also, one does not prove a negative. YOU made the claim, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to PROVE it. And you have not done so. I am not obligated to disprove your claim, though I've actually done a very good job of it (with your help). You made a positive assertion, and you are obliged to prove it. Unless and until your assertion is proven (which you have not done), the opposing negative assertion carries the day.

Basic debate, Ding. Obviously you were out sick that day in school.

"Geez, I already answered this. I said it wasn't very nice. Your short-term memory problems are acting up again. I mean, check this out:"

Incorrect, Ding. The first time I asked you "why are you bringing this up," I asked you in response to your statement that "However, nothing I read in the article indicated that she was insane." The second time I asked, it was in response to your statement that ""This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one." Go back. Reread. See it for yourself.

Looks like YOU are the one with the short-term memory problem.

"You just said the same thing three times! So are you saying that I don't have any quote from her or what? LOL"

Yes, I am. And you STILL do not have any direct evidence from her. You have no support for your claim.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" Really, this IS fun."

As I said, you are a sick bastard. At least Helen wants to see some good come out of this, as do I am several other posters to the Baby Alarm thread. You're simply a sad sack of shit who apparently wants to condemn this woman for your own amusement. Do you have your rocks, rope, pitchfork and torch ready to go to the big rally in the town square?

"I wasn't referring to arguing over a child's death. I was referring to watching you continue to deny the evidence I have presented."

You can present statements from others as proof of what a person DID, but you cannot present statements from others as proof of what a person THOUGHT. You have presented no evidence, Ding. No direct statement from Mrs. Engholm = no evidence. Reread that until it sinks in.

"That, coupled with the overt S&M tone pervading your posts, makes this a hilarious situation indeed."

Really? I had no idea. Tell us more. I can hardly wait.

"Yes, with the little ellipses there it makes it look like I said that what she did wasn't a crime."

Pffffffft, what a whiner you are. I included the ellipses so that others could SEE that your words were edited by me, and that they should go look at the source if they wanted to see the exact words you used. The ellipses are there as an indication that your exact words are not being reproduced, you moron.

"Of course we all know that I never said that."

You DID say those words, in that order. You are ridiculous. You claim intimate knowledge of other people's minds without statements from them, and deny saying words that came straight from you. What a ridiculous ass you are.

"What I said was that what I was accusing her of was not a crime. Which it is not."

And you might be right, might be wrong. I stand by my statements regarding the Des Moines DA and allowing the Iowa legal system to sort this matter out.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL."

You might find it funny, but it's true. The only thing I find funny on this thread is your insistence on 'knowing' something with no direct evidence. Oh, yes, and trying to deny that you posted things that came directly from you.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 05, 2001.

Do I really need to present citations from Rules of Evidence?

Beats me. If you feel the need you certainly can, but since I haven't accused her of a crime, it's still irrelevant. But hey, knock yourself out.

"Geez, I already answered this. I said it wasn't very nice. Your short-term memory problems are acting up again. I mean, check this out:"

Incorrect, Ding. The first time I asked you "why are you bringing this up," I asked you in response to your statement that "However, nothing I read in the article indicated that she was insane." The second time I asked, it was in response to your statement that ""This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one." Go back. Reread. See it for yourself.

LOL!!!! Now you can't even remember what YOU wrote! The question I had already answered was not "why are you bringing this up." It was, "Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?" BOTH were responses to my statement that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime and that I was not accusing her of one. Do a find on the word "screaming" in this thread and see for yourself.

"That, coupled with the overt S&M tone pervading your posts, makes this a hilarious situation indeed."

Really? I had no idea. Tell us more. I can hardly wait.

About what? The S&M tone? You mean you didn't notice?

"What I said was that what I was accusing her of was not a crime. Which it is not."

And you might be right, might be wrong.

But I accused her of placing her career before her kids and that this is not a crime. Are you now saying that it IS a crime?

I stand by my statements regarding the Des Moines DA and allowing the Iowa legal system to sort this matter out.

Fine by me.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL."

You might find it funny, but it's true.

Yes, well, I'm sure if you say it enough times it will become true, right? LOL!

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 05, 2001.

Looks like the mother may face charges. If the point of legal penalty is to rehabilitate the criminal, then this woman has already been taught to check every seat in her vehicle before leaving it. In fact, she may lose her mind checking her vehicle over and over in her nightmares for the rest of her life. To put her in jail will punish her remaining child with the loss of his mother. Her remaining child may be the child least likely in America to ever be left in a vehicle, so what's the point of jailing her now?

-- helen (check@the.back), July 05, 2001.

Is anyone else embarassed for ding@ding.ding? It's not often that someone digs such a deep hole for themselves.

-- (hmmm@hmmm.hmmmm), July 05, 2001.

I've always wanted to visit China.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 05, 2001.

"you have just had an ass-whipping at the hands of ADH." Now that IS funny. You DO take yourself so seriously. LOL Thanks for the chuckle. Do it again please :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 05, 2001.

Ding --

>>>>>Do I really need to present citations from Rules of Evidence? "Beats me. If you feel the need you certainly can, but since I haven't accused her of a crime, it's still irrelevant. But hey, knock yourself out."

You claimed you had "evidence." You don't. To buttress my claim, I offered citations from Rules of Evidence. Do you want them, or do you just want to continue braying about your evidence that isn't?

>>>>>Incorrect, Ding. The first time I asked you "why are you bringing this up," I asked you in response to your statement that "However, nothing I read in the article indicated that she was insane." The second time I asked, it was in response to your statement that ""This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one." Go back. Reread. See it for yourself.

"LOL!!!! Now you can't even remember what YOU wrote!"

Wrong. I remembered just fine. You did not, so I had to reproduce the two citations to remind you of what I wrote. Try again.

"The question I had already answered was not "why are you bringing this up." It was, "Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?"

Screaming loudly about two different things, Ding. Learn to read.

"BOTH were responses to my statement that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime and that I was not accusing her of one."

Wrong. Go back. Reread both the places where I ask you why you are screaming. Note that I am asking why you are screaming about two different things.

"Do a find on the word "screaming" in this thread and see for yourself."

I already did. I found (just as I remembered) that I asked you about two different things. Looks like you're the one suffering from the short-term memory loss, Dingerino.

>>>>>Really? I had no idea. Tell us more. I can hardly wait.

"About what? The S&M tone? You mean you didn't notice?"

You seem to think that matters are always exactly as you perceive. Just because you THINK I am taking an "S&M tone" (whatever that's supposed to be) doesn't mean I am. I'd like to know why you think that I am. Saying "you mean you didn't notice" implies that your perceptions are always right and are evident to others, which, of course, are not true propositions. Your perceptions are not always right, and mind-reading just doesn't happen. So why not just come right out and say what you mean?

>>>>>And you might be right, might be wrong.

"But I accused her of placing her career before her kids and that this is not a crime. Are you now saying that it IS a crime?"

If "placing her career before her kids" directly resulted in the neglect and/or death of one of her children, then yes, it would be a crime. Don't you RECOGNIZE that? My whole beef with you is that you decided that she DID do that, and you decided it WITHOUT evidence. See, if it could be proven in the legal system that she did, in fact, place her career before her kids, then I'd be calling for punishment right along with you and this "retroactive abortion" asshole. But you two seem so wrapped up in your own overwrought opinions and apparent desires to smack this woman around that you're not even waiting for evidence. You're apparently ready to find a rope and a tree and string Mrs. Engholm up.

>>>>>I stand by my statements regarding the Des Moines DA and allowing the Iowa legal system to sort this matter out.

"Fine by me."

Then why don't we agree to follow the story together and see where it goes? Don't you think we would both benefit more by discussing this objectively than by using flamethrowers on each other?

"Yes, well, I'm sure if you say it enough times it will become true, right? LOL!"

Actually, Ding, you're the one saying "yes, it is, yes, it is, yes, it is." Yet your original claim is false, and repeating it over and over will not make it true. Presenting actual evidence could make it true. Got any for us?

Helen --

"Looks like the mother may face charges."

Helen, can you point us to a resource that we can all read? I would like to follow this case.

"If the point of legal penalty is to rehabilitate the criminal, then this woman has already been taught to check every seat in her vehicle before leaving it."

Some folks agree with your point. But some say that the point of legal sanction is to have society impose punishment on the accused. Tim McVeigh's recent death surely wasn't aimed at rehabilitating him. I don't know Iowa law, so I can't speak for the legal system there, but if we can get some more information, perhaps we can see for ourselves what the thought process is up in Des Moines.

"In fact, she may lose her mind checking her vehicle over and over in her nightmares for the rest of her life. To put her in jail will punish her remaining child with the loss of his mother."

It would be a regrettable situation, yes. I expect that any judge hearing the case would consider that factor when imposing sentence.

"Her remaining child may be the child least likely in America to ever be left in a vehicle, so what's the point of jailing her now?"

Again, Helen, the point would be punishment, rather than rehabilitation. How appropriate or desirable any potential punishment would be, I cannot yet say. I need to know more about the circumstances surrounding the case.

I will come back on the baby alarm thread and comment further. Perhaps tonight or over the weekend.

"you have just had an ass-whipping at the hands of ADH." Now that IS funny. You DO take yourself so seriously. LOL Thanks for the chuckle. Do it again please :)"

Your response is even funnier, Maria, especially considering how you used to follow Tarzan around just to pick a fight. Weren't taking yourself too seriously then, were you? And are you sure that you weren't taking yourself too seriously when that guy from Georgia put you in your place? And you're not talking about "licenses" and "free speech" any more, are you?

If I were you, I wouldn't be sniping at people for taking themselves "too seriously." You're just about the Queen of Taking Oneself too Seriously.

Off with her head! ;)

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 06, 2001.

Ding dong, are you flyin high? LoL. Come on people, it MUST be hawk, vulgar bird that he is. ;-0

-- ME (Isez@you.know), July 06, 2001.

Already, think whatever you wish about me. I couldn't give a shit what you think. FACT IS, you don't know me and you never will. But keep guessing, I find your banter quite amusing. Once again thanks for the chuckle.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 06, 2001.

You claimed you had "evidence." You don't. To buttress my claim, I offered citations from Rules of Evidence. Do you want them, or do you just want to continue braying about your evidence that isn't?

And as I said, if they relate to evidence as it applies to a courtroom, then it's irrelevant since I did not accuse her of a crime. If you want to post them anyway, be my guest.

"LOL!!!! Now you can't even remember what YOU wrote!"

Wrong. I remembered just fine. You did not, so I had to reproduce the two citations to remind you of what I wrote. Try again.

Amazing!! I had no idea you would be having so much trouble with such a simple concept. I will attempt to simplify it further so that your obviously tiny brain can comprehend. It started with the

First Post

I said:

"This isn't a courtroom, and placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, so it would never be tried in one."

and you responded with:

And if placing your career before your kids isn't a crime, then why are you screaming so loudly about it.

I then answered your question about why I was "screaming so loudly about it." Since you probably forgot already, the answer was "Because I don't think it's very nice." You then followed up in the

Second Post

where I said:

"I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime."

and you responded with:

Oh? Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?

So again you asked the question of why I was "screaming so loudly about this" in response to my premise that what she did wasn't a crime!! And even when this is pointed out to you, you still do not understand! One would think that someone who is supposedly literate in several languages would be able to grasp such a simple concept. Perhaps English isn't one of the "several?" LOL

Just because you THINK I am taking an "S&M tone" (whatever that's supposed to be) doesn't mean I am. I'd like to know why you think that I am.

Okay, I'll even provide DIRECT QUOTES for you:

you are now my leash-troll. You are my toy.

You are my pet now.

You'd be harshly spanked by a judge

I am your master.

So, I mean, is this turning you on or something?? LOL

"But I accused her of placing her career before her kids and that this is not a crime. Are you now saying that it IS a crime?"

If "placing her career before her kids" directly resulted in the neglect and/or death of one of her children, then yes, it would be a crime.

And yet when I said this:

"Were you not aware that placing your career before your kids isn't a crime?"

Your response was

I'm aware of it.

So, before, you were aware that it wasn't a crime. Now, you're saying it might be a crime. So which is it? Make up your mind!! LOL

>>>>>I stand by my statements regarding the Des Moines DA and allowing the Iowa legal system to sort this matter out.

"Fine by me."

Then why don't we agree to follow the story together and see where it goes? Don't you think we would both benefit more by discussing this objectively than by using flamethrowers on each other?

I was following the story. I also made a one line rhetorical comment about the situation. You then got all pissy and called me a "sad, sad, sack of shit" and "stupid, hateful and vindictive" for my observation. You could have just ignored my comment but you wanted to start using flamethrowers rather than discussing this objectively. If you want to stop, then that's fine with me as well.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 06, 2001.

ding, try as you might "discussing" anything with ADH is pointless. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 06, 2001.

Her remaining child may be the child least likely in America to ever be left in a vehicle

This reminds me of when Jack in the Box had an outbreak of e-coli here in Seattle. Since it is 5 blocks from my parents house I asked my Doctor if he though it would be save to eat there (6 months later). He said it was probably the safest hamburger joint in Seattle, after what had happened there.

I used to have nightmares about forgetting one of my kids somewhere. But my mind would be on them until I sat down at work and started concentrating on the job at hand. Even then I thought about them constantly throughput the day. I have to wonder where the mother's mind was as she drove to work that day. Perhaps it will come out in the investigation.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 06, 2001.

Good Morning America mentioned that the mother may face charges. Let's see...this is Friday. I don't remember if they said this Thursday morning or Wednesday morning. I have a very hard time remembering finer details like that.

Which brings me to my next point:

I'm awfully, damned tired. I have to organize my thinking like an obsessive-compulsive where the kids are concerned because I'm so tired. I have to work, and to make sure the kids are taken care of by a parent at all times, I have to work awful shifts.

This woman's husband normally took the baby to a sitter. The mother normally took her son to daycare in the building where she worked. She didn't forget her son. She was clearly set on automatic.

I have no way of knowing, but I wonder if her husband put the baby in the van for her? My husband tries to help me at times by putting things in the car for me, and I have to beg him not to -- it screws up my compulsively organized thinking. If I'm supposed to return books to the library, I MUST be the one to put them in the car in order to remember to do it.

If the woman put the baby in the van herself, was the baby placed in the furthest back seat?? To me the baby would have been clearly visible to a driver if placed in the middle seat.

At any rate, this woman will never forget anyone in a vehicle. She may be unable to work. I see no point in spending tax dollars locking her up to prevent her from doing something she will never repeat any way. The little boy will be scarred enough by the death, so it is necessary to destroy what remains of this family?

I've had two engine fires and had to remove a toddler from a carseat in the back of the vehicle each time. I have a regular nightmare, again just two night ago (or was it three?) where I know I got the baby out, but I go back into the burning car because I can't remember if any of the other kids are still in there. I can't imagine what kind of nightmares this woman will have for the rest of her life.

-- helen (burning@dreams.little.sleep), July 06, 2001.

"Already, think whatever you wish about me."

You already know that I will, so don't bother with the permission. I require no permission from you to do whatever I want with you.

"I couldn't give a shit what you think."

It is well known on this board that you care INTENSELY what people think about you. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such a big noise, thread after thread, that your opponents "just don't matter." You sound more like you're trying to convince yourself than trying to convince onlookers. Just give it up, Maria. We know how seriously you take this board, your protests notwithstanding.

"FACT IS, you don't know me and you never will."

FACT IS you claim that and gripe about people analyzing your behavior, but FACT IS that you turn right around and do it yourself. If people don't know you, then you don't know them. So stop trying. What a sad caricature of a human being you are.

"But keep guessing, I find your banter quite amusing. Once again thanks for the chuckle."

No, Maria. You have this all wrong. You are my toy, and you are now my property. Post again for me. I command it!

"ding, try as you might "discussing" anything with ADH is pointless."

Yes, because you will never win. Haven't you learned that yet?

"It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

That's extra funny, coming from someone whose every point on this thread has been slapped down by me. Are you done handing out licenses and trying to censor me, Maria? ROFLOL!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 07, 2001.

What a load of whining prattle, Ding.

"And as I said, if they relate to evidence as it applies to a courtroom, then it's irrelevant since I did not accuse her of a crime. If you want to post them anyway, be my guest."

As I pointed out, what you accused her of MAY VERY WELL BE A CRIME if it resulted in the death of her daughter, Clare. Now do you want the citations or not? Stop dancing around the question.

>>>>>Wrong. I remembered just fine. You did not, so I had to reproduce the two citations to remind you of what I wrote. Try again.

"Amazing!! I had no idea you would be having so much trouble with such a simple concept."

I'm having no trouble with it at all. I went back AGAIN, found the places I asked you the question, and noted that my queries were in response to TWO DIFFERENT statements from you. I'm surprised that you're having trouble with such a simple concept.

Okay, dumbass, here's your daily spanking. In your second post, I am asking you the question in response to this exchange:

ADH>>>It would not stand up in any courtroom in this country.

Ding>>>I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime.

ADH>>>Oh? Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?

The question is being asked in response to YOUR response re:EVIDENCE. If you don't know about the admissibility of evidence, then why are you screaming so loudly?

I cede that I did not search properly, but you are in error when you claim that I asked you the same question twice in response to the same statement. Point goes to me, Ding.

"So again you asked the question of why I was "screaming so loudly about this" in response to my premise that what she did wasn't a crime!!"

No. You are in error. The second time the question is asked, it is being asked in reference to evidence. Your slick attempt to take the question out of context may actually have worked on some of our less sophisticated posters, but it didn't work on me. Context, context, context, Ding. We will work on that together.

"And even when this is pointed out to you, you still do not understand!"

Mostly because you didn't understand it. Again you fail.

"One would think that someone who is supposedly literate in several languages would be able to grasp such a simple concept."

Such a simple concept as context? Sure, I grasp it. You appear to be the one who missed it.

"Perhaps English isn't one of the "several?" LOL"

English is one of the several. But what I would like to know is why YOU are having so much trouble with it. You insist on trying to read my mind, but the simple fact is, Ding, that you are wrong.

>>>>>Just because you THINK I am taking an "S&M tone" (whatever that's supposed to be) doesn't mean I am. I'd like to know why you think that I am.

"Okay, I'll even provide DIRECT QUOTES for you:"

>>>>>you are now my leash-troll. You are my toy.

You are, in fact, my leash-troll, and you will continue to post at me. I have lots of leash-trolls on this post. But rather than being S&M-related in nature, this statement indicates that my leash-trolls are no more than dogs, incessantly yapping and barking. You are such a troll. Done reading minds yet?

>>>>>You are my pet now.

Well, you are. You're like my pet dog now. Maybe people like you who are into S&M do it with dogs, but I don't. My pets are kept out of the bedroom when I and my lady are going at it. Of course, what you do in your bedroom is your own business, subject to local and state laws.

>>>>>You'd be harshly spanked by a judge

You WOULD be, if you tried the tactic I pointed out. S&M is beside the point. Are you sure that YOU aren't the one obsessed with it? You certainly do seem to be.

"I am your master."

Well, I am. And you will continue to post here as long as it pleases me for you to do so.

"So, I mean, is this turning you on or something?? LOL"

Not me, but it seems to be turning YOU on. I wasn't getting a woody from this; if you are (maybe your apparent desire to stone Mrs. Engholm is getting you all hot and bothered) then you're sicker than I thought.

"So, before, you were aware that it wasn't a crime. Now, you're saying it might be a crime. So which is it? Make up your mind!! LOL"

My mind's made up. The pure act of placing one's career before one's children is not, in and of itself a crime, just as I said. That is a fact. However, in Mrs. Engholm's case, depending on the circumstances, it COULD very well be a crime, once again, just as I said. There is no back-sliding going on here; simply your imperfect understanding and poor reading skills. Yet I am more than willing to explain myself more fully, as I am generous and magnanimous. Such an arrangement could only be of benefit to you, so I recommend you avail yourself of it. Perchance your English reading skills will be improved as a result.

"I was following the story. I also made a one line rhetorical comment about the situation."

You made a rash condemnation WITHOUT EVIDENCE. You posted as you saw fit. So did I. Live with it.

"You then got all pissy and called me a "sad, sad, sack of shit" and "stupid, hateful and vindictive" for my observation."

That's right. And your behavior hasn't dispelled that impression. In fact, it has reinforced it.

"You could have just ignored my comment"

Could have. And you could have simply not posted, or not responded. Seems like your "solutions" all involve me doing or not doing something. No stink on you, is there, Ding?

"but you wanted to start using flamethrowers rather than discussing this objectively."

People who post politely get polite posts from me. Ask Helen. People who post abusively get abusive posts from me. Ask Ain't. Where you fall with me is your choice, because you get what you give. If you want to use a throwaway troll name and post shit like you did, then I'm going to get up in your face. I don't think you were expecting anyone to respond, and that's probably why you used the troll name in the first place.

"If you want to stop, then that's fine with me as well."

My whole gripe with you has been that you condemned Mrs. Engholm with no evidence, and that hasn't changed since you and I first entered this thread. If you'd like to retract your claim and then follow this case with me, then you might find me affable and erudite. If, however, you'd like to follow the "retroactive abortion" school of posting, then we can just continue to shit on each other. Pick one.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 07, 2001.

"And as I said, if they relate to evidence as it applies to a courtroom, then it's irrelevant since I did not accuse her of a crime. If you want to post them anyway, be my guest."

As I pointed out, what you accused her of MAY VERY WELL BE A CRIME if it resulted in the death of her daughter, Clare. Now do you want the citations or not? Stop dancing around the question.

LOL!! I'm not dancing around anything. I told you TWICE that you can post it if you want. Not that I would expect you to remember that or anything. Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that what I accused her of is not a crime.

I'm having no trouble with it at all. I went back AGAIN, found the places I asked you the question, and noted that my queries were in response to TWO DIFFERENT statements from you. I'm surprised that you're having trouble with such a simple concept.

Okay, dumbass, here's your daily spanking. In your second post, I am asking you the question in response to this exchange:

ADH>>>It would not stand up in any courtroom in this country.

Ding>>>I don't know if it would or wouldn't, since I'm not a lawyer. That's irrelevant, however, since I haven't accused her of a crime.

ADH>>>Oh? Then why are you screaming so loudly about this?

The question is being asked in response to YOUR response re:EVIDENCE. If you don't know about the admissibility of evidence, then why are you screaming so loudly?

LOL!!! What a pathetic attempt at a save! Okay, so let me get this straight. You were asking why I was screaming so loudly in response to the first sentence in the quote. Well, then, why did you include the second sentence? And I had already pointed out that what I was accusing her of was not a crime so why would I care about the admissibility of evidence if I wasn't even accusing her of a crime?? Why would you ask such a ridiculous question since it had already been answered?

I wasn't getting a woody from this; if you are (maybe your apparent desire to stone Mrs. Engholm is getting you all hot and bothered) then you're sicker than I thought.

Okay, where do you get the idea that I have a desire to stone Mrs. Engholm? Are you trying to read my mind?? LOL!

My mind's made up. The pure act of placing one's career before one's children is not, in and of itself a crime, just as I said. That is a fact.

Excellent!! That is what i have been arguing all along!! All that I have accused her of is placing her career before her kids. And that is not a crime. That is a fact. LOL

However, in Mrs. Engholm's case, depending on the circumstances, it COULD very well be a crime, once again, just as I said.

Well either it IS a crime or it ISN'T. Is the "pure act of placing one's career before one's children" a crime or not?? Because all I accused her of was the "pure act," nothing more.

"I was following the story. I also made a one line rhetorical comment about the situation."

You made a rash condemnation WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL, here we go again!

"If you want to stop, then that's fine with me as well."

My whole gripe with you has been that you condemned Mrs. Engholm with no evidence, and that hasn't changed since you and I first entered this thread. If you'd like to retract your claim and then follow this case with me, then you might find me affable and erudite.

I'd be happy to follow this case with you, but I see no reason why I should retract my claim since I still consider my evidence to be evidence. Obviously, you do not. We can either "agree to disagree" on this issue and move on or continue with the flamethrowers. Makes no difference to me either way.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 07, 2001.

FYI this is the latest I've seen on this case. Sorry about the format but I don't know how to do a link.

Baby investigation continues The Dallas County attorney has not filed charges against the child's mother, Kari Engholm. By APRIL GOODWIN Register Staff Writer 07/07/2001

Investigators are yet to wrap up their work on the death of Perry infant Clare Engholm, who died last week after her mother forgot her in a closed minivan all day.

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation spokesman Steve Conlon said investigators are working as quickly as possible. Perry police and a state agent, Charis Paulson, are investigating the baby's death.

Kari Engholm, chief executive officer of Dallas County Hospital, has been under investigation since she discovered her baby daughter dead inside the minivan she was driving June 26. Engholm's husband and priest said last week that Kari Engholm forgot that she was taking her baby to the sitter that morning. She discovered the 7-month-old when she picked up her older son from his child-care center after work. Conlon said he realized both the Engholm family and the public are eager for the investigation to be complete, but investigators are most concerned with doing a good job.

Conlon said he could not comment on details of the case.

Charges could be filed against Kari Engholm once the investigation is complete. Dallas County Attorney Wayne Reisetter will decide whether to file charges after he reviews a written report of investigators' findings.

Investigators last week obtained a warrant and searched the van in which Clare died, Reisetter said Monday. Reisetter said investigators did not search Engholm's house or her office. District Judge Virginia Cobb sealed all documents related to the warrant.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 07, 2001.

"LOL!! I'm not dancing around anything. I told you TWICE that you can post it if you want."

You ARE dancing, and I don't need your permission. I would like to know if you WANT to see the citations or not. You ARE going to see them, either way. So which is it, Ding? Do you WANT to see some citations from Rules of Evidence, or do you NOT want to see them? Idiot.

Or maybe you just don't understand simple questions in English? Giggle!

"Not that I would expect you to remember that or anything."

I remember it just fine. You are simply too evasive and too much of a snake to answer a direct question. Perhaps you don't WANT to see the citations? Someone like you, who has a cavalier attitude about evidence, probably would not WANT to see such things.

"Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that what I accused her of is not a crime."

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You appeared to be suggesting that the death of Clare Engholm proceeded directly from Mrs. Engholm's alleged act of putting her career before her children. If that is, in fact, what you were trying to say, then you DID accuse her of a crime. As I indicated yesterday, the pure act of putting one's career before one's children is not a crime, but if a child died as a proximate RESULT of that act, then the act BECOMES a crime. Once again, Ding, you are deciding matters with insufficient evidence.

I am so glad we have you with us. With you around, we need never elect another judge nor empanel another jury. We could even follow some Shakespearean advice and "kill all the lawyers."

"LOL!!! What a pathetic attempt at a save!"

Oh, you just don't like it, you clown. Your perceptions seem clouded. Things that are true come under intense and skeptical scrutiny from you, whereas things that are unproven are accepted as fact. Where are you posting from, Fantasyland?

"Okay, so let me get this straight. You were asking why I was screaming so loudly in response to the first sentence in the quote. Well, then, why did you include the second sentence?"

Because I thought you were smart enough to keep your eye on the ball and remember that we were talking about EVIDENCE. Considering we have been going around and around in circles about EVIDENCE, why is this so hard for you to believe? Moron.

"And I had already pointed out that what I was accusing her of was not a crime so why would I care about the admissibility of evidence if I wasn't even accusing her of a crime??"

Because we have been ARGUING about evidence, you ridiculous fool. The question of whether or not we're talking about a crime hasn't even been addressed yet. That's why there's a legal system. And you're admittedly ignorant about the law, so how would you know whether or not a crime has been committed? Especially without evidence?

"Why would you ask such a ridiculous question since it had already been answered?"

Because you haven't ANSWERED many questions about evidence, Ding. In fact, there's one particular question about evidence at the top of this post that you seem adamantly OPPOSED to answering. Awfully lame attempt at a save, there.

"Okay, where do you get the idea that I have a desire to stone Mrs. Engholm? Are you trying to read my mind?? LOL!"

You seem awfully interested in condemning her without evidence. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to go from condemnation to stoning, would it, Ding?

"Excellent!! That is what i have been arguing all along!! All that I have accused her of is placing her career before her kids. And that is not a crime. That is a fact. LOL"

Poorly argued, Ding. See next sentence.

"However, in Mrs. Engholm's case, depending on the circumstances, it COULD very well be a crime, once again, just as I said."

"Well either it IS a crime or it ISN'T."

That's what we have courts for, you dumbass. Courts that you don't seem interested in hearing from. We are not discussing a hypothetical, Ding. We are discussing an ACTUAL SET OF EVENTS. Without EVIDENCE (which you seem not to understand), we cannot SAY whether we are talking about a crime or not. You do not want to present evidence, you do not want to be shown what constitutes evidence, yet you want to decide on your own whether Mrs. Engholm did or did not commit a crime? You're fucking bug-nuts, son.

"Is the "pure act of placing one's career before one's children" a crime or not?? Because all I accused her of was the "pure act," nothing more."

Wrong. Clare Engholm is dead. Your post came up in response to that news story. Had you accused Mrs. Engholm of the pure act at any time PRIOR to her daughter's death, then you would be as right as rain. But now that Clare Engholm is dead and Mrs. Engholm stands accused, your contention carries no merit. Further, accusing her of putting her career before her children NOW is legally tantamount to accusing her of a crime. If she did put her career before her children (not yet proven) and if that pure act LED DIRECTLY to the death of Clare Engholm, then we are not longer talking about a pure act. What you are doing is attempting to walk around one legal hurdle and then jump the second, rather than jumping both, as one would be obliged to do in court.

Very nice job of boxing yourself in, Ding.

>>>>>You made a rash condemnation WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

"No it's not, no it's not, no it's not!!" LOL, here we go again!"

You made a rash condemnation WITHOUT EVIDENCE. And you still have no evidence.

>>>>>My whole gripe with you has been that you condemned Mrs. Engholm with no evidence, and that hasn't changed since you and I first entered this thread. If you'd like to retract your claim and then follow this case with me, then you might find me affable and erudite.

"I'd be happy to follow this case with you, but I see no reason why I should retract my claim since I still consider my evidence to be evidence."

There you go again, claiming that it's evidence simply because you think it is. Since you are admittedly not schooled in the law, and since you continue to refuse to answer the question "do you want to see citations from Rules of Evidence," how, exactly, are you qualified to determine what does and does not constitute evidence? Would you argue so before a judge?

You know, Ding, you might eventually be proven right by a court. And that's fine with me, if that happens. But as I have been saying over and over, let a court decide the matter, and don't toss out accusations without evidence.

"Obviously, you do not."

I can prove my points. You have only opinion and conviction on your side, neither of which count for much in a courtroom.

"We can either "agree to disagree" on this issue and move on or continue with the flamethrowers. Makes no difference to me either way."

I vote for flamethrowers. A person such as you, who refuses proof when offered, claims his ignorance as authority and who refuses to answer direct questions deserves no better.

You had your chance, and you blew it.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 08, 2001.

Enough Already! Good lord man, you certainly can prattle on. I can just envision you as a Defense Attorney, bringing the entire courtroom to a slow boil. Why, after a few minutes of your nit- picking diatribe, the Judge himself would most likely pull out his personal piece and cap one off between your eyes. Nobody would mind.

-- So (cr@t.es), July 08, 2001.

JBT, thanks for the post. I appreciate you putting some info up here for us to consider. IMO, the authorities are proceeding slowly and deliberately, and I'd say that's a good thing. I do hope that the judge (or any judge) will order documents unsealed at some point after the investigation has been concluded.

Even if you can't link for us, could you still post a URL for us? Then anyone who cares to can copy and paste it, and read the story for themselves. Or perhaps you can lead us to the newspaper, TV station or radio station you're using as a source? Any effort will be appreciated. :)

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 08, 2001.

"LOL!! I'm not dancing around anything. I told you TWICE that you can post it if you want."

You ARE dancing, and I don't need your permission. I would like to know if you WANT to see the citations or not. You ARE going to see them, either way. So which is it, Ding? Do you WANT to see some citations from Rules of Evidence, or do you NOT want to see them?

Answering yes or no implies that I care. I don't. Understand? I don't CARE whether you post them or not. Since you said that I AM going to see them anyway, then why haven't you posted them already? Could it have something to do with the fact that what I accused her of isn't a crime?

"Okay, so let me get this straight. You were asking why I was screaming so loudly in response to the first sentence in the quote. Well, then, why did you include the second sentence?"

Because I thought you were smart enough to keep your eye on the ball and remember that we were talking about EVIDENCE.

Except that this doesn't answer the question. It seemed to me that including the second sentence served no purpose. What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?

"And I had already pointed out that what I was accusing her of was not a crime so why would I care about the admissibility of evidence if I wasn't even accusing her of a crime??"

Because we have been ARGUING about evidence, you ridiculous fool. The question of whether or not we're talking about a crime hasn't even been addressed yet.

Of course it was! I had already said that what I was accusing her of wasn't a crime!! THEN you supposedly asked me why I'm screaming so loudly if I don't know about the admissibility of evidence for something which I already considered was not a crime!!! LOL!!! "Okay, where do you get the idea that I have a desire to stone Mrs. Engholm? Are you trying to read my mind?? LOL!"

You seem awfully interested in condemning her without evidence. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to go from condemnation to stoning, would it, Ding?

Sure it would. You have no idea what my opinions are regarding what should happen to Mrs. Engholm. But don't let that stop you from trying to read my mind! LOL!! "Is the "pure act of placing one's career before one's children" a crime or not?? Because all I accused her of was the "pure act," nothing more."

Wrong.

LOL! I think I know what I accused her of. And it was the pure act of placing her career before her kids. Are you trying to read my mind AGAIN??

Clare Engholm is dead. Your post came up in response to that news story. Had you accused Mrs. Engholm of the pure act at any time PRIOR to her daughter's death, then you would be as right as rain. But now that Clare Engholm is dead and Mrs. Engholm stands accused, your contention carries no merit.

Sure it does. It doesn't change my accusation at all.

Further, accusing her of putting her career before her children NOW is legally tantamount to accusing her of a crime.

Then perhaps you can cite the legal reference that states this. With your clearly superior legal knowledge, this should be a breeze.

If she did put her career before her children (not yet proven) and if that pure act LED DIRECTLY to the death of Clare Engholm, then we are not longer talking about a pure act.

Maybe YOU aren't, but I am.

"We can either "agree to disagree" on this issue and move on or continue with the flamethrowers. Makes no difference to me either way."

I vote for flamethrowers.

Great!! Let the flaming continue!! Yeeehaw!!

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 08, 2001.

"Enough Already!"

Enough is never enough.

"Good lord man, you certainly can prattle on."

Well, the ad hominem is certainly preferable to countering the opposition's arguments, isn't it?

"I can just envision you as a Defense Attorney, bringing the entire courtroom to a slow boil."

Strangely enough, I make no judgment regarding Mrs. Engholm's guilt or innocence. My sole objection is to Ding's condemnation of Mrs. Engholm WITHOUT benefit of evidence. If she's found guilty of whatever charges are brought, then she should suffer whatever penalty the judge finds appropriate. However, if she's found not guilty -- a possibility that Ding appears to find remote, if not impossible -- then she should be let alone. So your characterization of me as a defense attorney is off the mark. I've advocated letting the legal system have at this matter. Ding seems to suffer from a delusion that he knows best how to deal with this.

"Why, after a few minutes of your nit- picking diatribe,"

That's "attention to detail," Socrates, not nit-picking. Although I suppose it matters what side of the fence you are on.

"the Judge himself would most likely pull out his personal piece and cap one off between your eyes. Nobody would mind."

Ah. You, too, appear to suffer from the delusion that your fantasies are truth. No matter.

(whistling) Here, boy! Want walkies?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 08, 2001.

"Answering yes or no implies that I care. I don't. Understand? I don't CARE whether you post them or not."

Ah. I see. You do not wish to be burdened with facts that oppose your opinions. I think I see EXACTLY where you're coming from.

"Since you said that I AM going to see them anyway, then why haven't you posted them already?"

I think I shall post them later today. Don't bother to read them, Ding. They'll just get you upset.

"Could it have something to do with the fact that what I accused her of isn't a crime?"

You are a total dumbass. Go back and reread my MULTIPLE offers to post citations from Rules of Evidence. Those offers have NOTHING to do with what you have accused Mrs. Engholm of -- they have to do with whether or not your claimed "evidence" actually is evidence or not. Maaaaan, you're stupid. And you've got an awfully bad short-term memory problem.

>>>>>Because I thought you were smart enough to keep your eye on the ball and remember that we were talking about EVIDENCE.

"Except that this doesn't answer the question. It seemed to me that including the second sentence served no purpose. What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

Idiot. You can't read, can you? You persist in muddying the issue, when I have persistently and consistently berating you for lack of EVIDENCE. And for some reason, you think that my question was NOT about evidence? Your question has been answered; you're just unsatisfied with the answer. How it "seems" to you is beside the point. You are no authority.

>>>>>Because we have been ARGUING about evidence, you ridiculous fool. The question of whether or not we're talking about a crime hasn't even been addressed yet.

"Of course it was! I had already said that what I was accusing her of wasn't a crime!!"

What you are accusing her, depending on the circumstances of may very well be a crime. Let that sink in, Ding. You stepped in it. Thanks for boxing yourself in for me.

"THEN you supposedly asked me why I'm screaming so loudly if I don't know about the admissibility of evidence for something which I already considered was not a crime!!! LOL!!!"

Exactly. Why are you arguing about evidence (which you have been doing) if you don't understand what constitutes evidence? Rockhead.

>>>>>You seem awfully interested in condemning her without evidence. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to go from condemnation to stoning, would it, Ding?

"Sure it would."

Really? Accusing someone without evidence and passing sentence on someone without evidence are so far apart?

"You have no idea what my opinions are regarding what should happen to Mrs. Engholm."

That may be, but I know what your opinions are on evidence. You either 'don't know' what it is or you 'don't care' what constitutes it. If you have such a cavalier attitude regarding accusations, evidence and proof of guilt or innocence, then it's not much of a stretch to imagine where you come down on sentencing. After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

"But don't let that stop you from trying to read my mind! LOL!!"

All I can read is what goes on here. And you are proving to be remarkably easy to predict and defeat. As well as remarkably resistant to offers of proof, and to demands for evidence.

>>>>>Wrong.

"LOL! I think I know what I accused her of."

Unfortunately, you do not. You see, Ding, your admitted ignorance of legal procedure is leading you into mistake after mistake. Just as I said earlier, if you were posing this as a hypothetical, with a hypothetical woman and a hypothetical child, you would be absolutely right. But you cannot move so readily from the hypothetical to the actual when you're talking about legal matters. The FACT of the matter is that the Engholm tragedy did not happen in a vacuum, no matter how much you would like for it to have happened so. When you accuse Mrs. Engholm AFTER THE FACT of placing her career ahead of her children, you are employing a legal presumption (whether you know it or not) that whatever laws were broken AS A RESULT OF THAT were broken knowingly and intentionally. Essentially, what you are doing is the same as standing before a judge as a prosecutor and saying "she's guilty because she's guilty." It doesn't work that way. Further, claiming that she places her career before her children is provably false. She still has another, older child.

In any event, Ding, if you accused Mrs. Engholm before the tragedy, you could make a strong case for your point. But now, after the fact, your judgment constitutes an end run around intent, ending up with only the need to present the dead child as evidence. Doesn't work that way, Ding.

"And it was the pure act of placing her career before her kids."

Nope. Not to the law enforcement and legal system, it's not.

"Are you trying to read my mind AGAIN??"

Nope. Just showing how your ignorance is leading your mouth to write checks that your ass can't cash.

>>>>>Clare Engholm is dead. Your post came up in response to that news story. Had you accused Mrs. Engholm of the pure act at any time PRIOR to her daughter's death, then you would be as right as rain. But now that Clare Engholm is dead and Mrs. Engholm stands accused, your contention carries no merit.

"Sure it does. It doesn't change my accusation at all."

It doesn't change your accusation, but your accusation still carries no weight.

>>>>>Further, accusing her of putting her career before her children NOW is legally tantamount to accusing her of a crime.

"Then perhaps you can cite the legal reference that states this. With your clearly superior legal knowledge, this should be a breeze."

Y'know, I think I will do just that. Be aware, Ding, that you are going to have to raise your IQ about 40 points in order to understand what I post.

>>>>>If she did put her career before her children (not yet proven) and if that pure act LED DIRECTLY to the death of Clare Engholm, then we are not longer talking about a pure act.

"Maybe YOU aren't, but I am."

No, you are. You just don't know it. That's the way the legal system works, Ding.

>>>>>I vote for flamethrowers.

"Great!! Let the flaming continue!! Yeeehaw!!"

And continue it shall.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 08, 2001.

ADH,

Found the stiry here.

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/crimecourt- front.html

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 08, 2001.

"Answering yes or no implies that I care. I don't. Understand? I don't CARE whether you post them or not."

Ah. I see. You do not wish to be burdened with facts that oppose your opinions. I think I see EXACTLY where you're coming from.

LOL, you seem to confuse the words "I don't CARE" with "I don't WISH."

>>>>>Because I thought you were smart enough to keep your eye on the ball and remember that we were talking about EVIDENCE.

"Except that this doesn't answer the question. It seemed to me that including the second sentence served no purpose. What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

Idiot. You can't read, can you? You persist in muddying the issue, when I have persistently and consistently berating you for lack of EVIDENCE. And for some reason, you think that my question was NOT about evidence? Your question has been answered; you're just unsatisfied with the answer. How it "seems" to you is beside the point. You are no authority.

Wow, that's a pretty long response and yet it still didn't answer the question. What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?

"THEN you supposedly asked me why I'm screaming so loudly if I don't know about the admissibility of evidence for something which I already considered was not a crime!!! LOL!!!"

Exactly. Why are you arguing about evidence (which you have been doing) if you don't understand what constitutes evidence? Rockhead.

LOL, what you supposedly asked me about was admissibility of the evidence! You know, like in a courtroom. Since I had already said that what I accused her of was not a crime, asking a question about evidence as it applies in a courtroom, as you did, is pointless. Why do you not understand this?

After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 08, 2001.

"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

You're kidding, right? You have repeatedly accused this woman of putting her career ahead of her child and used the child's death as proof. As ADH pointed out, child neglect and involuntary manslaughter are very much crimes. Perhaps you did it unintentionally but you have repeatedly and consistantly accused this woman of a crime.

Matthew 2:18

I ask everyone to pray to the LORD that this family will be comforted in their hour of mourning.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 08, 2001.

You're kidding, right? You have repeatedly accused this woman of putting her career ahead of her child and used the child's death as proof. As ADH pointed out, child neglect and involuntary manslaughter are very much crimes. But I didn't accuse her of child neglect or involuntary manslaughter. I accused her of putting her career before her kids. And that is not a crime.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 08, 2001.

"But I didn't accuse her of child neglect or involuntary manslaughter. I accused her of putting her career before her kids. And that is not a crime."

It is when the act of putting your career before your kid leads to the death of that kid.

You have judged this woman harshly and cruely.

Luke 6:36-38

May the LORD keep you from suffering the judgement of others.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 08, 2001.

"But I didn't accuse her of child neglect or involuntary manslaughter. I accused her of putting her career before her kids. And that is not a crime."

It is when the act of putting your career before your kid leads to the death of that kid.

Then why did you mention "child neglect " and "involuntary manslaughter?" If "putting your career before your kid" is in itself a crime, you would not need to mention any others.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 08, 2001.

"LOL, you seem to confuse the words "I don't CARE" with "I don't WISH."

I KNOW you don't care. I think you don't WANT to see them, which is why you would not answer in either the affirmative or the negative. You refuse to present proof of Mrs. Engholm's intent or state of mind, and when offered proof that you are wrong, you don't want to see it. Not caring, in this case, carries a rather strong implication that your mind's made up, and evidentiary proof won't sway you. Perhaps you wouldn't make such a good juror.

In any event, I am collecting citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are the standard in Iowa) and from Iowa state law. Good things take time, so you will have to be patient, Ding. I know you don't care, but they will be posted.

>>>>>Idiot. You can't read, can you? You persist in muddying the issue, when I have persistently and consistently berating you for lack of EVIDENCE. And for some reason, you think that my question was NOT about evidence? Your question has been answered; you're just unsatisfied with the answer. How it "seems" to you is beside the point. You are no authority.

"Wow, that's a pretty long response and yet it still didn't answer the question."

It answers the question just fine, moron. I obviously overestimated your ability to keep on topic.

"What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

Because I thought you were intelligent enough to focus on the matter of EVIDENCE, upon which we have been going around in circles. Obviously, I was mistaken, because you have been distracted by it. Are you likewise distracted by bright, shiny objects?

>>>>>Exactly. Why are you arguing about evidence (which you have been doing) if you don't understand what constitutes evidence? Rockhead.

"LOL, what you supposedly asked me about was admissibility of the evidence!"

Exactly. Why are you arguing about evidence (which you have been doing) if you don't understand what constitutes evidence? Rockhead. 'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not. LOL.' See how it works?

"You know, like in a courtroom. Since I had already said that what I accused her of was not a crime, asking a question about evidence as it applies in a courtroom, as you did, is pointless."

Because you are wrong when you claim you did not accuse Mrs. Kari Engholm of a crime. Why do you not understand this?

"Why do you not understand this?"

You have admitted to a poor understanding of the law, of evidence and of legal procedure. I think it is you who does not understand what you have done.

>>>>>After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not.' LOL. See how it works? Incorrect, Ding.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 09, 2001.

JBT, thanks much for the link.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 09, 2001.

"If "putting your career before your kid" is in itself a crime, you would not need to mention any others."

Are you simply dense, or are you now ashamed of your cruel, quick judgement of Mrs. Engholm? For the record, you said:

"Is there an alarm to tell a parent that she is so messed up that she views her career as more important than her children?"

And to clarify this, you later said (expletives deleted, of course):

"She left her f****** KID in the CAR like a g****** bag of f****** groceries!! But it's okay, right, cuz she had such a "busy day!!" Right."

Your own words remove the possibility that you are speaking of the priorities in the mind of this woman in and of themselves(which, as has been pointed out, you could not have possibly known) without the end result of her child being left in her car all day, which of course may be a criminal act. The only proof you have offered as to the woman's priorities or state of mind is the fact that she left her child in the car all day, which may very well be a criminal act, yet you want to claim that you are not talking about a criminal act. You can't have it both ways, ding.

May the LORD show you more mercy than you have shown this woman and her family. I'll remember you in my prayers.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 09, 2001.

Already, "I can't understand it, either, but that does not give Ding license to shit on the mother." .... "Are you done handing out licenses and trying to censor me, Maria?"

Already, you are such an idiot! This is just too funny! Who's the one handing out licenses. You are the one who tried to "censor" ding, ya moron.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 09, 2001.

Disagreement is not censorship Maria. In fact, ADH has encouraged ding to respond to him several times, which also is not censorship.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 09, 2001.

I think you don't WANT to see them, which is why you would not answer in either the affirmative or the negative.

Again with the mind reading! LOL!

You refuse to present proof of Mrs. Engholm's intent or state of mind,

LOL!!! I did not refuse to present proof. I simply presented something that you do not consider to be proof. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

and when offered proof that you are wrong, you don't want to see it.

No, when offered proof which I think is irrelevant, I don't CARE if I see it or not.

Not caring, in this case, carries a rather strong implication that your mind's made up, and evidentiary proof won't sway you.

Well, irrelevant "proof" certainly won't sway me.

Perhaps you wouldn't make such a good juror.

Aha!!! You admit you were wrong about me being such a good juror! LOL!

"What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

Because I thought you were intelligent enough to focus on the matter of EVIDENCE, upon which we have been going around in circles.

That doesn't answer what the purpose of including it was. Do you understand? So what was the purpose of including the second sentence?

"You know, like in a courtroom. Since I had already said that what I accused her of was not a crime, asking a question about evidence as it applies in a courtroom, as you did, is pointless."

Because you are wrong when you claim you did not accuse Mrs. Kari Engholm of a crime. Why do you not understand this?

LOL!! But your question to me was "Why are you screaming so loudly about this?" Remember? You were asking about my actions. And my actions were based on my premise that what I accused her of was not a crime, regardless of whether you agree with this premise or not. Since I believed that I was not accusing her of a crime, as I had already established, asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless.

>>>>>After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not.' LOL. See how it works?

LOL!! Indeed I do. And here we will go around and around in circles forever. Would you like to agree to disagree now or keep flaming? I bet I can guess your answer, you're so predictable after all. LOL.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 09, 2001.

The only proof you have offered as to the woman's priorities or state of mind is the fact that she left her child in the car all day, which may very well be a criminal act, yet you want to claim that you are not talking about a criminal act. You can't have it both ways, ding.

Actually, I offered what her reverend said, what her close friend said, and what the article said, as well as her child as proof of her priorities. In addition, whether or not what she did is a criminal act is actually irrelevant to my premise that she put her career in front of her kids. If, for example, what she did was NEVER considered a criminal act, I would still believe that she put her career in front of her kids.

Let's say a guy gets angry and shoots someone. A few of his friends were reported to have said that he seemed angry that day. I say that he must have been angry that day because a)his friends said so and b) he shot someone. Would my accusation that he seemed angry indicate that I was accusing him of a crime? You might say yes, but I would say no.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 09, 2001.

"In addition, whether or not what she did is a criminal act is actually irrelevant to my premise that she put her career in front of her kids."

Unfortunately, your own words contradict you. Once again, you said (expletives deleted):

""She left her f****** KID in the CAR like a g****** bag of f****** groceries!! But it's okay, right, cuz she had such a "busy day!!" Right."

There can be no doubt that you were not separating the end result from the action itself. In fact, it's probably impossible to separate the end result from the action in this case, because then we would not be having this exchange. And the fact of the matter is, when you talk about this particular end result, you are talking about a result that is very likely a crime.

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 09, 2001.

Ding it seems you've fallen into a nest of rabid working mothers defending thier stance with pretzel logic and confusion tatics. The result is that you sound as twisted and rabid yourself.

I was a working mother at one time. I was as determined to "realize my potential", have my career and kids and have it all, as much as my next-door-working-mother-neighbor. Like an addict, I had to hit bottom before I realized what I was doing to my kids. Bottom hit when my first child reached mid-teen years. Young kids can't always express their needs well enough, and they're easy to push and order around. But teens' needs, especially those teens who've been bounced around from sitter to sitter, from after-school program to program and summer camps, have a way to explode in your face which makes it harder to ignore or shove under the denial rug. Those kids have essentially raised themselves as they've seen fit, absorbing lessons morals and values haphazardly from the caretaker du-jour. When they start asserting themselves as budding adults, hell breaks loose because those morals and values often don't match those of the parents.

But I'm rambling. Kari Engholm is as guilty of a crime as any irresponsible addict. Kari Engholm is addicted to social status, materialism and self-fulfillment, which led to the neglect of her baby, left forgotten to die in the back seat of her car. Kari Engholm had a husband with a job who could have provided for them all, albeit more humbly. Or at least, she could have chosen to work from home or cut down her hours and work responsibilities to a reasonable level so that she would not have had to ever become so tired and busy as to forget her baby to die in the back seat of her car.

This kind of stupidity is a crime.

-- (Mother@home.with.kids), July 10, 2001.

"Already, you are such an idiot! This is just too funny! Who's the one handing out licenses. You are the one who tried to "censor" ding, ya moron."

I NEVER told Ding to shut up or not to respond. I NEVER censored Ding. Prove me wrong, Maria. Maybe a rush to judgment on Mrs. Engholm draws your interest, but I have only disagreed with Ding -- NEVER tried to censor him.

Looks like the idiot is staring back at you from the bathroom mirror this morning, lady.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 10, 2001.

"Then why did you mention "child neglect " and "involuntary manslaughter?" If "putting your career before your kid" is in itself a crime, you would not need to mention any others."

Ding, you said this on July 8 in a response to Polly. Why, exactly, would you include "child neglect" and "involuntary manslaughter" in your response, especially if they weren't applicable? Just asking.

>>>>>I think you don't WANT to see them, which is why you would not answer in either the affirmative or the negative.

"Again with the mind reading! LOL!"

Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are." I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

"You refuse to present proof of Mrs. Engholm's intent or state of mind,"

"LOL!!! I did not refuse to present proof."

Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else. You have refused to present proof.

"I simply presented something that you do not consider to be proof."

You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

>>>>>and when offered proof that you are wrong, you don't want to see it.

"No, when offered proof which I think is irrelevant, I don't CARE if I see it or not."

The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

>>>>>Not caring, in this case, carries a rather strong implication that your mind's made up, and evidentiary proof won't sway you.

"Well, irrelevant "proof" certainly won't sway me."

Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

>>>Perhaps you wouldn't make such a good juror.

"Aha!!! You admit you were wrong about me being such a good juror! LOL!"

Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over. Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are. Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed. I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

>>>>>"What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

>>>>>Because I thought you were intelligent enough to focus on the matter of EVIDENCE, upon which we have been going around in circles.

"That doesn't answer what the purpose of including it was."

Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

>>>>>"You know, like in a courtroom. Since I had already said that what I accused her of was not a crime, asking a question about evidence as it applies in a courtroom, as you did, is pointless."

>>>>>Because you are wrong when you claim you did not accuse Mrs. Kari Engholm of a crime. Why do you not understand this?

"LOL!! But your question to me was "Why are you screaming so loudly about this?" Remember?"

Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

"You were asking about my actions. And my actions were based on my premise that what I accused her of was not a crime, regardless of whether you agree with this premise or not."

Your incorrect premise, yes. And you have been arguing about what constitutes a crime and what constitutes evidence. Yet, to you, two different questions appear to be about the same thing.

"Since I believed that I was not accusing her of a crime, as I had already established,"

Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

>>>>>After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

>>>>>"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

>>>>>'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not.' LOL. See how it works?

"LOL!! Indeed I do."

LOL! Indeed you do not. Your denials do not advance your argument, Ding.

"And here we will go around and around in circles forever."

No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

"Would you like to agree to disagree now or keep flaming?"

We already agree that we disagree. And we will likely keep flaming, so long as you persist in your ludicrous assertion.

"I bet I can guess your answer, you're so predictable after all."

What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence. People with pugnacious demeanors and no legal education, like yourself always find court a rude awakening. Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused. You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so. Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 10, 2001.

"Ding it seems you've fallen into a nest of rabid working mothers"

Seems, but isn't so. I'm not a mother, nor, for that matter, a father.

"defending thier stance with pretzel logic and confusion tatics."

If you see holes in my logic, then by all means, point them out. And if demanding evidentiary proof that meets the standard of the Uniform Rules of Evidence constitutes "confusion tactics," then I respectfully submit that you don't know what you're talking about.

"The result is that you sound as twisted and rabid yourself."

He certainly does, doesn't he?

"I was a working mother at one time. I was as determined to "realize my potential", have my career and kids and have it all, as much as my next-door-working-mother-neighbor. Like an addict, I had to hit bottom before I realized what I was doing to my kids. Bottom hit when my first child reached mid-teen years. Young kids can't always express their needs well enough, and they're easy to push and order around. But teens' needs, especially those teens who've been bounced around from sitter to sitter, from after-school program to program and summer camps, have a way to explode in your face which makes it harder to ignore or shove under the denial rug. Those kids have essentially raised themselves as they've seen fit, absorbing lessons morals and values haphazardly from the caretaker du-jour. When they start asserting themselves as budding adults, hell breaks loose because those morals and values often don't match those of the parents."

This is a powerful statement, and I appreciate that you shared it with us.

"But I'm rambling. Kari Engholm is as guilty of a crime as any irresponsible addict."

That's for the DA and a court to decide, not you.

"Kari Engholm is addicted to social status, materialism and self- fulfillment,"

None of which you know for a fact. Those things may have been true for you at one time, and they may actually turn out to be true in Mrs. Engholm's case, but you don't know these things for facts.

"which led to the neglect of her baby,"

If she did engage in the behaviors above (as you allege and as Ding seems to suggest she did), and IF those behaviors led to the neglect of her child (as you suggest and as Ding refuses to suggest), then . . .

"left forgotten to die in the back seat of her car."

. . . then we would definitely be talking about a crime. Yet no one here seems interested in going to court. Everyone's interested in condemnation, and possibly in passing sentence.

"Kari Engholm had a husband with a job who could have provided for them all, albeit more humbly."

They chose not to follow that route, and that's their business. Mrs. Engholm did not commit a crime by choosing to have a career. Keep your eye on the ball.

"Or at least, she could have chosen to work from home or cut down her hours and work responsibilities to a reasonable level so that she would not have had to ever become so tired and busy as to forget her baby to die in the back seat of her car."

That's all water under the bridge now, and Mrs. Engholm's career did not cause her child's death. If you think it did, then let's get her boss, coworkers and business associates up on trial. It seems that you're more upset over Mrs. Engholm's choice to be a working mother, rather than over Clare Engholm's death. It also seems that her life choices don't meet with your approval, and perhaps that's why you're so peeved.

"This kind of stupidity is a crime."

Her life choices are not stupid any more than yours or Ding's are. And stupidity, in and of itself is not a crime. Child neglect, murder and manslaughter are, however, crimes, and may have been committed in this case, and we all need to let the DA and the courts work this out.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 10, 2001.

"Let's say a guy gets angry and shoots someone. A few of his friends were reported to have said that he seemed angry that day. I say that he must have been angry that day because a)his friends said so and b) he shot someone. Would my accusation that he seemed angry indicate that I was accusing him of a crime? You might say yes, but I would say no."

And I suppose that the Manson Family was just doing a little house- painting, that the Unabomber was a writer with an interest in fireworks and that Jeffrey Dahmer was simply trying to make dinner.

Hmmmm.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 10, 2001.

Unfortunately, your own words contradict you. Once again, you said (expletives deleted):

""She left her f****** KID in the CAR like a g****** bag of f****** groceries!! But it's okay, right, cuz she had such a "busy day!!" Right."

There can be no doubt that you were not separating the end result from the action itself. In fact, it's probably impossible to separate the end result from the action in this case, because then we would not be having this exchange.

Maybe it's impossible for you, but not for me. I believe that is where we differ.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 10, 2001.

What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused. You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so. Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

Understood. However, based on your assesments, it would certainly appear that I haven't been communicating my argument effectively. At every turn, you seem to tell me that I have "failed" and you seem to be "scoring points" constantly while I am unable to. As a result, I will try to adjust my argument ever so slightly by incorporating some of your more successful techniques as shown thus far in the hopes that I might be able to recover even just a little ground. It's a long shot, I know, but I'm going to give it a try. I will begin with the next post.

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 10, 2001.

"Then why did you mention "child neglect " and "involuntary manslaughter?" If "putting your career before your kid" is in itself a crime, you would not need to mention any others."

Ding, you said this on July 8 in a response to Polly. Why, exactly, would you include "child neglect" and "involuntary manslaughter" in your response, especially if they weren't applicable? Just asking.

Dumbass. Did you even bother reading the post? He originally used those terms, so I pointed out that he used them. Duh. What a stupid moron you are.

>>>>>I think you don't WANT to see them, which is why you would not answer in either the affirmative or the negative.

"Again with the mind reading! LOL!"

Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are."

Bullshit. Same difference. You were mind reading, dumbfuck. The fact that you won't admit it only proves that you are a liar as well.

I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

Is that all the problem is, you simpering moron?? How about if I say I think she put her career before her kids, based on the EVIDENCE I presented. Does that make you feel all warm and cozy now, dickhead??

"You refuse to present proof of Mrs. Engholm's intent or state of mind,"

"LOL!!! I did not refuse to present proof."

Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else.

Because, dipshit, what I accused her of is not a crime. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly stupid, I'm guessing you won't.

"I simply presented something that you do not consider to be proof."

You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

I understand the difference just fine. It is YOU who apparently doesn't understand the difference, you pathetic dweeb.

>>>>>and when offered proof that you are wrong, you don't want to see it.

"No, when offered proof which I think is irrelevant, I don't CARE if I see it or not."

The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

No, they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT since we are not talking about a crime, dumbass. It looks like you're the one with the ignorant and belligerent demeanor here.

>>>>>Not caring, in this case, carries a rather strong implication that your mind's made up, and evidentiary proof won't sway you.

"Well, irrelevant "proof" certainly won't sway me."

Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

But your proof is not evidentiary, "Counselor." You have failed. Try to take it like a man.

>>>Perhaps you wouldn't make such a good juror.

"Aha!!! You admit you were wrong about me being such a good juror! LOL!"

Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over.

Yes, there is, you imbecile. You were WRONG. Do you understand? WRONG. You fail again. Point goes to ME.

Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are.

Actually, I am FAR more intelligent than you, as is obvious. Not only that, but I am much better looking, far stronger, and have a MUCH BIGGER penis, which I use to satisfy hundreds of big-breasted women each and every night. You, on the other hand, most likely use your tiny organ to molest small animals, which is probably all you can really get. The fact that you can't understand this only further proves what an incredible dumbass you really are. God, you are pathetic.

Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed.

Again, you admit to being WRONG. Another point for ME.

I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

What I will enjoy is being so much smarter than YOU as we have clearly seen so far, shit-for-brains.

>>>>>"What was the purpose of including the second sentence in the quote?"

>>>>>Because I thought you were intelligent enough to focus on the matter of EVIDENCE, upon which we have been going around in circles.

"That doesn't answer what the purpose of including it was."

Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

Understood, you can't answer a simple question. Not much of a surprise considering what an unadulterated idiot you truly are. Another eight hundred million points for ME and you LOSE all the points you've gained so far. Once again, you have failed miserably. I WIN. You LOSE.

>>>>>"You know, like in a courtroom. Since I had already said that what I accused her of was not a crime, asking a question about evidence as it applies in a courtroom, as you did, is pointless."

>>>>>Because you are wrong when you claim you did not accuse Mrs. Kari Engholm of a crime. Why do you not understand this?

"LOL!! But your question to me was "Why are you screaming so loudly about this?" Remember?"

Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

You inability to read simple english is truly astounding. I was only screaming about placing her career before her kids, you mindless bufoon. YOU were screaming about the goddamn evidence. Do you even remember what you say from day to day? Do you know what you had for breakfast this morning?

"You were asking about my actions. And my actions were based on my premise that what I accused her of was not a crime, regardless of whether you agree with this premise or not."

Your incorrect premise, yes. And you have been arguing about what constitutes a crime and what constitutes evidence. Yet, to you, two different questions appear to be about the same thing.

I never said that, you dickbrain. You're just pulling shit out of thin air now, aren't you? Getting desperate?

"Since I believed that I was not accusing her of a crime, as I had already established,"

Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant, moron. My BELIEF defines my ACTIONS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have a working brain.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

No, I haven't. Unlike you, I haven't had frequent run-ins with law enforcement.

"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

It's not when it had NOTHING to do with why I was "screaming," you blithering pathetic dumbass.

>>>>>After all, you have already decided that Mrs. Engholm is guilty of what you accuse her of. Why not just save time and pass sentence? Hmm?

>>>>>"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

>>>>>'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not.' LOL. See how it works?

"LOL!! Indeed I do."

LOL! Indeed you do not. Your denials do not advance your argument, Ding.

And neither do yours. Or are your denials somehow better than mine, you ignoramus???

"And here we will go around and around in circles forever."

No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

And those citations will no doubt prove that everything that I have said is correct and everything you have said is WRONG. I can hardly wait.

"Would you like to agree to disagree now or keep flaming?"

We already agree that we disagree. And we will likely keep flaming, so long as you persist in your ludicrous assertion.

If you insist, rockhead. Hope you brought some sandwiches!!

"I bet I can guess your answer, you're so predictable after all."

What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence.

Yes, I know you're a legal illiterate, but I appreciate your bringing it up again.

People with pugnacious demeanors and no legal education, like yourself always find court a rude awakening.

I have had YEARS of legal education. Far more than you, obviously. If you tried any of this crap in a courtroom, you be spanked bare-assed by a judge. The jury would spit on you and the bailiff would twist your nipples. The security guards would beat you to death with billy clubs and the guy who runs the cafeteria would shove a serving fork up your ass. But I bet you'd like that, wouldn't you?

Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

Not as funny as watching someone like YOU argue with the judge.

What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused.

YOUR offer was for me to retract my argument. MY offer was to simply agree to disagree. Is this too much for your reading skills? Should we go back to something a little easier for you like "See Spot Run?"

You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so.

That wasn't an "olive branch," fuckwad, you wanted a surrender flag. Perhaps you should take the surrender flag and shove it up your giant ass. But you'd probably like that too, you sniveling little butt- pirate.

Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

Don't worry, I won't, since I will not surrender. Never. I cannot be defeated. I am undefeatable. I am the undefeatable poster. You cannot defeat me. I am your worst nightmare come true. I am your master and you are my pathetic sniveling dog. Everything you have said thus far has been controlled by me. You are my puppet and I will make you dance some more. Dance, puppet, dance!!! Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 10, 2001.

"Seems, but isn't so. I'm not a mother, nor, for that matter, a father."

Then you speak from an inexperienced point of view both in terms of what constitutes healthy child rearing and the consequences of parental actions and decisions.

"If you see holes in my logic, then by all means, point them out."

What is there to point out to someone who can't yet understand a concept?

" And if demanding evidentiary proof that meets the standard of the Uniform Rules of Evidence constitutes "confusion tactics," then I respectfully submit that you don't know what you're talking about. "

But I wasn't speaking of the Rules of Evidence, simply of your using Uniformly Confusing Tactics of Parsing Words and Sentences. Since you've already established that you don't know what it takes to raise children, I respectfully submit that you don't know yourself what you're talking about.

"This is a powerful statement, and I appreciate that you shared it with us."

And I appreciate that you appreciate.

""But I'm rambling. Kari Engholm is as guilty of a crime as any irresponsible addict."

That's for the DA and a court to decide, not you. "

Ofcourse. But my opinion as one who's been there still holds more water than yours, doesn't it?

""Kari Engholm is addicted to social status, materialism and self- fulfillment,"

None of which you know for a fact. Those things may have been true for you at one time, and they may actually turn out to be true in Mrs. Engholm's case, but you don't know these things for facts."

On the contrary. It's a fact that most women have a natural instinct for mothering, and research have shown that most working mothers harbor feelings of guilt at different degrees for neglecting thier children. Those feelings of guilt arise from conflicts between wanting a carreer, more money and this ellusive "self-fulfillment" and the mothering instinct. I used the term "addict" to illustrate the power wanting a carreer holds over a mother's better judgement.

"If she did engage in the behaviors above (as you allege and as Ding seems to suggest she did), and IF those behaviors led to the neglect of her child (as you suggest and as Ding refuses to suggest), then

. . . then we would definitely be talking about a crime. Yet no one here seems interested in going to court. Everyone's interested in condemnation, and possibly in passing sentence. "

In my opinion she should be going to court.

"They chose not to follow that route, and that's their business."

But, as in with any choice one makes, there are consequences, and the death of their child is society's business.

" Mrs. Engholm did not commit a crime by choosing to have a career. Keep your eye on the ball."

Perhaps you are focusing too hard on one particular ball when there are several to watch out for. Choosing to have a carreer in itself is not a crime, but neglecting one's duties to one's family that ends in a death because of this choice can certainly be a crime. Neglect takes all kinds of shape. What was her and her husband's primary duty that morning? Going to work or ensuring that their children were safe?

"Or at least, she could have chosen to work from home or cut down her hours and work responsibilities to a reasonable level so that she would not have had to ever become so tired and busy as to forget her baby to die in the back seat of her car."

"That's all water under the bridge now, and Mrs. Engholm's career did not cause her child's death. If you think it did, then let's get her boss, coworkers and business associates up on trial. It seems that you're more upset over Mrs. Engholm's choice to be a working mother, rather than over Clare Engholm's death. It also seems that her life choices don't meet with your approval, and perhaps that's why you're so peeved."

You're confusing choices and the carreer itself. I'm critisizing her choices to pay attention to her carreer more than to her children. That's what I view as neglect. I am not peeved in the least. Could you be projecting your feelings into what you read in my post? I simply and flatly find this tragedy a crime on the part of the mother.

""This kind of stupidity is a crime."

Her life choices are not stupid any more than yours or Ding's are. And stupidity, in and of itself is not a crime. Child neglect, murder and manslaughter are, however, crimes, and may have been committed in this case, and we all need to let the DA and the courts work this out. "

I said "this kind of stupidity", which IS child neglect. Since you yourself admit that child neglect is a crime, then we agree. And we also agree on letting the courts sort this out.

-- (Mother@home.with.kids), July 10, 2001.

"Then you speak from an inexperienced point of view both in terms of what constitutes healthy child rearing and the consequences of parental actions and decisions."

Don't you think this is just a little bit silly? By this logic, only parents would be qualified to be pediatricians, pediatric nurses, teachers, little league coaches, adoption workers, etc.

Let's face it. Parenting is extremely difficult, but childcare is easier when a child is small. You don't need a PhD in parenthood to know that a baby needs food, shelter, warmth, and love.

"What is there to point out to someone who can't yet understand a concept?"

What concept is ADH not getting? I've read his posts and he seems to have a pretty good grasp of what's going on here.

"But I wasn't speaking of the Rules of Evidence, simply of your using Uniformly Confusing Tactics of Parsing Words and Sentences."

Just out of curiousity, what did you find confusing about ADH's posts? I understood them perfectly.

"Since you've already established that you don't know what it takes to raise children, I respectfully submit that you don't know yourself what you're talking about."

Would you find it acceptable if I, as a working mother, told you that it's impossible for you, a non-working mother, to understand the pressures that working mothers are under? When I stayed at home with my children, I might have been more inclined to judge this woman harshly as well.

"Of course. But my opinion as one who's been there still holds more water than yours, doesn't it?"

But you haven't been there. You were home with the children.

"On the contrary. It's a fact that most women have a natural instinct for mothering, and research have shown that most working mothers harbor feelings of guilt at different degrees for neglecting thier children."

LOL! I'd like to see some of that research please! Also, doesn't this contradict everything you've said about non-parents not having a clue about child-rearing? After all, it's instictual!

"Those feelings of guilt arise from conflicts between wanting a carreer, more money and this ellusive "self-fulfillment" and the mothering instinct."

Do they? Or do they instead arise from a society that ridicules women for choices they make outside of motherhood?

"I used the term "addict" to illustrate the power wanting a carreer holds over a mother's better judgement."

Yeah. My kids are addicted to eating. My husband is addicted to having a roof over our heads. I'm addicted to keeping gas in the car. Maybe in my place, your better judgement would tell you to let the kids starve, let the house get repossed, and walk 15 miles to the low income clinic once the kids get rickets all to ease your guilty conscience. Fortunately, I'm not that selfish.

"In my opinion she should be going to court."

Would you say the same for the father in Cincinnati who unintentionally left his child in his van all day? Or is it only working mothers who neglect their children for their careers?

"Neglect takes all kinds of shape. What was her and her husband's primary duty that morning? Going to work or ensuring that their children were safe?"

Oh good god. Maybe you are supermom, 100% focused on your kids 100% of the time. The rest of us in the real world sometimes find ourselves distracted by life. Maybe the water heater finally dies one morning and you get so involved trying to turn the water off to the house that you leave your son in his high chair for two hours. Maybe your mother has a heart attack and you forget all about your daughter's birthday. Maybe your husband gets a bad case of pneumonia at the same time your infant has colic and you forget to feed your toddler until the poor thing is bawling his head off. Maybe your oldest son falls out of a tree and breaks his arm and you rush off to the emergency room leaving the eight year-old behind.

Somehow, someway, even the best parent has an off day. No one can be everywhere all at once. If you're lucky no real harm is done. But sometimes, luck runs out

"You're confusing choices and the carreer itself. I'm critisizing her choices to pay attention to her carreer more than to her children."

But except for this one instance, how do you know she paid more attention to her career than her children? Parents do make mistakes. Present company excepted, of course. I'm certain you've never accidentally, say, given the wrong medication to the wrong child. I'm sure you've never turned your back on your children for a second, not even while you were writing this very long post.

-- (another@mother.mom), July 11, 2001.

A father leaves 4 year old in van. He dies.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), July 11, 2001.

A four month old.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), July 11, 2001.

Helen, (if you're still here) I have a question for you. If the authorities do not charge this woman (because as you believe she will never let it happen again), then how would an "intentional" accident be prevented? Would this ignoring the law give an opportunity for parents, who can't take it anymore, to simply leave their child in a hot car?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 11, 2001.

Maria, I don't know. If I had done this to my kid, I'm pretty sure I would have invoked my own death penalty by now. I couldn't live with it.

Yeah, I guess she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That's what I would have been charged with if I had been her babysitter and I left the baby in the car.

-- helen (sad@sad.sad), July 11, 2001.

Helen, you brought up the point I was just thinking of -- what if a babysitter had done it? Should you get in less trouble for killing your own kid negligently like that than if you kill someone else's kid? Equal trouble? More trouble? (Yes, I know, state laws and prosecutorial zeal mileage will vary).

-- Firemouse (More@or.less), July 11, 2001.

All right, Ding, here's the first in a series of legal proofs for you. Here's the issue in a nutshell, Ding, from one of your recent posts. I berated you for not having proof. Here's your claim, which I contend is baseless and wholly without merit.

"Actually, I offered what her reverend said, what her close friend said, and what the article said, as well as her child as proof of her priorities. In addition, whether or not what she did is a criminal act is actually irrelevant to my premise that she put her career in front of her kids. If, for example, what she did was NEVER considered a criminal act, I would still believe that she put her career in front of her kids."

All right, let's visit the Hearsay Rule from the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are used as standard practice in many states, including Iowa). Some portions of the URoE are reproduced here; use of those items falls under Fair Use Doctrine.

Article 8, Rule 801 provides definitions for hearsay, which is NOT admissible as evidence. "A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay is sometimes referred to in TV courtroom dramas as "he said, she said."

Rule 802 indicates quite clearly that "Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress." Note that ANY state which adheres to the URoE (including Iowa) does not consider hearsay to be admissible evidence. In fact, I do not know of a single state that does consider it admissible, even among states that do not use the URoE.

Let's return to Rule 801 to look at the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Something falling under the rubric of one or more of these exceptions could be admitted as evidence, subject to all other provisions of the URoE.

Exception 1: Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.

In short, A says that if statement and testimony do not match, the statement is inadmissible. Testimony on the stand, made under oath, trumps any written statement to police, therefore the testimony is not hearsay. This doesn't yet apply, so there's no exception.

B says that if a declarant (the person making the statement, not the defendant) is making the statement to defend against a rebuttal of their prior statement, or to defend against a charge that they made up evidence, lied, etc., then the statement is not considered hearsay. As no one has tried to rebut the statements of the people quoted in the article, this cannot yet apply.

C says that identifying a person cannot be considered hearsay. A declarant's perceptions regarding who is who (e.g. "is that your neighbor?" "Yes.") are not considered hearsay. This is also inapplicable.

There are further possible exceptions:

"2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is:

"(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or"

This has not yet been shown, as I have pointed out over and over. Mrs. Engholm has not yet been proven to have said "I put my career before my children." Therefore, this exception does not apply.

"(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or"

Mrs. Engholm has not yet been proven to BELIEVE that she put her career before her children. This is what I mean when I tell you that you don't know what's in her mind, Ding. This possible exception also does not apply.

"(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or"

So far as we are aware, Mrs. Engholm has not authorized anyone to say for her that she placed her career before her children. So this possible exception does not apply, either.

"(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or"

This is the one place where you might make some hay with your argument, Ding, though we still haven't got anything to support this. If we could come up with a sitter or a daycare worker who could attest to this, then we might have an exception here. One of Mrs. Engholm's co-workers might also be an exception, though that is a bit of a legal stretch. Still, a lenient judge might accept it. In any event, we haven't got an exception here, either.

"(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy."

There has been no conspiracy alleged or proven. Therefore, no exception exists here, either.

Finally, there is a caveat.

"The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant's authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E)."

In other words, the declarant's statement alone cannot demonstrate (C) that they were actually authorized to make the statement for the individual concerned, (D) that they really were an employee or agent of the individual concerned, or (E) that there even was a consipiracy at all. Further independent evidence in required to establish those items.

So what we have here, Ding, is your strong BELIEF that Mrs. Kari Engholm put her career before her children, but absolutely no EVIDENCE to demonstrate that she did. And that's fine, so far as it goes, except that you didn't say you BELIEVED she did it (until yesterday on another thread) -- you said that she DID do it. Your irritating insistence that your belief determines fact is laughable. Truth is not proven or disproven simply on the basis of your beliefs, prejudices and how easy you might be misled or fooled.

In any event, you did moderate your position somewhat yesterday (on another thread), when you posted this:

"Secondly, my comment was not meant to be a reflection of her being a working mother per se, only that I believed she put her career before her kids."

That's right, Ding. You believe it, but cannot prove it. Your insistence on painting your beliefs as certainty as put you rather squarely into a corner. Enjoy your stay.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 12, 2001.

"Maybe it's impossible for you, but not for me. I believe that is where we differ."

No, actually, where we differ is your lack of evidence. You say "she did this," when you have no proof. In actuality, you BELIEVE she did this, but don't want to admit that because you've dug yourself in too deeply. Of course, you did admit yesterday that you 'believe' she put her career before her children, and that's a sign that you are coming to your senses.

"Understood. However, based on your assesments, it would certainly appear that I haven't been communicating my argument effectively."

The whole problem with your argument is that you haven't got any evidence. Therefore, you are dealing not with FACT, but BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want, and it won't matter to me. But when you say "Person X did Y," I might get involved.

"At every turn, you seem to tell me that I have "failed" and you seem to be "scoring points" constantly while I am unable to."

Many of your arguments are poorly-formed, and seem to be more semantic exercises than actual arguments. Further, you also appear to be using your ignorance of evidentiary procedure as some sort of claim to authority. It just doesn't work that way, Ding.

"As a result, I will try to adjust my argument ever so slightly by incorporating some of your more successful techniques as shown thus far in the hopes that I might be able to recover even just a little ground. It's a long shot, I know, but I'm going to give it a try. I will begin with the next post."

Providing actual, verifiable EVIDENCE of your central claim would be the most effective way to advance your argument. You might want to go back to the Darrell Scott threads and see how it's done.

>>>>>Ding, you said this on July 8 in a response to Polly. Why, exactly, would you include "child neglect" and "involuntary manslaughter" in your response, especially if they weren't applicable? Just asking.

"Dumbass. Did you even bother reading the post? He originally used those terms, so I pointed out that he used them. Duh. What a stupid moron you are."

Uh huh. So when you do that, it's all right. When I do it, you leap on it as some sort of semantic evidence that you're right. I see what's going on. You have a very large double standard operating in your head, Ding.

>>>>>Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are."

"Bullshit. Same difference."

Wrong. A statement of opinion is not a statement of fact, idiot."

"You were mind reading, dumbfuck. The fact that you won't admit it only proves that you are a liar as well."

No, dumbfuck, I was clearly stating my opinion. The fact that you can't understand that only proves that you are a moron, as well.

>>>>>I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

"Is that all the problem is, you simpering moron?? How about if I say I think she put her career before her kids, based on the EVIDENCE I presented. Does that make you feel all warm and cozy now, dickhead??"

Actually, you simpering moron, how I feel is beside the point. You claimed that you KNEW something. You most assuredly do NOT. You BELIEVE something, yet your ego refuses to let you admit it, now that you've been called on the carpet. Further, you can jabber all you want about evidence, because you have none.

>>>>>Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else.

"Because, dipshit, what I accused her of is not a crime. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly stupid, I'm guessing you won't."

Actually, dipshit, what you accused her of is most definitely a crime in light of Clare Engholm's death. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly ignorant of the law, the legal process and evidentiary proceedings, I'm guessing you won't.

>>>>>You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

"I understand the difference just fine. It is YOU who apparently doesn't understand the difference, you pathetic dweeb."

Liar. You've admitted to not knowing the law and not knowing (and not caring) what's in the URoE. Obviously, since you're unfamiliar with those matters, you cannot possibly know, let alone understand the difference, you pathetic lying dweeb.

>>>>>The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

"No, they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT since we are not talking about a crime, dumbass. It looks like you're the one with the ignorant and belligerent demeanor here."

Wrong. They are absolutely relevant since we ARE talking about a possible crime, your ignorant and uninformed protestations notwithstanding. You are uneducated about the law (therefore uninformed and ignorant) and you are arguing about something you neither know nor understand. So who's being belligerent? You, Dudley.

BTW, I love your use of the "no, it's not, no, it's not, no it's not" tactic. Ignorance of the law, combined with raving denial, just serves to make you look even more desperate.

>>>>>Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

"But your proof is not evidentiary, "Counselor." You have failed. Try to take it like a man."

Pfffffffffft. YOU are the one who has to provide evidentiary proof, Your Honor. I am presenting proof of what CONSTITUTES evidentiary proof. You have failed to distinguish between and understand the two. Try to take it like a man, ignoramus.

>>>>>Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over.

"Yes, there is, you imbecile. You were WRONG. Do you understand? WRONG. You fail again. Point goes to ME."

No, there is not, you imbecile. You didn't make a point in opposition. WRONG. You fail again. No point goes to you; in fact, no point goes to either of us. You really are poorly skilled at this.

>>>>>Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are.

"Actually, I am FAR more intelligent than you, as is obvious."

What is obvious is that you are not educated in the law, about which you are trying to argue. It is also obvious that you are not intelligent enough in debate to present defensible supporting proof of your convictions. Furthermore, it is obvious that you are foolishly clinging to an unproven and unsupported opinion as fact. Those are not the actions of an intelligent person.

"Not only that, but I am much better looking, far stronger, and have a MUCH BIGGER penis, which I use to satisfy hundreds of big-breasted women each and every night. You, on the other hand, most likely use your tiny organ to molest small animals, which is probably all you can really get."

If you say so. However, lacking first-hand knowledge of my sexual equipment, prowess or activities, these are simply guesses on your part. Further, as you have no idea whatsoever regarding my appearance or my physical strength, any statements regarding our relative ratings on those scores are simply wild-eyed speculation on your part.

Finally, I contend that you have no penis whatsoever. You are hereby directed and ordered to present evidence that you actually have one. Failure to present verifiable evidence, along with sufficient corroborating witnesses or notarized affidavits, will be taken as an admission that you have no penis.

"The fact that you can't understand this only further proves what an incredible dumbass you really are. God, you are pathetic."

(laughing heartily) You are one of the most ridiculous trolls I've met on here! You are definitely more fun than Ain't, and you argue like Shadow. 10-4 good buddy! Come on back! :)

>>>>>Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed.

"Again, you admit to being WRONG. Another point for ME."

Incorrect. You cannot claim a point when you did not argue in favor of it. Someone who claims to be as intelligent as you would know this, but of course, you are stupid and don't know it. No point for either of us.

>>>>>I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

"What I will enjoy is being so much smarter than YOU as we have clearly seen so far, shit-for-brains."

The only "we" you could possibly be talking about is:

A) There's more than one of you on your side of the keyboard.

B) You're suffering from MPD and I'm talking to multiple personalities.

C) You're royalty, and using the royal "we."

What's not clear is your intelligence. You seem erratic and uneducated.

>>>>>Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

"Understood, you can't answer a simple question."

Understood, you can't comprehend a simple answer. Of course, when you do this, it is acceptable. See above.

"Not much of a surprise considering what an unadulterated idiot you truly are."

I am educated, whereas you are not. I am intelligent, whereas you are not. I am literate, whereas you seem to have trouble understanding simple questions, simple requests and simple answers. Being called an "unadulterated idiot" by an unadulterated idiot is no big insult.

"Another eight hundred million points for ME and you LOSE all the points you've gained so far. Once again, you have failed miserably. I WIN. You LOSE."

You continue to fail. Without evidence, you can gain no points whatsoever. Ergo, you have none, your desperate claims notwithstanding.

>>>>>Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

"You inability to read simple english is truly astounding."

YOUR inability to WRITE simple English is even MORE astounding. ROFLOL!

"I was only screaming about placing her career before her kids, you mindless bufoon."

Without evidence, you mindless BUFFOON. ROFLOL!

"YOU were screaming about the goddamn evidence."

Because you haven't got any.

"Do you even remember what you say from day to day?"

Yup. And I remember what YOU say, too.

"Do you know what you had for breakfast this morning?"

I haven't had breakfast yet this morning. Do you recall the taste of my boot?

>>>>>Your incorrect premise, yes. And you have been arguing about what constitutes a crime and what constitutes evidence. Yet, to you, two different questions appear to be about the same thing.

"I never said that, you dickbrain. You're just pulling shit out of thin air now, aren't you? Getting desperate?"

You are a lying sack of shit. You have been arguing about what constitutes a crime:

>>>>>"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

And you have been arguing about evidence:

>>>>>"I did not refuse to present proof. I simply presented something that you do not consider to be proof. Perhaps you don't understand the difference."

So, dickbrain, you're getting desperate and pulling shit out of thin air now. Keep it up. Just makes it easier for me.

>>>>>Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant.

"Of course it's relevant, moron. My BELIEF defines my ACTIONS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have a working brain."

Of course it is not irrelevant, moron. Belief has no place in a courtroom or in evidentiary proceedings. Your ACTIONS are what are dealt with in court, not your BELIEF, idiot. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have both a working brain and an education in the law.

>>>>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

"No, I haven't. Unlike you, I haven't had frequent run-ins with law enforcement."

I've never been arrested, and haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last to years. Unlike you, I am both educated in the law and have a clean legal record.

>>>>>"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

>>>>>It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

"It's not when it had NOTHING to do with why I was "screaming," you blithering pathetic dumbass."

'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' ROFLOL!

>>>>>LOL! Indeed you do not. Your denials do not advance your argument, Ding.

"And neither do yours. Or are your denials somehow better than mine, you ignoramus???"

My denials advance my argument for two reasons:

1) When I deny something, I have proof for it, OR

2) When you accuse me of something, you have no proof, therefore a simple denial from me is sufficient.

Your denials do not advance your argument for two reasons:

1) When you deny something, you have no supporting proof for it, OR

2) When I accuse you of something, I have proof, therefore a simple denial on your part is not sufficient.

So in answer to your question, yes, my denials are better than yours, you ignoramus.

>>>>>No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

"And those citations will no doubt prove that everything that I have said is correct and everything you have said is WRONG. I can hardly wait."

Nope. They prove you wrong. Not surprising, since you admittedly don't know jack about the law.

>>>>>What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence.

"Yes, I know you're a legal illiterate, but I appreciate your bringing it up again."

You're the admitted legal illiterate, Ding. You really must try harder to keep these things straight. Looks like your short-term memory problem has cropped up again.

>>>>>People with pugnacious demeanors and no legal education, like yourself always find court a rude awakening.

"I have had YEARS of legal education. Far more than you, obviously. If you tried any of this crap in a courtroom, you be spanked bare- assed by a judge. The jury would spit on you and the bailiff would twist your nipples. The security guards would beat you to death with billy clubs and the guy who runs the cafeteria would shove a serving fork up your ass. But I bet you'd like that, wouldn't you?"

Yawn. More bleating from the lamb on its way to slaughter.

>>>>>Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

"Not as funny as watching someone like YOU argue with the judge."

I'm smart enough to know that it is a BAD idea to argue with a judge. So I don't do it.

>>>>>What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused.

"YOUR offer was for me to retract my argument. MY offer was to simply agree to disagree. Is this too much for your reading skills? Should we go back to something a little easier for you like "See Spot Run?"

That's right, I made the offer -- the only offer you will get. Is that too much for your limited reading skills?

>>>>>You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so.

"That wasn't an "olive branch," fuckwad, you wanted a surrender flag. Perhaps you should take the surrender flag and shove it up your giant ass. But you'd probably like that too, you sniveling little butt- pirate."

Latte? Latte? Meet Ding. Ding, meet Latte. You are both apparently repressed and closeted homosexuals who, while you profess heterosexuality, use gay imagery in your posts. Perhaps you two have lots to talk about.

>>>>>Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

"Don't worry, I won't, since I will not surrender."

Then you will lose.

"Never. I cannot be defeated. I am undefeatable. I am the undefeatable poster. You cannot defeat me. I am your worst nightmare come true. I am your master and you are my pathetic sniveling dog. Everything you have said thus far has been controlled by me. You are my puppet and I will make you dance some more. Dance, puppet, dance!!! Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa"

Your education is complete, Ding. You are now my latest leash- troll. I own you.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 12, 2001.

>>>>>"Seems, but isn't so. I'm not a mother, nor, for that matter, a father." "Then you speak from an inexperienced point of view both in terms of what constitutes healthy child rearing and the consequences of parental actions and decisions."

What a ridiculous assertion. Firstly, I haven't COMMENTED on Mrs. Engholm's parenting or parenting decisions. Secondly, if we accept your assertion, then you must also accept the assertion that Ding doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about legal matters. If you have never been President, then you cannot judge the actions of President Clinton of President Bush (depending on where you fall on the political spectrum). If you have never been an executive at an HMO, then you cannot criticize the managers of your health insurance plan. If you have never been an IRS auditor, then you cannot criticize the decisions of the IRS. If you have never been an illegal immigrant, then you cannot criticize them. If you have never been black, then you can't comment on issues of interest to black Americans. If you're not gay, then you can't comment on issues of interest to gay Americans. Pardon me, but that's bull.

As I have told so many people, ma'am, and yourself included, please keep your eye on the ball.

>>>>>"If you see holes in my logic, then by all means, point them out."

"What is there to point out to someone who can't yet understand a concept?"

You refuse to explain yourself when asked politely, and that's MY fault? You're ridiculous.

>>>>>" And if demanding evidentiary proof that meets the standard of the Uniform Rules of Evidence constitutes "confusion tactics," then I respectfully submit that you don't know what you're talking about. "

"But I wasn't speaking of the Rules of Evidence, simply of your using Uniformly Confusing Tactics of Parsing Words and Sentences."

Lady, if you don't understand what I am talking about, then ASK ME. There are quite a few posters on this board that I speak politely to, and I give what I get. If you want to disagree, and we can be polite about it, that's great. If we can't be polite, I can certainly go in that direction, too. If you don't agree with me, then tell me so. If you don't UNDERSTAND me, then tell me that, too. But when you get all huffy and say (apparently) 'you use big confusing words and say stuff funny and I don't understand that and it's your fault so obviously you can't understand a topic and so I won't even TRY,' then get stuffed, lady.

As I said before, if you see holes in my logic, then by all means, point them out. If you don't understand me, then try asking me to explain myself again. Works great for Helen.

"Since you've already established that you don't know what it takes to raise children, I respectfully submit that you don't know yourself what you're talking about."

I do not have children, but that does not mean that I don't know what it takes to raise children. I have a very large family, and I have certainly changed my share of diapers for both siblings and cousins. Further, if not having children equates to ignorance regarding how to raise them, I contend that YOU didn't know what it took to raise children before YOU had them. You're not arguing that I need to knock some woman up in order to "know what it takes," are you?

>>>>>"This is a powerful statement, and I appreciate that you shared it with us."

"And I appreciate that you appreciate."

I can feel the love in the room. :)

>>>>>"But I'm rambling. Kari Engholm is as guilty of a crime as any irresponsible addict."

>>>>>That's for the DA and a court to decide, not you.

"Ofcourse. But my opinion as one who's been there still holds more water than yours, doesn't it?"

Regarding parenting, perhaps. I would imagine that, as a parent, you've done plenty that I haven't. But in the legal arena, which is where we are following the death of Clare Engholm, MY opinion as "one who's been there" holds more water than yours, doesn't it? You see, as I told Ding, we're no longer talking about a hypothetical -- we're talking about actual events and an actual death. And if you accept that Mrs. Kari Engholm did intentionally put her career ahead of her children, then that is a pretty good prima facie case for child endangerment and manslaughter. Hell, we could even go with murder two, because "depraved indifference" is often a component of such cases. And your opinion as a mother is not sufficient evidence to convict Kari Engholm. Do you see?

>>>>>"Kari Engholm is addicted to social status, materialism and self- fulfillment,"

>>>>>None of which you know for a fact. Those things may have been true for you at one time, and they may actually turn out to be true in Mrs. Engholm's case, but you don't know these things for facts.

"On the contrary. It's a fact that most women have a natural instinct for mothering, and research have shown that most working mothers harbor feelings of guilt at different degrees for neglecting thier children."

Your own statement betray you. MOST women have a natural instinct -- but not ALL. MOST working mothers -- but not ALL. Therefore, you do not know those things for FACTS, just as I said.

>>>>>If she did engage in the behaviors above (as you allege and as Ding seems to suggest she did), and IF those behaviors led to the neglect of her child (as you suggest and as Ding refuses to suggest), then we would definitely be talking about a crime. Yet no one here seems interested in going to court. Everyone's interested in condemnation, and possibly in passing sentence.

"In my opinion she should be going to court."

I definitely think that the DA should act on whatever the investigation turns up. If the DA chooses a murder charge, then I support that. If the DA chooses a manslaughter charge, then I support that, too. And if the DA chooses a child neglect charge, I support that at well. My personal belief is that Mrs. Engholm deserves absolutely no less than a child neglect charge, but that opinion is based on my incomplete knowledge of the facts surrounding this case. Still, we shall see where things go.

>>>>>They chose not to follow that route, and that's their business.

"But, as in with any choice one makes, there are consequences, and the death of their child is society's business."

Yes. You are correct. But their CHOICE to have careers did not cause Clare Engholm's death. Something else did. Possibly neglect.

>>>>>Mrs. Engholm did not commit a crime by choosing to have a career. Keep your eye on the ball.

"Perhaps you are focusing too hard on one particular ball when there are several to watch out for. Choosing to have a carreer in itself is not a crime, but neglecting one's duties to one's family that ends in a death because of this choice can certainly be a crime."

No, there's only one ball to watch, and that ball lists the events surrounding the death of Clare Engholm. A child can be neglected for any number of reasons, but those reasons are not at issue.

"Neglect takes all kinds of shape. What was her and her husband's primary duty that morning? Going to work or ensuring that their children were safe?"

The shape of neglect is rarely a legal issue. The fact of neglect is most assuredly a legal issue.

>>>>>"Or at least, she could have chosen to work from home or cut down her hours and work responsibilities to a reasonable level so that she would not have had to ever become so tired and busy as to forget her baby to die in the back seat of her car."

>>>>>That's all water under the bridge now, and Mrs. Engholm's career did not cause her child's death. If you think it did, then let's get her boss, coworkers and business associates up on trial. It seems that you're more upset over Mrs. Engholm's choice to be a working mother, rather than over Clare Engholm's death. It also seems that her life choices don't meet with your approval, and perhaps that's why you're so peeved.

"You're confusing choices and the carreer itself. I'm critisizing her choices to pay attention to her carreer more than to her children."

And you are confusing belief with fact. As I have been telling Ding, you do not know for a fact that she did what you claim. And you do realize that she has another, older child? That damages your contention.

"That's what I view as neglect. I am not peeved in the least. Could you be projecting your feelings into what you read in my post? I simply and flatly find this tragedy a crime on the part of the mother."

I don't find it a crime. Finding it a crime is the business of the Des Moines DA and the Iowa legal system. You seemed to agree with that, earlier, and now you seem to disagree with it. What's the story there?

>>>>>"This kind of stupidity is a crime."

>>>>>Her life choices are not stupid any more than yours or Ding's are. And stupidity, in and of itself is not a crime. Child neglect, murder and manslaughter are, however, crimes, and may have been committed in this case, and we all need to let the DA and the courts work this out.

"I said "this kind of stupidity", which IS child neglect. Since you yourself admit that child neglect is a crime, then we agree. And we also agree on letting the courts sort this out."

Excellent. I apparently misread your statement. Thank you for pointing that out.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 12, 2001.

Maria, Helen, Firemouse --

JMHO; I think the charges should reflect the act, not the actor. Leaving a child to die in a hot van is a horrendous act, regardless of who did it. Who did it should be beside the point. YMMV.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 12, 2001.

I fail to see what relevance her older child has to any arguments here. Please explain.

That a family decision led to _both_ parents choosing careers over stay-at-home parenthood is more the issue than just the mother's choices. The father could have stayed home to be with the kids. As a CEO, Kari undoubtedly made a much better income than Dennis, a university professor.

I haven't seen anything to support the idea that one can be both a CEO of a hospital or any large, complicated business that involves a great deal of time commitment, and be a truly involved parent. The two jobs tend to be mutually exclusive.

-- Firemouse (nonceo@busy.life), July 12, 2001.

"Maybe it's impossible for you, but not for me. I believe that is where we differ."

No, actually, where we differ is your lack of evidence.

I have evidence. It is you who has no evidence.

You say "she did this," when you have no proof. In actuality, you BELIEVE she did this, but don't want to admit that because you've dug yourself in too deeply. Of course, you did admit yesterday that you 'believe' she put her career before her children, and that's a sign that you are coming to your senses.

You're clearly so stupid that you can't even understand what you read. Perhaps a more elementary reading education would provide more assistance for you.

"Understood. However, based on your assesments, it would certainly appear that I haven't been communicating my argument effectively."

The whole problem with your argument is that you haven't got any evidence.

Of course I do. You haven't proven otherwise, dumbass.

Therefore, you are dealing not with FACT, but BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want, and it won't matter to me. But when you say "Person X did Y," I might get involved.

Yes, you got involved, and looked mighty stupid doing it.

"At every turn, you seem to tell me that I have "failed" and you seem to be "scoring points" constantly while I am unable to."

Many of your arguments are poorly-formed, and seem to be more semantic exercises than actual arguments.

You mean like when you said you were responding to the FIRST sentence in a quote with TWO sentences?? Moron.

Further, you also appear to be using your ignorance of evidentiary procedure as some sort of claim to authority. It just doesn't work that way, Ding.

It does when what I have accused her of is not a crime, which I have already stated. By the way, thanks for your so-called "evidence." Too bad it's irrelevant.

"As a result, I will try to adjust my argument ever so slightly by incorporating some of your more successful techniques as shown thus far in the hopes that I might be able to recover even just a little ground. It's a long shot, I know, but I'm going to give it a try. I will begin with the next post."

Providing actual, verifiable EVIDENCE of your central claim would be the most effective way to advance your argument. You might want to go back to the Darrell Scott threads and see how it's done.

I did provide evidence. You just didn't like it. Too bad for you.

>>>>>Ding, you said this on July 8 in a response to Polly. Why, exactly, would you include "child neglect" and "involuntary manslaughter" in your response, especially if they weren't applicable? Just asking.

"Dumbass. Did you even bother reading the post? He originally used those terms, so I pointed out that he used them. Duh. What a stupid moron you are."

Uh huh. So when you do that, it's all right. When I do it, you leap on it as some sort of semantic evidence that you're right. I see what's going on. You have a very large double standard operating in your head, Ding.

Wrong. It is YOU that obviously has the double-standard. Perhaps you should read that post again a few times so you understand what it says before you make yourself look like such a moron.

>>>>>Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are."

"Bullshit. Same difference."

Wrong. A statement of opinion is not a statement of fact, idiot."

But to YOU they are the same, idiot.

"You were mind reading, dumbfuck. The fact that you won't admit it only proves that you are a liar as well."

No, dumbfuck, I was clearly stating my opinion. The fact that you can't understand that only proves that you are a moron, as well.

No, this clearly proves that you are a moron.

>>>>>I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

"Is that all the problem is, you simpering moron?? How about if I say I think she put her career before her kids, based on the EVIDENCE I presented. Does that make you feel all warm and cozy now, dickhead??"

Actually, you simpering moron, how I feel is beside the point. You claimed that you KNEW something. You most assuredly do NOT. You BELIEVE something, yet your ego refuses to let you admit it, now that you've been called on the carpet. Further, you can jabber all you want about evidence, because you have none.

Of course I have evidence, you just don't know how to read, dickbrain.

>>>>>Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else.

"Because, dipshit, what I accused her of is not a crime. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly stupid, I'm guessing you won't."

Actually, dipshit, what you accused her of is most definitely a crime in light of Clare Engholm's death. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly ignorant of the law, the legal process and evidentiary proceedings, I'm guessing you won't.

No, what I accused her of is NEVER a crime, you ignorant dipshit.

>>>>>You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

"I understand the difference just fine. It is YOU who apparently doesn't understand the difference, you pathetic dweeb."

Liar.

Looks like you're the liar here.

You've admitted to not knowing the law and not knowing (and not caring) what's in the URoE. Obviously, since you're unfamiliar with those matters, you cannot possibly know, let alone understand the difference, you pathetic lying dweeb.

What a pathetic crybaby you are. I think I hear your mommy calling you.

>>>>>The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

"No, they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT since we are not talking about a crime, dumbass. It looks like you're the one with the ignorant and belligerent demeanor here."

Wrong. They are absolutely relevant since we ARE talking about a possible crime, your ignorant and uninformed protestations notwithstanding.

You've already admitted that it isn't a crime. So it's not a crime. You lose. I win.

You are uneducated about the law (therefore uninformed and ignorant) and you are arguing about something you neither know nor understand. So who's being belligerent? You, Dudley.

No, Dudley, you are the one who is belligerent.

BTW, I love your use of the "no, it's not, no, it's not, no it's not" tactic. Ignorance of the law, combined with raving denial, just serves to make you look even more desperate.

Looks like you're the desperate one here. Must feel pretty bad having boxed yourself in like this.

>>>>>Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

"But your proof is not evidentiary, "Counselor." You have failed. Try to take it like a man."

Pfffffffffft. YOU are the one who has to provide evidentiary proof, Your Honor. I am presenting proof of what CONSTITUTES evidentiary proof. You have failed to distinguish between and understand the two. Try to take it like a man, ignoramus.

And yet you still haven't provided proof that what I accused her of is a crime. Too bad. You lose again. >>>>>Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over.

"Yes, there is, you imbecile. You were WRONG. Do you understand? WRONG. You fail again. Point goes to ME."

No, there is not, you imbecile. You didn't make a point in opposition. WRONG. You fail again. No point goes to you; in fact, no point goes to either of us. You really are poorly skilled at this.

Wrong, I am far better skilled at this than you. Best you remember that. Point for me. None for you. I win again.

>>>>>Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are.

"Actually, I am FAR more intelligent than you, as is obvious."

What is obvious is that you are not educated in the law, about which you are trying to argue.

What is obvious is that the law is irrelevant since I haven't accused her of a crime.

It is also obvious that you are not intelligent enough in debate to present defensible supporting proof of your convictions.

It is obvious that you couldn't understand proof if it bit you on the ass.

Furthermore, it is obvious that you are foolishly clinging to an unproven and unsupported opinion as fact. Those are not the actions of an intelligent person.

Then perhaps you should stop doing them.

"Not only that, but I am much better looking, far stronger, and have a MUCH BIGGER penis, which I use to satisfy hundreds of big-breasted women each and every night. You, on the other hand, most likely use your tiny organ to molest small animals, which is probably all you can really get."

If you say so. However, lacking first-hand knowledge of my sexual equipment, prowess or activities, these are simply guesses on your part. Further, as you have no idea whatsoever regarding my appearance or my physical strength, any statements regarding our relative ratings on those scores are simply wild-eyed speculation on your part.

Based on your patheic agruments, I would say those speculations are right on.

Finally, I contend that you have no penis whatsoever.

It's certainly bigger than YOURS.

You are hereby directed and ordered to present evidence that you actually have one. Failure to present verifiable evidence, along with sufficient corroborating witnesses or notarized affidavits, will be taken as an admission that you have no penis.

Figures, you'd want to see it. You really want me, don't you?

"The fact that you can't understand this only further proves what an incredible dumbass you really are. God, you are pathetic."

(laughing heartily) You are one of the most ridiculous trolls I've met on here! You are definitely more fun than Ain't, and you argue like Shadow. 10-4 good buddy! Come on back! :)

And you are certainly the most pathetic troll I've met on here. I'll be happy to come on back.

>>>>>Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed.

"Again, you admit to being WRONG. Another point for ME."

Incorrect.

Correct. You admitted to being WRONG. And now you are WRONG about that. I win again. You fail.

You cannot claim a point when you did not argue in favor of it. Someone who claims to be as intelligent as you would know this, but of course, you are stupid and don't know it. No point for either of us.

You ADMIT that you get no point. Excellent. You LOSE.

>>>>>I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

"What I will enjoy is being so much smarter than YOU as we have clearly seen so far, shit-for-brains."

The only "we" you could possibly be talking about is:

A) There's more than one of you on your side of the keyboard.

B) You're suffering from MPD and I'm talking to multiple personalities.

C) You're royalty, and using the royal "we."

What's not clear is your intelligence. You seem erratic and uneducated.

That's because you're too stupid to realize that you lost this argument a long time ago. Too bad, dickweed.

>>>>>Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

"Understood, you can't answer a simple question."

Understood, you can't comprehend a simple answer. Of course, when you do this, it is acceptable. See above.

I saw above. Too bad you still don't know how to read.

"Not much of a surprise considering what an unadulterated idiot you truly are."

I am educated, whereas you are not.

I am far more educated than you.

I am intelligent, whereas you are not.

Too bad you haven't proven as such.

I am literate, whereas you seem to have trouble understanding simple questions, simple requests and simple answers. Being called an "unadulterated idiot" by an unadulterated idiot is no big insult.

I know you are but what am I?

"Another eight hundred million points for ME and you LOSE all the points you've gained so far. Once again, you have failed miserably. I WIN. You LOSE."

You continue to fail. Without evidence, you can gain no points whatsoever. Ergo, you have none, your desperate claims notwithstanding.

"Wahhhh, you have no evidence." Of course I do. You're such a baby. Maybe mommy will make you some cookies so you'll feel better.

>>>>>Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

"You inability to read simple english is truly astounding."

YOUR inability to WRITE simple English is even MORE astounding. ROFLOL!

Not as astounding as your inability to READ simple english.

"I was only screaming about placing her career before her kids, you mindless bufoon."

Without evidence, you mindless BUFFOON. ROFLOL!

But you said I was screaming about the evidence. I wasn't You just proved it. I win again. Ha!

"YOU were screaming about the goddamn evidence."

Because you haven't got any.

Of course I do, shithead.

"Do you even remember what you say from day to day?"

Yup. And I remember what YOU say, too.

Clearly, you do not.

"Do you know what you had for breakfast this morning?"

I haven't had breakfast yet this morning. Do you recall the taste of my boot?

I wouldn't know. Do you recall the taste of my asshole?

>>>>>Your incorrect premise, yes. And you have been arguing about what constitutes a crime and what constitutes evidence. Yet, to you, two different questions appear to be about the same thing.

"I never said that, you dickbrain. You're just pulling shit out of thin air now, aren't you? Getting desperate?"

You are a lying sack of shit. You have been arguing about what constitutes a crime:

No, YOU have been arguing about what constitutes a crime. I already know.

>>>>>"Perhaps because what I have accused her of is not a crime."

And you have been arguing about evidence:

No YOU have been arguing about evidence.

>>>>>"I did not refuse to present proof. I simply presented something that you do not consider to be proof. Perhaps you don't understand the difference."

So, dickbrain, you're getting desperate and pulling shit out of thin air now. Keep it up. Just makes it easier for me.

No problem. It's fun kicking your ass like this.

>>>>>Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant.

"Of course it's relevant, moron. My BELIEF defines my ACTIONS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have a working brain."

Of course it is not irrelevant, moron. Belief has no place in a courtroom or in evidentiary proceedings.

Which isn't even what we were talking about, you dim bulb. But don't let the facts stop you. They never have before!

Your ACTIONS are what are dealt with in court, not your BELIEF, idiot. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have both a working brain and an education in the law.

Looks like you're the idiot here since you don't even understand what you're saying.

>>>>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

"No, I haven't. Unlike you, I haven't had frequent run-ins with law enforcement."

I've never been arrested, and haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last to years. Unlike you, I am both educated in the law and have a clean legal record.

Of course you have a clean record. That's why you're always being told by the cops that ignorance is no excuse. They must have given you your "education."

>>>>>"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

>>>>>It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

"It's not when it had NOTHING to do with why I was "screaming," you blithering pathetic dumbass."

'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' ROFLOL!

You're use of 'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' is highly amusing. Keep it up.

>>>>>LOL! Indeed you do not. Your denials do not advance your argument, Ding.

"And neither do yours. Or are your denials somehow better than mine, you ignoramus???"

My denials advance my argument for two reasons:

1) When I deny something, I have proof for it, OR

You have no proof. NONE.

2) When you accuse me of something, you have no proof, therefore a simple denial from me is sufficient.

I have proof. You have none. I win. You lose. Too bad!

Your denials do not advance your argument for two reasons:

1) When you deny something, you have no supporting proof for it, OR

I have proof.

2) When I accuse you of something, I have proof, therefore a simple denial on your part is not sufficient.

You have no proof.

So in answer to your question, yes, my denials are better than yours, you ignoramus.

No they are not because I HAVE proof whereas you DO NOT. I win again.

>>>>>No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

"And those citations will no doubt prove that everything that I have said is correct and everything you have said is WRONG. I can hardly wait."

Nope. They prove you wrong.

No, they prove me ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! Thank you for providing them. Your failure is now complete.

Not surprising, since you admittedly don't know jack about the law.

I know FAR MORE than you about the law, as we have clearly seen.

>>>>>What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence.

"Yes, I know you're a legal illiterate, but I appreciate your bringing it up again."

You're the admitted legal illiterate, Ding. You really must try harder to keep these things straight. Looks like your short-term memory problem has cropped up again.

Looks like YOU'RE the legal illiterate here. Perhaps your short-term memory problems are causing you to forget this.

>>>>>People with pugnacious demeanors and no legal education, like yourself always find court a rude awakening.

"I have had YEARS of legal education. Far more than you, obviously. If you tried any of this crap in a courtroom, you be spanked bare- assed by a judge. The jury would spit on you and the bailiff would twist your nipples. The security guards would beat you to death with billy clubs and the guy who runs the cafeteria would shove a serving fork up your ass. But I bet you'd like that, wouldn't you?"

Yawn. More bleating from the lamb on its way to slaughter.

Thanks for bleating for me, but really, it's not necessary.

>>>>>Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

"Not as funny as watching someone like YOU argue with the judge."

I'm smart enough to know that it is a BAD idea to argue with a judge. So I don't do it.

No, of course you don't. It's certainly not wise given all your run- ins with the law.

>>>>>What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused.

"YOUR offer was for me to retract my argument. MY offer was to simply agree to disagree. Is this too much for your reading skills? Should we go back to something a little easier for you like "See Spot Run?"

That's right, I made the offer -- the only offer you will get. Is that too much for your limited reading skills?

See Spot Run. Run Spot Run.

How are you doing? Still keeping up?

>>>>>You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so.

"That wasn't an "olive branch," fuckwad, you wanted a surrender flag. Perhaps you should take the surrender flag and shove it up your giant ass. But you'd probably like that too, you sniveling little butt- pirate."

Latte? Latte? Meet Ding. Ding, meet Latte. You are both apparently repressed and closeted homosexuals who, while you profess heterosexuality, use gay imagery in your posts. Perhaps you two have lots to talk about.

YOU'RE the one that demanded to see my penis. I win again.

>>>>>Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

"Don't worry, I won't, since I will not surrender."

Then you will lose.

I never lose.

"Never. I cannot be defeated. I am undefeatable. I am the undefeatable poster. You cannot defeat me. I am your worst nightmare come true. I am your master and you are my pathetic sniveling dog. Everything you have said thus far has been controlled by me. You are my puppet and I will make you dance some more. Dance, puppet, dance!!! Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa"

Your education is complete, Ding.

And yours has just begun.

You are now my latest leash- troll. I own you.

Keep dancing for me puppet!!! Post some more drivel!! Entertain me!!! Dance! Dance!!!!

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 12, 2001.

I think it was the last post of Firemouse that led me to remember an E-mail sent to me by a friend a while ago. I hope I can clean up the format. A few months ago, when I was picking up the children at school, another mother I knew well rushed up to me. Emily was fuming with indignation.
"Do you know what you and I are?" she demanded.
Before I could answer, and I didn't really have one handy, she blurted out the reason for her question. It seemed she had just returned from renewing her driver's license at the County Clerk's office. Asked by the woman recorder to state her occupation, Emily had hesitated, uncertain how to classify herself.
"What I mean is," explained the recorder, "Do you have a job, or are you just a .....?"
"Of course I have a job," snapped Emily. "I'm a mother."
"We don't list 'mother' as an occupation...'housewife' covers it," said the recorder emphatically.
I forgot all about her story until one day I found myself in the same situation, this time at our own Town Hall.
The Clerk was obviously a career woman, poised, efficient, and possessed of a high-sounding title like Official Interrogator or Town Registrar.
"And what is your occupation?" she probed.
What made me say it, I do not know. The words simply popped out. "I'm a Research Associate in the field of Child Development and Human Relations."
The clerk paused, ball-point pen frozen in midair, and looked up as though she had not heard right. I repeated the title slowly, emphasizing the most significant words. Then I stared with wonder as my pompous pronouncement was written in bold, black ink on the official questionnaire.
"Might I ask," said the clerk with new interest, "just what you do in your field?"
Coolly, without any trace of fluster in my voice, I heard myself reply, "I have a continuing program of research (what mother doesn't)in the laboratory and in the field (normally I would have said indoors and out). I'm working for my Masters (the whole darned family) and already have four credits (all daughters)."
"Of course, the job is one of the most demanding in the humanities (any mother care to disagree?) and I often work 14 hours a day (24 is more like it). But the job is more challenging than most run-of-the- mill careers and the rewards are in satisfaction rather than just money."
There was an increasing note of respect in the clerk's voice as she completed the form, stood up, and personally ushered me to the door. As I drove into our driveway, buoyed up by my glamorous new career, I was greeted by my lab assistants - ages 13, 7, and 3. Upstairs I could hear our new experimental model (6 months) in the child-development program, testing out a new vocal pattern. I felt triumphant! I had scored a beat on bureaucracy! And I had gone on the official records as someone more distinguished and indispensable to mankind than "just another mother."
Motherhood...what a glorious career. Especially when there's a title on the door. Send this to another Mother you know. Whether a stay at home Mom or a career Mom, we should all carry this title.
The Images of Mother:
4 YEARS OF AGE ~ My Mommy can do anything!
8 YEARS OF AGE ~ My Mom knows a lot! A whole lot!
12 YEARS OF AGE ~ My Mother doesn't really know quite everything.
14 YEARS OF AGE ~ Naturally, Mother doesn't know that, either.
16 YEARS OF AGE ~ Mother? She's hopelessly old-fashioned.
18 YEARS OF AGE ~ That old woman? She's way out of date!
25 YEARS OF AGE ~ Well, she might know a little bit about it.
35 YEARS OF AGE ~ Before we decide, let's get Mom's opinion.
45 YEARS OF AGE ~ Wonder what Mom would have thought about it?
65 YEARS OF AGE ~ Wish I could talk it over with Mom.


-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

BTW, I got a kick out of that instinct line. I had absolutely NONE. I read every book on babies, children, and child-rearing that I could find. Some theories worked and some were thrown out to be replaced by new theories. I can't do much of anything without a manual, and parenting was no exception. It amazes me sometimes that the three of them managed to survive to adulthood.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.

That's a wonderful story, Anita. I've got my kids on my resume (the one for when I wear the artist hat) as an ongoing performance art piece, and my housekeeping as a site-specific installation.

Instinct? I can't think of any time so far that "instinct" has felt like it came into play. Paying attention to woman's intuition? Sure. Hormonal driven behavior due to all those years of nursing? Yes, when I stopped nursing and lost those prolactin levels I suddenly realized there was a reason some animals eat their young, and suddenly didn't have the need to be bonded to them like superglue.

But mostly it is training -- some from books and other parents and my own mom with me, but by far the way I've learned most about parenting is from paying attention to what my babies had to tell me. They communicate exquisitely well, but many times parents don't know how to listen or otherwise observe what their babies are so desperately trying to get across to them.

-- Firemouse (sitespecific@in.stallation), July 12, 2001.

"BTW, I got a kick out of that instinct line. I had absolutely NONE. I read every book on babies, children, and child-rearing that I could find. "

Ah but what do you think of "mother instinct" to be? Do you think of it as because you were born female you were also born with an instruction manual on how to raise kids imprinted in your brain at birth? Or do you think of it as having an URGE to learn all you can to protect and raise your kids the best you can?

According to my "research" and what you said, you've got a powerful mothering instinct ;)

-- (Research@ssociate.too), July 12, 2001.

Firemouse --

"I fail to see what relevance her older child has to any arguments here. Please explain."

Several posters have claimed that Mrs. Engholm's dead infant is "evidence" that she placed her career before her child. If that is so, then her still-living and older child is evidence that she did not. Claiming the dead infant as "evidence" places one in a rather sticky position. In actuality, neither child (living or dead) is "evidence" of anything. Clare Engholm's body is evidence that she is dead. That's all.

"That a family decision led to _both_ parents choosing careers over stay-at-home parenthood is more the issue than just the mother's choices. The father could have stayed home to be with the kids."

Yes. And this issue is being taken up on another thread.

"As a CEO, Kari undoubtedly made a much better income than Dennis, a university professor."

That's not absolutely certain (I know some CEOs of small outfits that make in the low- to mid-five figures), but I would agree that it is likely.

"I haven't seen anything to support the idea that one can be both a CEO of a hospital or any large, complicated business that involves a great deal of time commitment, and be a truly involved parent. The two jobs tend to be mutually exclusive."

Tend to be, but are not absolutely.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 15, 2001.

The older child's continued good health would only be relevant if putting a career ahead of parenting inevitably killed children.

-- Firemouse (mr.spock@log.ic), July 15, 2001.

"I have evidence. It is you who has no evidence."

Then PROVE that Mrs. Kari Engholm placed her career before her children. You claimed it; now prove it.

>>>>>You say "she did this," when you have no proof. In actuality, you BELIEVE she did this, but don't want to admit that because you've dug yourself in too deeply. Of course, you did admit yesterday that you 'believe' she put her career before her children, and that's a sign that you are coming to your senses. "You're clearly so stupid that you can't even understand what you read. Perhaps a more elementary reading education would provide more assistance for you."

You are incorrect. You said that she DID. I say that you BELIEVE that she did. You have presented no evidence to prove your contention.

>>>>>The whole problem with your argument is that you haven't got any evidence.

"Of course I do. You haven't proven otherwise, dumbass."

I have done so. You are wrong. Reread the citations on evidence from the URoE.

>>>>>Therefore, you are dealing not with FACT, but BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want, and it won't matter to me. But when you say "Person X did Y," I might get involved.

"Yes, you got involved, and looked mighty stupid doing it."

Nope. Whipped your ass soundly. BTW, you are the little girly-man who recently ran off when I asked for your address, aren't you? The little punk who expressed concern that I would never show up on your doorstep? And who then disappeared when he decided it would be better not to find out whether or not I'd tear a chunk out of your hide?

>>>>>Many of your arguments are poorly-formed, and seem to be more semantic exercises than actual arguments.

"You mean like when you said you were responding to the FIRST sentence in a quote with TWO sentences?? Moron."

How entertaining to see you engaging in semantic arguments. It is a rather ineffective dodge, Ding. It doesn't cover the fact that you've got no evidence.

>>>>>Further, you also appear to be using your ignorance of evidentiary procedure as some sort of claim to authority. It just doesn't work that way, Ding.

"It does when what I have accused her of is not a crime, which I have already stated."

You lack the legal knowledge to make such judgements. Claiming that Mrs. Engholm put her career before her children constitutes accusing her of a crime.

"By the way, thanks for your so-called "evidence." Too bad it's irrelevant."

BTW, thanks for your anticipated dismissal of relevant legal proof. Your desperation drives you to ever more entertaining heights of denial and hysteria.

>>>>>Providing actual, verifiable EVIDENCE of your central claim would be the most effective way to advance your argument. You might want to go back to the Darrell Scott threads and see how it's done.

"I did provide evidence. You just didn't like it. Too bad for you."

You didn't provide evidence. I proved why it wasn't. Too bad for you.

>>>>>Uh huh. So when you do that, it's all right. When I do it, you leap on it as some sort of semantic evidence that you're right. I see what's going on. You have a very large double standard operating in your head, Ding.

"Wrong. It is YOU that obviously has the double-standard."

Incorrect. You take me to task for using your own argumentation tactics. If they are wrong when I use them, then they are wrong when you use them.

"Perhaps you should read that post again a few times so you understand what it says before you make yourself look like such a moron."

Perhaps you should reread the entire thread so that you can see what a hypocrite you are.

>>>>>Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are."

>>>>>"Bullshit. Same difference."

>>>>>Wrong. A statement of opinion is not a statement of fact, idiot."

"But to YOU they are the same, idiot."

No, idiot. YOU claimed that they are. I claim that they are NOT. Show me ANYWHERE on this thread where you said that it was your OPINION that Mrs. Engholm placed her career before her children, and not a FACT that she did. You have insisted on presenting your argument as fact when it most assuredly is not.

>>>>>"You were mind reading, dumbfuck. The fact that you won't admit it only proves that you are a liar as well."

>>>>>No, dumbfuck, I was clearly stating my opinion. The fact that you can't understand that only proves that you are a moron, as well.

"No, this clearly proves that you are a moron."

You can't distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact? What an idiot you are.

>>>>>I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

>>>>>"Is that all the problem is, you simpering moron?? How about if I say I think she put her career before her kids, based on the EVIDENCE I presented. Does that make you feel all warm and cozy now, dickhead??"

>>>>>Actually, you simpering moron, how I feel is beside the point. You claimed that you KNEW something. You most assuredly do NOT. You BELIEVE something, yet your ego refuses to let you admit it, now that you've been called on the carpet. Further, you can jabber all you want about evidence, because you have none.

"Of course I have evidence, you just don't know how to read, dickbrain."

You are manifestly wrong on two items in that sentence. You have no evidence (as I have proven), and I obviously know how to read.

>>>>>Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else.

>>>>>"Because, dipshit, what I accused her of is not a crime. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly stupid, I'm guessing you won't."

>>>>>Actually, dipshit, what you accused her of is most definitely a crime in light of Clare Engholm's death. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly ignorant of the law, the legal process and evidentiary proceedings, I'm guessing you won't.

"No, what I accused her of is NEVER a crime, you ignorant dipshit."

When it is linked to a child's death, it is ALWAYS a crime, you ignorant dipshit.

>>>>>You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

>>>>>"I understand the difference just fine. It is YOU who apparently doesn't understand the difference, you pathetic dweeb."

>>>>>Liar.

"Looks like you're the liar here."

Not on your say-so. You have failed to distinguish between fact and evidence. You have failed to present proof of your wild-eyed claim. You have failed to prove your "liar" claim. Three strikes, you're out.

>>>>>You've admitted to not knowing the law and not knowing (and not caring) what's in the URoE. Obviously, since you're unfamiliar with those matters, you cannot possibly know, let alone understand the difference, you pathetic lying dweeb.

"What a pathetic crybaby you are. I think I hear your mommy calling you."

What a pathetic loser you are. I think I smell something in your diaper.

>>>>>The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

>>>>>"No, they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT since we are not talking about a crime, dumbass. It looks like you're the one with the ignorant and belligerent demeanor here."

>>>>>Wrong. They are absolutely relevant since we ARE talking about a possible crime, your ignorant and uninformed protestations notwithstanding.

"You've already admitted that it isn't a crime. So it's not a crime. You lose. I win."

Incorrect. The pure act is not a crime. The act, when coupled with a child's death (as in the Engholm case) can be a crime. I admitted nothing. You have lied again. You lose. I win.

>>>>>You are uneducated about the law (therefore uninformed and ignorant) and you are arguing about something you neither know nor understand. So who's being belligerent? You, Dudley.

"No, Dudley, you are the one who is belligerent."

Arguing over something about which you know nothing? Nope. It's you. But if it makes you feel any better, then we can both be belligerent.

>>>>>BTW, I love your use of the "no, it's not, no, it's not, no it's not" tactic. Ignorance of the law, combined with raving denial, just serves to make you look even more desperate.

"Looks like you're the desperate one here. Must feel pretty bad having boxed yourself in like this."

No boxing in going on here -- except your own. You've got no proof of your own, overwhelming proof against you, and you still refuse to back off. You argue like your last name is Clinton.

>>>>>Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

>>>>>"But your proof is not evidentiary, "Counselor." You have failed. Try to take it like a man."

>>>>>Pfffffffffft. YOU are the one who has to provide evidentiary proof, Your Honor. I am presenting proof of what CONSTITUTES evidentiary proof. You have failed to distinguish between and understand the two. Try to take it like a man, ignoramus.

"And yet you still haven't provided proof that what I accused her of is a crime. Too bad. You lose again.

Nope. I win. You'll have another legal brief tomorrow. Too bad. You lose again.

>>>>>Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over.

>>>>>"Yes, there is, you imbecile. You were WRONG. Do you understand? WRONG. You fail again. Point goes to ME."

>>>>>No, there is not, you imbecile. You didn't make a point in opposition. WRONG. You fail again. No point goes to you; in fact, no point goes to either of us. You really are poorly skilled at this.

"Wrong, I am far better skilled at this than you. Best you remember that. Point for me. None for you. I win again."

No. You have no skill at this whatsoever. You are not debating -- you are simply baiting. Best you remember that. No point for either of us. You lied again. Loser.

>>>>>Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are.

>>>>>"Actually, I am FAR more intelligent than you, as is obvious."

>>>>>What is obvious is that you are not educated in the law, about which you are trying to argue.

"What is obvious is that the law is irrelevant since I haven't accused her of a crime."

What is obvious is that you don't know the law. Therefore, your desperate denials are groundless and unsupportable. This is the part of your so-called argument that gets taken apart next.

>>>>>It is also obvious that you are not intelligent enough in debate to present defensible supporting proof of your convictions.

"It is obvious that you couldn't understand proof if it bit you on the ass."

What an obtuse fool you are. I provided evidence that your so- called "proof" does not support your contention. Furthermore, I provided a legal citation, whereas you have only offered your rather tired and strained opinion. Considering you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the law, your legal opinion carries no weight.

>>>>>Furthermore, it is obvious that you are foolishly clinging to an unproven and unsupported opinion as fact. Those are not the actions of an intelligent person.

"Then perhaps you should stop doing them."

Yes, perhaps you should.

>>>>>"Not only that, but I am much better looking, far stronger, and have a MUCH BIGGER penis, which I use to satisfy hundreds of big- breasted women each and every night. You, on the other hand, most likely use your tiny organ to molest small animals, which is probably all you can really get."

>>>>>If you say so. However, lacking first-hand knowledge of my sexual equipment, prowess or activities, these are simply guesses on your part. Further, as you have no idea whatsoever regarding my appearance or my physical strength, any statements regarding our relative ratings on those scores are simply wild-eyed speculation on your part.

"Based on your patheic agruments, I would say those speculations are right on."

(shrug) I really don't care about your sexual equipment or activities, and why you would care about mine is really beside the point. Seems that only a desperate ass would try to take a debate in the direction you just have. Thanks for showing us how worried you are.

>>>>>Finally, I contend that you have no penis whatsoever.

"It's certainly bigger than YOURS."

Prove it. (chuckle)

>>>>>You are hereby directed and ordered to present evidence that you actually have one. Failure to present verifiable evidence, along with sufficient corroborating witnesses or notarized affidavits, will be taken as an admission that you have no penis.

"Figures, you'd want to see it. You really want me, don't you?"

I didn't say I wanted to see it. I said I wanted PROOF. You really have to work on your reading comprehension skills. You made the claim that your wang's bigger, so now you get to prove it. Otherwise, you've just demonstrated how void your argument is, how desperate you're getting, and how you're simply a throwaway-name troll who wants a piece of me. And given your concern over our relative dick sizes, I've got a pretty good idea which piece of me you'd like. Besides, why bring it up unless you are obsessed with the male organ? Go get with Latte; he's closeted, just like you.

>>>>>"The fact that you can't understand this only further proves what an incredible dumbass you really are. God, you are pathetic."

>>>>>(laughing heartily) You are one of the most ridiculous trolls I've met on here! You are definitely more fun than Ain't, and you argue like Shadow. 10-4 good buddy! Come on back! :)

"And you are certainly the most pathetic troll I've met on here. I'll be happy to come on back."

If I were a troll, I wouldn't have been using the same name for months. I wouldn't be posting to multiple threads and carrying on adult conversations if I were a troll. Pot. Kettle. Black.

>>>>>Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed.

>>>>>"Again, you admit to being WRONG. Another point for ME."

>>>>>Incorrect.

"Correct. You admitted to being WRONG. And now you are WRONG about that. I win again. You fail.

Wrong. You made no point in opposition. Therefore, you cannot claim to have won a point. You don't win arguments that you don't make. Again you lie, and again you lose. Loser. Failure.

This is FUN! :)

>>>>>You cannot claim a point when you did not argue in favor of it. Someone who claims to be as intelligent as you would know this, but of course, you are stupid and don't know it. No point for either of us.

"You ADMIT that you get no point. Excellent. You LOSE."

I POINT OUT that neither of us get a point. Excellent. You demonstrate yourself to be a LYING LOSER yet again.

>>>>>I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

>>>>>"What I will enjoy is being so much smarter than YOU as we have clearly seen so far, shit-for-brains."

>>>>>The only "we" you could possibly be talking about is: (snip) What's not clear is your intelligence. You seem erratic and uneducated.

"That's because you're too stupid to realize that you lost this argument a long time ago. Too bad, dickweed."

Hee! That's a good one! Tell me another, desperate, lying, legal- illiterate, counter-posting troll!

>>>>>Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

>>>>>"Understood, you can't answer a simple question."

>>>>>>Understood, you can't comprehend a simple answer. Of course, when you do this, it is acceptable. See above.

"I saw above. Too bad you still don't know how to read."

Obviously you are incorrect. I have demonstrated my ability to read in more than one language on this board.

>>>>>I am educated, whereas you are not.

"I am far more educated than you."

You are admittedly uneducated in the law. And you appear to be uneducated in argumentation and debate. What, exactly, are you educated in?

>>>>>I am intelligent, whereas you are not.

"Too bad you haven't proven as such."

Considering I have presented more proof on this thread than just an opinion, I've proven my intelligence. You have proven only that you have an opinion and conviction. If you had any intelligence, you would realize that you need to formulate an actual supportable argument and then SUPPORT it rather than playing "Argument Clinic."

>>>>>I am literate, whereas you seem to have trouble understanding simple questions, simple requests and simple answers. Being called an "unadulterated idiot" by an unadulterated idiot is no big insult.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Yawn.

>>>>>"Another eight hundred million points for ME and you LOSE all the points you've gained so far. Once again, you have failed miserably. I WIN. You LOSE."

>>>>>You continue to fail. Without evidence, you can gain no points whatsoever. Ergo, you have none, your desperate claims notwithstanding.

"Wahhhh, you have no evidence." Of course I do. You're such a baby. Maybe mommy will make you some cookies so you'll feel better."

Of course you don't. You're such a whiner. Furthermore, I require no cookies, and my feelings aren't at issue. We do, however, seem to be arguing about yours.

>>>>>Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

>>>>>"You inability to read simple english is truly astounding."

>>>>>YOUR inability to WRITE simple English is even MORE astounding. ROFLOL!

"Not as astounding as your inability to READ simple english."

If you can't write simple English, then don't expect others to read what you write. I am not to blame for your inability to write properly.

>>>>>"I was only screaming about placing her career before her kids, you mindless bufoon."

>>>>>Without evidence, you mindless BUFFOON. ROFLOL!

"But you said I was screaming about the evidence. I wasn't You just proved it. I win again. Ha!"

Dumbass. We have been going around and around in circles about evidence for over a week. You lie again, and lose again. Oh, and you missed a period there. Ha!

>>>>>"YOU were screaming about the goddamn evidence."

>>>>>Because you haven't got any.

"Of course I do, shithead."

Where is it? Trot it out.

>>>>>"Do you even remember what you say from day to day?"

>>>>>Yup. And I remember what YOU say, too.

"Clearly, you do not."

Clearly I do, and clearly I remember what you say, too. You are simply arguing to argue. What a loser you are.

>>>>>"Do you know what you had for breakfast this morning?"

>>>>>I haven't had breakfast yet this morning. Do you recall the taste of my boot?

"I wouldn't know. Do you recall the taste of my asshole?"

I do not engage in such practices. However, I thank you for coming out of the closet here among a group of open-minded people. I am certain that you will be able to find a willing partner who shares your predilection for S&M, analingus and a variety of homoerotic practices. Latte (who calls himself KoFE) should serve your purposes rather well.

>>>>>"I never said that, you dickbrain. You're just pulling shit out of thin air now, aren't you? Getting desperate?"

>>>>>You are a lying sack of shit. You have been arguing about what constitutes a crime: (SNIP, because Ding was clearly busted) So, dickbrain, you're getting desperate and pulling shit out of thin air now. Keep it up. Just makes it easier for me.

"No problem. It's fun kicking your ass like this."

In case you didn't notice, you were proven to be a liar in that exchange -- so it was your ass that was kicked. Not mine.

>>>>>Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant.

>>>>>"Of course it's relevant, moron. My BELIEF defines my ACTIONS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have a working brain."

>>>>>Of course it is not irrelevant, moron. Belief has no place in a courtroom or in evidentiary proceedings.

"Which isn't even what we were talking about, you dim bulb. But don't let the facts stop you. They never have before!"

Of course we were talking about evidence. I've been demanding that you present some for close to two weeks now. And as far as facts go, you've got a lot of cheek talking about them. All you do is shriek your opinion as loudly as possible, refuse to present proof, refuse to defend your assertions, and then you holler about facts? Well, Ding, don't let lack of facts stop you. It hasn't stopped you yet on this thread.

>>>>>Your ACTIONS are what are dealt with in court, not your BELIEF, idiot. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have both a working brain and an education in the law.

"Looks like you're the idiot here since you don't even understand what you're saying."

Mindreading again? (chuckle) You make this ever so much fun!

>>>>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

>>>>>"No, I haven't. Unlike you, I haven't had frequent run-ins with law enforcement."

>>>>>I've never been arrested, and haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last to years. Unlike you, I am both educated in the law and have a clean legal record.

"Of course you have a clean record. That's why you're always being told by the cops that ignorance is no excuse. They must have given you your "education."

I didn't SAY that a cop had ever told me that. I asked if a cop had ever told YOU that. I know that ignorance is no excuse for violating the law because I have an education in the law. In fact, I have clearly said on this thread that I have a legal education. Obviously, you are desperately trying to impugn my character again. What a pathetic tactic on your part. You can't defeat me, you haven't got any legitimate weapon to use in this debate, so you are reduced to jabbering about dick size and police records. What a LOSER you are.

>>>>>"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

>>>>>It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

>>>>>"It's not when it had NOTHING to do with why I was "screaming," you blithering pathetic dumbass."

>>>>>'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' ROFLOL!

"You're use of 'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' is highly amusing. Keep it up."

Yes. Even more amusing when I point out that YOU are the one using that tactic. More double-standard from you, Ding.

>>>>>My denials advance my argument for two reasons: 1) When I deny something, I have proof for it, OR

"You have no proof. NONE."

I presented proof from the the Uniform Rules of Evidence, which are PROOF in most states. Your objection is overruled.

>>>>>2) When you accuse me of something, you have no proof, therefore a simple denial from me is sufficient.

"I have proof. You have none. I win. You lose. Too bad!"

You have no proof. You have opinion. I have legally-approved proof. I win. You lose. Too bad -- no, wait, this is actually a good thing. I like it when you step in it and hand me another point. Thanks, Ding! :)

>>>>>Your denials do not advance your argument for two reasons: 1) When you deny something, you have no supporting proof for it, OR

"I have proof."

Where is it? You claim on this thread that you have proof. You claim on the other thread that you were stating your opinion. Either you are lying over there or you are lying here -- or you are lying in both places. Which is it?

>>>>>2) When I accuse you of something, I have proof, therefore a simple denial on your part is not sufficient.

"You have no proof."

I have proof approved by the Federal court system, and by most state legislatures. Your objection is overruled.

>>>>>So in answer to your question, yes, my denials are better than yours, you ignoramus.

"No they are not because I HAVE proof whereas you DO NOT. I win again."

Rave all you want. My proof has the weight of the Federal government and most state governments behind it. You have only the weight of your convictions. Perhaps you'll be moving to a cabin in Montana soon in order to build a life where such pesky issues such as the law and the government can be kept at bay.

>>>>>No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

>>>>>"And those citations will no doubt prove that everything that I have said is correct and everything you have said is WRONG. I can hardly wait."

>>>>>Nope. They prove you wrong.

"No, they prove me ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! Thank you for providing them. Your failure is now complete."

Yawn. Tell us how they proved you correct, Ding. Explain that for us. Perhaps you can score a point or two by doing that. Of course, you not doing so only strengthens my argument.

>>>>>Not surprising, since you admittedly don't know jack about the law.

"I know FAR MORE than you about the law, as we have clearly seen."

Liar. You admitted you knew nothing about the law, and your failure to present your own legal arguments (or to rebut mine) demonstrates that you know little or nothing about it.

>>>>>What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence.

>>>>>"Yes, I know you're a legal illiterate, but I appreciate your bringing it up again."

>>>>>You're the admitted legal illiterate, Ding. You really must try harder to keep these things straight. Looks like your short-term memory problem has cropped up again.

"Looks like YOU'RE the legal illiterate here. Perhaps your short-term memory problems are causing you to forget this."

Yawn. What an obtuse dipshit. "No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not! ROFLOL!

>>>>>Yawn. More bleating from the lamb on its way to slaughter.

"Thanks for bleating for me, but really, it's not necessary."

That was bleating from you, Ding. Give us more.

>>>>>Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

>>>>>"Not as funny as watching someone like YOU argue with the judge."

>>>>>I'm smart enough to know that it is a BAD idea to argue with a judge. So I don't do it.

"No, of course you don't. It's certainly not wise given all your run- ins with the law."

As I have told you repeatedly, I have a clean legal record. Again you persist in attempting to impugn my character because you cannot get an advantage in this argument. More desperation tactics don't help your cause, Ding.

>>>>>What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused.

>>>>>"YOUR offer was for me to retract my argument. MY offer was to simply agree to disagree. Is this too much for your reading skills? Should we go back to something a little easier for you like "See Spot Run?"

>>>>>That's right, I made the offer -- the only offer you will get. Is that too much for your limited reading skills?

"See Spot Run. Run Spot Run. How are you doing? Still keeping up?"

I can read that. Seems like you can't read the URoE, though. Get back to me when you can.

>>>>>You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so.

>>>>>"That wasn't an "olive branch," fuckwad, you wanted a surrender flag. Perhaps you should take the surrender flag and shove it up your giant ass. But you'd probably like that too, you sniveling little butt- pirate."

>>>>>Latte? Latte? Meet Ding. Ding, meet Latte. You are both apparently repressed and closeted homosexuals who, while you profess heterosexuality, use gay imagery in your posts. Perhaps you two have lots to talk about.

"YOU'RE the one that demanded to see my penis. I win again."

Liar. I demanded PROOF, but did not demand to see it. Besides, you're the one who brought up dick size. You lose again. Why do you persist when you continue to lose?

>>>>>Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

>>>>>"Don't worry, I won't, since I will not surrender."

>>>>>Then you will lose.

"I never lose."

You already are. You present no proof, make no logical arguments, fail to rebut my arguments, lie and attempt to malign my character, and you think that's winning? Pffffffft.

>>>>>"Never. (jabbering snipped) Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa"

>>>>>Your education is complete, Ding.

"And yours has just begun."

Yeah. Teach me how to lose arguments. That's all you have to teach me. Except perhaps some minutiae about S&M, analingus and gay sex. But I'd rather not hear about those.

>>>>>You are now my latest leash- troll. I own you.

"Keep dancing for me puppet!!! Post some more drivel!! Entertain me!!! Dance! Dance!!!!"

And here we see the depths to which the leash-troll will descend to entertain me, his owner and master. Desperate for approval and attention, the leash-troll will rave, gibber and rant in order to catch my gaze. This will persist as long as I wish it to. Behold, the troll will post again shortly.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 15, 2001.

Thanks for continuing to dance for me. You are most entertaining.

"I have evidence. It is you who has no evidence." Then PROVE that Mrs. Kari Engholm placed her career before her children. You claimed it; now prove it.

I already have. I win. Thanks for playing.

>>>>>You say "she did this," when you have no proof. In actuality, you BELIEVE she did this, but don't want to admit that because you've dug yourself in too deeply. Of course, you did admit yesterday that you 'believe' she put her career before her children, and that's a sign that you are coming to your senses. "You're clearly so stupid that you can't even understand what you read. Perhaps a more elementary reading education would provide more assistance for you."

You are incorrect. You said that she DID. I say that you BELIEVE that she did. You have presented no evidence to prove your contention.

I have provided evidence. I win again. You lose.

>>>>>The whole problem with your argument is that you haven't got any evidence.

"Of course I do. You haven't proven otherwise, dumbass."

I have done so. You are wrong. Reread the citations on evidence from the URoE.

I did. They prove me correct. They prove you wrong. You have failed. Point goes to ME.

>>>>>Therefore, you are dealing not with FACT, but BELIEF. You can believe whatever you want, and it won't matter to me. But when you say "Person X did Y," I might get involved.

"Yes, you got involved, and looked mighty stupid doing it."

Nope. Whipped your ass soundly.

No, it was YOU who got your ass whipped. Ha.

BTW, you are the little girly-man who recently ran off when I asked for your address, aren't you? The little punk who expressed concern that I would never show up on your doorstep? And who then disappeared when he decided it would be better not to find out whether or not I'd tear a chunk out of your hide?

There goes Mr. Mind Reader again. Do you know what number I'm thinking of?

>>>>>Many of your arguments are poorly-formed, and seem to be more semantic exercises than actual arguments.

"You mean like when you said you were responding to the FIRST sentence in a quote with TWO sentences?? Moron."

How entertaining to see you engaging in semantic arguments. It is a rather ineffective dodge, Ding.

Actually, you're the one who's been dodging questions ever since you got here. It's fun to watch, though. And yes, IT REALLY IS fun to watch.

It doesn't cover the fact that you've got no evidence.

Except that I do have evidence. However, you have no evidence.

>>>>>Further, you also appear to be using your ignorance of evidentiary procedure as some sort of claim to authority. It just doesn't work that way, Ding.

"It does when what I have accused her of is not a crime, which I have already stated."

You lack the legal knowledge to make such judgements.

Except that you already said it wasn't a crime. I win again. Too bad.

Claiming that Mrs. Engholm put her career before her children constitutes accusing her of a crime.

Try that in a courtroom and you'd be soundly spanked by a judge.

"By the way, thanks for your so-called "evidence." Too bad it's irrelevant."

BTW, thanks for your anticipated dismissal of relevant legal proof. Your desperation drives you to ever more entertaining heights of denial and hysteria.

I had already told you it would be irrelevant. And, of course, it was. I win again.

>>>>>Providing actual, verifiable EVIDENCE of your central claim would be the most effective way to advance your argument. You might want to go back to the Darrell Scott threads and see how it's done.

"I did provide evidence. You just didn't like it. Too bad for you."

You didn't provide evidence. I proved why it wasn't. Too bad for you.

I did provide evidence. Your desperation drives you to ever more entertaining heights of denial and hysteria.

>>>>>Uh huh. So when you do that, it's all right. When I do it, you leap on it as some sort of semantic evidence that you're right. I see what's going on. You have a very large double standard operating in your head, Ding.

"Wrong. It is YOU that obviously has the double-standard."

Incorrect.

No, you are incorrect.

You take me to task for using your own argumentation tactics. If they are wrong when I use them, then they are wrong when you use them.

I never used them, only you did. So only you are wrong. I am right. You lose. Another point for me.

"Perhaps you should read that post again a few times so you understand what it says before you make yourself look like such a moron."

Perhaps you should reread the entire thread so that you can see what a hypocrite you are.

Guess you didn't read that post again. How predictable.

>>>>>Incorrect, Ding. I said "I think," not "you are."

>>>>>"Bullshit. Same difference."

>>>>>Wrong. A statement of opinion is not a statement of fact, idiot."

"But to YOU they are the same, idiot."

No, idiot. YOU claimed that they are.

No, YOU claimed that they are, not me.

I claim that they are NOT.

Now you're changing your story. Keep it up, this is great.

Show me ANYWHERE on this thread where you said that it was your OPINION that Mrs. Engholm placed her career before her children, and not a FACT that she did.

The post on July 9 to Polly where I use the phrase "I would still believe." Not that it matters. You will consider this case to be invalid, of course. It is either not worded exactly to your specifications or it arrived to late in the argument for you. Ahhh, predictability.

You have insisted on presenting your argument as fact when it most assuredly is not.

No, you're the one who is presenting your argument as fact.

>>>>>"You were mind reading, dumbfuck. The fact that you won't admit it only proves that you are a liar as well."

>>>>>No, dumbfuck, I was clearly stating my opinion. The fact that you can't understand that only proves that you are a moron, as well.

"No, this clearly proves that you are a moron."

You can't distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact? What an idiot you are.

No, apparently you can't distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact or else you would never have started this flame war in the first place. What an idiot you are.

>>>>>I expressed an opinion on my part, not a fact on yours. This is why your argument regarding Mrs. Engholm does not hold water. You will not say "I think" -- you insist that your perception is fact; saying, in effect, "I know." That is why you are wrong -- because you do NOT know for a fact that your perception is correct.

>>>>>"Is that all the problem is, you simpering moron?? How about if I say I think she put her career before her kids, based on the EVIDENCE I presented. Does that make you feel all warm and cozy now, dickhead??"

>>>>>Actually, you simpering moron, how I feel is beside the point. You claimed that you KNEW something. You most assuredly do NOT. You BELIEVE something, yet your ego refuses to let you admit it, now that you've been called on the carpet. Further, you can jabber all you want about evidence, because you have none.

"Of course I have evidence, you just don't know how to read, dickbrain."

You are manifestly wrong on two items in that sentence. You have no evidence (as I have proven), and I obviously know how to read.

I have evidence, and as you have just shown, you don't know how to read.

>>>>>Absolutely you did. You presented evidence unacceptable under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (which are applicable in Iowa and many other states), and have flatly refused to present anything else.

>>>>>"Because, dipshit, what I accused her of is not a crime. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly stupid, I'm guessing you won't."

>>>>>Actually, dipshit, what you accused her of is most definitely a crime in light of Clare Engholm's death. Maybe you'll eventually realize that, but since you're so amazingly ignorant of the law, the legal process and evidentiary proceedings, I'm guessing you won't.

"No, what I accused her of is NEVER a crime, you ignorant dipshit."

When it is linked to a child's death, it is ALWAYS a crime, you ignorant dipshit.

So now you're accusing her of a crime? Why don't you let the DA and the court system work this out themselves, you ignorant dipshit?

>>>>>You presented something that does not constitute proof under the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the difference.

>>>>>"I understand the difference just fine. It is YOU who apparently doesn't understand the difference, you pathetic dweeb."

>>>>>Liar.

"Looks like you're the liar here."

Not on your say-so.

It is quite true.

You have failed to distinguish between fact and evidence.

No, you have failed at this, not me.

You have failed to present proof of your wild-eyed claim.

I have presented proof.

You have failed to prove your "liar" claim.

I have proven this as well.

Three strikes, you're out.

No, you're the one that's out.

>>>>>You've admitted to not knowing the law and not knowing (and not caring) what's in the URoE. Obviously, since you're unfamiliar with those matters, you cannot possibly know, let alone understand the difference, you pathetic lying dweeb.

"What a pathetic crybaby you are. I think I hear your mommy calling you."

What a pathetic loser you are. I think I smell something in your diaper.

What a pathetic whiner you are. I think it's bedtime for you.

>>>>>The Uniform Rules of Evidence are ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT here. Your cavalier attitude regarding them and regarding evidence in general simply serves to underscore your ignorant and belligerent demeanor.

>>>>>"No, they are ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT since we are not talking about a crime, dumbass. It looks like you're the one with the ignorant and belligerent demeanor here."

>>>>>Wrong. They are absolutely relevant since we ARE talking about a possible crime, your ignorant and uninformed protestations notwithstanding.

"You've already admitted that it isn't a crime. So it's not a crime. You lose. I win."

Incorrect.

No, you already admitted it's a crime.

The pure act is not a crime.

And you just admitted it again. Thanks for playing. I win.

The act, when coupled with a child's death (as in the Engholm case) can be a crime.

A few sentences ago, you said it was ALWAYS a crime. Then you said it's NEVER a crime. Now it CAN BE crime. Thank god you don't actually work in the legal system. You wouldn't even make a good juror.

I admitted nothing.

You admitted that it wasn't a crime. I win.

>>>>>You are uneducated about the law (therefore uninformed and ignorant) and you are arguing about something you neither know nor understand. So who's being belligerent? You, Dudley.

"No, Dudley, you are the one who is belligerent."

Arguing over something about which you know nothing?

This is what you are doing, obviously.

>>>>>BTW, I love your use of the "no, it's not, no, it's not, no it's not" tactic. Ignorance of the law, combined with raving denial, just serves to make you look even more desperate.

"Looks like you're the desperate one here. Must feel pretty bad having boxed yourself in like this."

No boxing in going on here -- except your own.

No, you've clearly boxed yourself in. Too bad for you.

You've got no proof of your own,

I have proof.

overwhelming proof against you,

I have no proof against me.

and you still refuse to back off.

I refuse to back off because I am right and you are wrong. I will never back off. Ever.

>>>>>Evidentiary proof is never irrelevant, "Counselor."

>>>>>"But your proof is not evidentiary, "Counselor." You have failed. Try to take it like a man."

>>>>>Pfffffffffft. YOU are the one who has to provide evidentiary proof, Your Honor. I am presenting proof of what CONSTITUTES evidentiary proof. You have failed to distinguish between and understand the two. Try to take it like a man, ignoramus.

"And yet you still haven't provided proof that what I accused her of is a crime. Too bad. You lose again.

Nope. I win.

Nope. You lose.

>>>>>Considering you never saw fit to comment on my original statement on that score, this isn't anything for you to to crow over.

>>>>>"Yes, there is, you imbecile. You were WRONG. Do you understand? WRONG. You fail again. Point goes to ME."

>>>>>No, there is not, you imbecile. You didn't make a point in opposition. WRONG. You fail again. No point goes to you; in fact, no point goes to either of us. You really are poorly skilled at this.

"Wrong, I am far better skilled at this than you. Best you remember that. Point for me. None for you. I win again."

No. You have no skill at this whatsoever.

I have far more skill at this than you.

You are not debating -- you are simply baiting.

No, you are the one who has been simply baiting since you got here. That must be all you know how to do, troll.

Best you remember that. No point for either of us.

Again you admit you get no point. I win again.

You lied again. Loser.

No, you lied again. Loser.

>>>>>Yes, I took you for being considerably more intelligent than you actually are.

>>>>>"Actually, I am FAR more intelligent than you, as is obvious."

>>>>>What is obvious is that you are not educated in the law, about which you are trying to argue.

"What is obvious is that the law is irrelevant since I haven't accused her of a crime."

What is obvious is that you don't know the law.

No, it is obvious that you don't know the law.

Therefore, your desperate denials are groundless and unsupportable. This is the part of your so-called argument that gets taken apart next.

You have yet to take anything apart so far.

>>>>>It is also obvious that you are not intelligent enough in debate to present defensible supporting proof of your convictions.

"It is obvious that you couldn't understand proof if it bit you on the ass."

What an obtuse fool you are. I provided evidence that your so- called "proof" does not support your contention.

No, you have provided no evidence. What an obtuse fool you are.

Furthermore, I provided a legal citation, whereas you have only offered your rather tired and strained opinion.

It is your opinion that is rather tired and strained.

Considering you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the law, your legal opinion carries no weight.

I know far more about the law than you, so it is your legal opinion that carries no weight.

>>>>>Furthermore, it is obvious that you are foolishly clinging to an unproven and unsupported opinion as fact. Those are not the actions of an intelligent person.

"Then perhaps you should stop doing them."

Yes, perhaps you should.

You haven't so far.

>>>>>"Not only that, but I am much better looking, far stronger, and have a MUCH BIGGER penis, which I use to satisfy hundreds of big- breasted women each and every night. You, on the other hand, most likely use your tiny organ to molest small animals, which is probably all you can really get."

>>>>>If you say so. However, lacking first-hand knowledge of my sexual equipment, prowess or activities, these are simply guesses on your part. Further, as you have no idea whatsoever regarding my appearance or my physical strength, any statements regarding our relative ratings on those scores are simply wild-eyed speculation on your part.

"Based on your patheic agruments, I would say those speculations are right on."

(shrug) I really don't care about your sexual equipment or activities, and why you would care about mine is really beside the point.

Except for the fact that you wanted to see mine, dumbass.

Seems that only a desperate ass would try to take a debate in the direction you just have.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have asked to see my penis, you desperate ass.

Thanks for showing us how worried you are.

Looks like you're the one who's worried here.

>>>>>Finally, I contend that you have no penis whatsoever.

"It's certainly bigger than YOURS."

Prove it. (chuckle)

Thanks for proving my point. (chuckle)

>>>>>You are hereby directed and ordered to present evidence that you actually have one. Failure to present verifiable evidence, along with sufficient corroborating witnesses or notarized affidavits, will be taken as an admission that you have no penis.

"Figures, you'd want to see it. You really want me, don't you?"

I didn't say I wanted to see it.

Liar. You just said that. You lose again. Man, you are stupid.

I said I wanted PROOF. You really have to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Looks like you need to work on yours.

You made the claim that your wang's bigger, so now you get to prove it. Otherwise, you've just demonstrated how void your argument is, how desperate you're getting, and how you're simply a throwaway-name troll who wants a piece of me.

You're the one who came in here wanting a piece of ME, dumbass.

And given your concern over our relative dick sizes,

Looks like you're the one who has a concern over this issue.

I've got a pretty good idea which piece of me you'd like. Besides, why bring it up unless you are obsessed with the male organ? Go get with Latte; he's closeted, just like you.

I don't know Latte. Obviously you do, so perhaps you should get with him.

>>>>>"The fact that you can't understand this only further proves what an incredible dumbass you really are. God, you are pathetic."

>>>>>(laughing heartily) You are one of the most ridiculous trolls I've met on here! You are definitely more fun than Ain't, and you argue like Shadow. 10-4 good buddy! Come on back! :)

"And you are certainly the most pathetic troll I've met on here. I'll be happy to come on back."

If I were a troll, I wouldn't have been using the same name for months.

I've seen plenty of trolls who use the same name for months.

I wouldn't be posting to multiple threads and carrying on adult conversations if I were a troll.

And yet, when I do the same, I am a troll. Either both are true or none are. You chose none. You lose. Thank you for playing.

>>>>>Therefore, my initial impression of you was wrongly placed.

>>>>>"Again, you admit to being WRONG. Another point for ME."

>>>>>Incorrect.

"Correct. You admitted to being WRONG. And now you are WRONG about that. I win again. You fail.

Wrong. You made no point in opposition. Therefore, you cannot claim to have won a point.

Wrong. You admitted to being wrong. I win again.

You don't win arguments that you don't make. Again you lie, and again you lose. Loser. Failure.

Now you're the one that's lying. You lose.

This is FUN! :)

Isn't it?

>>>>>You cannot claim a point when you did not argue in favor of it. Someone who claims to be as intelligent as you would know this, but of course, you are stupid and don't know it. No point for either of us.

"You ADMIT that you get no point. Excellent. You LOSE."

I POINT OUT that neither of us get a point.

AGAIN you admit that you get no point. You lose again!

>>>>>I thought you were smarter. You're not. This, Ding, is what is colloqually called a "left-handed compliment." Enjoy it.

>>>>>"What I will enjoy is being so much smarter than YOU as we have clearly seen so far, shit-for-brains."

>>>>>The only "we" you could possibly be talking about is: (snip) What's not clear is your intelligence. You seem erratic and uneducated.

"That's because you're too stupid to realize that you lost this argument a long time ago. Too bad, dickweed."

Hee! That's a good one!

Of course it is. Thanks for the compliment.

>>>>>Yes, it does. If you don't want to accept that answer, that's too bad.

>>>>>"Understood, you can't answer a simple question."

>>>>>>Understood, you can't comprehend a simple answer. Of course, when you do this, it is acceptable. See above.

"I saw above. Too bad you still don't know how to read."

Obviously you are incorrect.

Obviously I am correct, as I have been so far.

I have demonstrated my ability to read in more than one language on this board.

No, you have demonstrated your inability to read simple english.

>>>>>I am educated, whereas you are not.

"I am far more educated than you."

You are admittedly uneducated in the law.

I am far more educated in the law than you.

And you appear to be uneducated in argumentation and debate.

I am far more educated in argumentation and debate than you.

What, exactly, are you educated in?

I just answered that. Again, you simply don't know how to read.

>>>>>I am intelligent, whereas you are not.

"Too bad you haven't proven as such."

Considering I have presented more proof on this thread than just an opinion, I've proven my intelligence.

No, you haven't proven anything except that you don't know how to read.

You have proven only that you have an opinion and conviction. If you had any intelligence, you would realize that you need to formulate an actual supportable argument and then SUPPORT it rather than playing "Argument Clinic."

I have supported my argument. You have failed to support yours. I win. You lose.

>>>>>I am literate, whereas you seem to have trouble understanding simple questions, simple requests and simple answers. Being called an "unadulterated idiot" by an unadulterated idiot is no big insult.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Yawn.

Yes, as I said, it's bedtime for you.

>>>>>"Another eight hundred million points for ME and you LOSE all the points you've gained so far. Once again, you have failed miserably. I WIN. You LOSE."

>>>>>You continue to fail. Without evidence, you can gain no points whatsoever. Ergo, you have none, your desperate claims notwithstanding.

"Wahhhh, you have no evidence." Of course I do. You're such a baby. Maybe mommy will make you some cookies so you'll feel better."

Of course you don't.

Of course I do. You're the one with no evidence.

You're such a whiner.

Sounds like you're the whiner here.

Furthermore, I require no cookies, and my feelings aren't at issue. We do, however, seem to be arguing about yours.

No, it seems we are arguing about yours, not mine.

>>>>>Yes. The two matters are related, fool. Evidence and crime go together, Ding, in case you hadn't noticed. You're screaming loudly about a possible crime, and you're screaming loudly about evidence. Did you notice that?

>>>>>"You inability to read simple english is truly astounding."

>>>>>YOUR inability to WRITE simple English is even MORE astounding. ROFLOL!

"Not as astounding as your inability to READ simple english."

If you can't write simple English, then don't expect others to read what you write.

So now you admit you can't read simple English. I win again.

I am not to blame for your inability to write properly.

Only for your inability to read properly.

>>>>>"I was only screaming about placing her career before her kids, you mindless bufoon."

>>>>>Without evidence, you mindless BUFFOON. ROFLOL!

"But you said I was screaming about the evidence. I wasn't You just proved it. I win again. Ha!"

Dumbass. We have been going around and around in circles about evidence for over a week.

Yes, and we will continue to go around and around in circles forever, just as I had predicted. Dumbass.

You lie again, and lose again.

Wrong. You lied and you lost.

>>>>>"YOU were screaming about the goddamn evidence."

>>>>>Because you haven't got any.

"Of course I do, shithead."

Where is it? Trot it out.

I already showed it to you, moron.

>>>>>"Do you even remember what you say from day to day?"

>>>>>Yup. And I remember what YOU say, too.

"Clearly, you do not."

Clearly I do, and clearly I remember what you say, too.

No, clearly you do not remember what either of us has said.

You are simply arguing to argue. What a loser you are.

No, you are the one simply arguing to argue. What a loser you are.

>>>>>"Do you know what you had for breakfast this morning?"

>>>>>I haven't had breakfast yet this morning. Do you recall the taste of my boot?

"I wouldn't know. Do you recall the taste of my asshole?"

I do not engage in such practices. However, I thank you for coming out of the closet here among a group of open-minded people.

You're the one who "knows" this Latte person, not me.

I am certain that you will be able to find a willing partner who shares your predilection for S&M, analingus and a variety of homoerotic practices. Latte (who calls himself KoFE) should serve your purposes rather well.

Yes, and you know this from practical experience,obviously.

>>>>>"I never said that, you dickbrain. You're just pulling shit out of thin air now, aren't you? Getting desperate?"

>>>>>You are a lying sack of shit. You have been arguing about what constitutes a crime: (SNIP, because Ding was clearly busted) So, dickbrain, you're getting desperate and pulling shit out of thin air now. Keep it up. Just makes it easier for me.

"No problem. It's fun kicking your ass like this."

In case you didn't notice, you were proven to be a liar in that exchange -- so it was your ass that was kicked. Not mine.

No, I clearly proved that you were the liar and thus, it was your ass that was kicked. Too bad. You lose again.

>>>>>Your BELIEF that you did not accuse her of a crime is irrelevant.

>>>>>"Of course it's relevant, moron. My BELIEF defines my ACTIONS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have a working brain."

>>>>>Of course it is not irrelevant, moron. Belief has no place in a courtroom or in evidentiary proceedings.

"Which isn't even what we were talking about, you dim bulb. But don't let the facts stop you. They never have before!"

Of course we were talking about evidence. I've been demanding that you present some for close to two weeks now.

And I presented some. You just didn't like it. Too bad for you.

And as far as facts go, you've got a lot of cheek talking about them. All you do is shriek your opinion as loudly as possible, refuse to present proof, refuse to defend your assertions, and then you holler about facts?

Actually, it is you that is shrieking your opinion as loudly as possible, refusing to present proof, and refusing to defend your assertions.

>>>>>Your ACTIONS are what are dealt with in court, not your BELIEF, idiot. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since it requires that you have both a working brain and an education in the law.

"Looks like you're the idiot here since you don't even understand what you're saying."

Mindreading again? (chuckle) You make this ever so much fun!

Yes, as I said, it's fun kicking your ass like this.

>>>>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever been told that by a police officer?

>>>>>"No, I haven't. Unlike you, I haven't had frequent run-ins with law enforcement."

>>>>>I've never been arrested, and haven't had so much as a speeding ticket in the last to years. Unlike you, I am both educated in the law and have a clean legal record.

"Of course you have a clean record. That's why you're always being told by the cops that ignorance is no excuse. They must have given you your "education."

I didn't SAY that a cop had ever told me that.

You didn't have to. It's pretty obvious where you got your supposed legal education.

I asked if a cop had ever told YOU that. I know that ignorance is no excuse for violating the law because I have an education in the law. In fact, I have clearly said on this thread that I have a legal education.

Too bad it has yet to manifest itself here.

Obviously, you are desperately trying to impugn my character again.

You've been doing a pretty good job of impugning it yourself.

What a pathetic tactic on your part. You can't defeat me,

I have already defeated you.

you haven't got any legitimate weapon to use in this debate,

Except for evidence, of which you have none.

so you are reduced to jabbering about dick size and police records. What a LOSER you are.

Looks like you're thje one reduced to jabbering about dick size and police records. What a LOSER you are.

>>>>>"asking me why I am screaming even though I don't know about the admissibility of the evidence in a courtroom is pointless."

>>>>>It is quite to the point when we are arguing about evidence.

>>>>>"It's not when it had NOTHING to do with why I was "screaming," you blithering pathetic dumbass."

>>>>>'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' ROFLOL!

"You're use of 'No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not!' is highly amusing. Keep it up."

Yes. Even more amusing when I point out that YOU are the one using that tactic. More double-standard from you, Ding.

No, it's more amusing when I point out that YOU are the one using that tactic.

>>>>>My denials advance my argument for two reasons: 1) When I deny something, I have proof for it, OR

"You have no proof. NONE."

I presented proof from the the Uniform Rules of Evidence, which are PROOF in most states. Your objection is overruled.

Your proof is irrelevant since I have not accused her of a crime. Your objection is overruled.

>>>>>2) When you accuse me of something, you have no proof, therefore a simple denial from me is sufficient.

"I have proof. You have none. I win. You lose. Too bad!"

You have no proof. You have opinion.

I have proof. You have opinion.

I have legally-approved proof. I win. You lose. Too bad -- no, wait, this is actually a good thing. I like it when you step in it and hand me another point. Thanks, Ding! :)

No, your supposed proof is irrelevant. I win. You lose.

>>>>>Your denials do not advance your argument for two reasons: 1) When you deny something, you have no supporting proof for it, OR

"I have proof."

Where is it? You claim on this thread that you have proof.

I have already posted it.

You claim on the other thread that you were stating your opinion. Either you are lying over there or you are lying here -- or you are lying in both places. Which is it?

I am not lying in either place. You are the one who is lying.

>>>>>2) When I accuse you of something, I have proof, therefore a simple denial on your part is not sufficient.

"You have no proof."

I have proof approved by the Federal court system, and by most state legislatures. Your objection is overruled.

Your proof is irrelevant. Your objection is overruled.

>>>>>So in answer to your question, yes, my denials are better than yours, you ignoramus.

"No they are not because I HAVE proof whereas you DO NOT. I win again."

Rave all you want.

You are the one who is raving here.

My proof has the weight of the Federal government and most state governments behind it.

Your proof is irrelevant.

You have only the weight of your convictions.

And my proof.

Perhaps you'll be moving to a cabin in Montana soon in order to build a life where such pesky issues such as the law and the government can be kept at bay.

Mind reading again??? LOL

>>>>>No, because I hope to have the citations from both the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Iowa Annotated Code up here for you either Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Good work takes time, Ding.

>>>>>"And those citations will no doubt prove that everything that I have said is correct and everything you have said is WRONG. I can hardly wait."

>>>>>Nope. They prove you wrong.

"No, they prove me ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! Thank you for providing them. Your failure is now complete."

Yawn.

Time for bed!

Tell us how they proved you correct, Ding. Explain that for us.

I already have. Too bad you can't read.

Perhaps you can score a point or two by doing that. Of course, you not doing so only strengthens my argument.

Since I already have, it shows that you have no argument. I win again.

>>>>>Not surprising, since you admittedly don't know jack about the law.

"I know FAR MORE than you about the law, as we have clearly seen."

Liar. You admitted you knew nothing about the law, and your failure to present your own legal arguments (or to rebut mine) demonstrates that you know little or nothing about it.

Looks like you are the liar here. Your failure to present a decent legal argument demonstrates that you know little or nothing about it.

>>>>>What's predictable is a legal illiterate claiming victory without evidence.

>>>>>"Yes, I know you're a legal illiterate, but I appreciate your bringing it up again."

>>>>>You're the admitted legal illiterate, Ding. You really must try harder to keep these things straight. Looks like your short-term memory problem has cropped up again.

"Looks like YOU'RE the legal illiterate here. Perhaps your short-term memory problems are causing you to forget this."

Yawn. What an obtuse dipshit. "No, it's not, no, it's not, no, it's not! ROFLOL!

You're really getting sleepy. Go to bed already, you obtuse dipshit.

>>>>>Yawn. More bleating from the lamb on its way to slaughter.

"Thanks for bleating for me, but really, it's not necessary."

That was bleating from you, Ding. Give us more.

It sounded more like bleating from you. Thanks for giving me some more.

>>>>>Sometimes folks like you even argue with the judge. That's always good for a laugh.

>>>>>"Not as funny as watching someone like YOU argue with the judge."

>>>>>I'm smart enough to know that it is a BAD idea to argue with a judge. So I don't do it.

"No, of course you don't. It's certainly not wise given all your run- ins with the law."

As I have told you repeatedly, I have a clean legal record.

Outside of all those run-ins with the law, of course.

Again you persist in attempting to impugn my character because you cannot get an advantage in this argument.

You already impugned your character once you came in here.

More desperation tactics don't help your cause, Ding.

You're the one using desperation tactice. It won't help your cause.

>>>>>What's the matter, Ding, heat getting to be too much for you? I made you the offer already and you refused.

>>>>>"YOUR offer was for me to retract my argument. MY offer was to simply agree to disagree. Is this too much for your reading skills? Should we go back to something a little easier for you like "See Spot Run?"

>>>>>That's right, I made the offer -- the only offer you will get. Is that too much for your limited reading skills?

"See Spot Run. Run Spot Run. How are you doing? Still keeping up?"

I can read that.

Well, that's a start. Perhaps we'll work on more complex sentences in the next few weeks.

Seems like you can't read the URoE, though. Get back to me when you can.

I already have. It proves my point and invalidates yours. I win. You lose.

>>>>>You didn't take the olive branch when it was in front of you, so that option's gone, and I told you so.

>>>>>"That wasn't an "olive branch," fuckwad, you wanted a surrender flag. Perhaps you should take the surrender flag and shove it up your giant ass. But you'd probably like that too, you sniveling little butt- pirate."

>>>>>Latte? Latte? Meet Ding. Ding, meet Latte. You are both apparently repressed and closeted homosexuals who, while you profess heterosexuality, use gay imagery in your posts. Perhaps you two have lots to talk about.

"YOU'RE the one that demanded to see my penis. I win again."

Liar. I demanded PROOF, but did not demand to see it.

Liar. You wanted PROOF because you wanted to see it. Time to come out of the closet already. Too bad I'm not your type.

Besides, you're the one who brought up dick size. You lose again. Why do you persist when you continue to lose?

I persist because I am winning. I will continue to persist because I will never lose. Ever.

>>>>>Don't bother bringing it up again. Bringing it up now only makes you look desperate.

>>>>>"Don't worry, I won't, since I will not surrender."

>>>>>Then you will lose.

"I never lose."

You already are.

Wrong. You've already lost.

You present no proof,

I presented proof.

make no logical arguments,

I made logical arguments

fail to rebut my arguments,

I rebut your arguments successfully.

lie

I catch you in your lies.

and attempt to malign my character,

You have maligned your own character. I had very little to do with that, but it is certainly appreciated.

and you think that's winning? Pffffffft.

You should say "excuse me" after doing that.

>>>>>"Never. (jabbering snipped) Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa"

>>>>>Your education is complete, Ding.

"And yours has just begun."

Yeah.

I'm glad you agree.

Teach me how to lose arguments.

You seem to have an intuitive grasp of that already.

That's all you have to teach me. Except perhaps some minutiae about S&M, analingus and gay sex. But I'd rather not hear about those.

Of course not, since you are already intimately familiar with them.

>>>>>You are now my latest leash- troll. I own you.

"Keep dancing for me puppet!!! Post some more drivel!! Entertain me!!! Dance! Dance!!!!"

And here we see the depths to which the leash-troll will descend to entertain me, his owner and master.

And here we will continue to see the puppet dance for my pleasure. Thank you, puppet.

Desperate for approval and attention, the leash-troll will rave, gibber and rant in order to catch my gaze.

YOU came to ME, puppet.

This will persist as long as I wish it to. Behold, the troll will post again shortly.

And my puppet will respond, and he will continue to respond forever, because he cannot help himself. Keep dancing puppet!!!

-- (ding@ding.ding), July 16, 2001.

"And my puppet will respond, and he will continue to respond forever, because he cannot help himself. Keep dancing puppet!!!"

Quoth ADH. More chow for the troll later.

Persist, leash-troll. I ORDER IT!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 17, 2001.

Latest on Engholm case.

Investigation of baby's death reviewed By APRIL GOODWIN Register Staff Writer 07/19/2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Dallas County attorney is reviewing investigators' findings in the death of Perry baby Clare Engholm, who died last month after her mother left her in a closed minivan all day.

Investigators finished their work on the case Tuesday and gave their findings to Dallas County Attorney Wayne Reisetter. He said Wednesday he will decide whether to file charges against Kari Engholm, the baby's mother, or refer the case to a grand jury for a decision on charges.

Reisetter's decision will be made after he reviews the report. He declined to speculate on when his decision will be made.

Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation spokesman Steve Conlon said he could not comment on details of the investigation.

Kari Engholm, 34, chief executive officer of Dallas County Hospital, has been under investigation since she found her baby daughter dead inside the minivan she was driving June 26. Engholm discovered the 7- month-old when she picked up her son, Eric, from his child-care center after work.

Engholm's husband and priest both said Kari Engholm forgot that she was taking her baby to the sitter that morning because of a change in the family's routine. Investigators obtained a warrant and searched the van in which Clare died. They did not search Engholm's house or her office, authorities said.

Dallas County Judicial Magistrate Virginia Cobb sealed all documents related to the warrant June 27.

Cobb said Wednesday she ordered the documents sealed to prevent speculation about the case. Cobb said it is not an unusual practice to seal search documents.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 19, 2001.

I'm not sure anyone cares anymore, but here is the latest on the Engholm case.

Grand jurors called to Dallas courthouse By APRIL GOODWIN Register Staff Writer 07/20/2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Copyright 2001, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company Adel, Ia. - Grand jurors were called to report for service in Dallas County this week.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, and court officials refused Thursday to say why the grand jury was summoned.

Dallas County Attorney Wayne Reisetter is reviewing an investigative report in the death of Perry baby Clare Engholm, who was left in a hot van last month by her mother.

Reisetter has said that one option open to him is to refer the case to a grand jury to decide whether criminal charges should be filed against Kari Engholm, Clare's mother.

Reisetter declined Thursday to say whether a grand jury had been summoned.

Dallas County District Judge Jerrold W. Jordan confirmed that grand jurors reported to the courthouse Tuesday. Jordan said he thought Reisetter probably summoned grand jurors so they would be ready to hear evidence in the Engholm case at a future date.

Kari Engholm, 34, chief executive officer of Dallas County Hospital, has been under investigation since she found her baby daughter dead inside the minivan she was driving June 26. Engholm discovered the 7- month-old when she picked up her son, Eric, from his child-care center after work.

Engholm's husband and priest said Kari Engholm forgot that she was taking Clare to the sitter because of a change in the family's routine.

Grand juries are infrequently used in most Iowa counties, said Robert Rigg, director of the criminal defense program at Drake Legal Clinic. He estimated grand jurors are summoned 10 to 15 times each year in Polk County and far less often in the state's less-populated counties.

The purpose of a grand jury is to decide whether charges should be filed against a person - not to determine guilt or innocence.

Grand jurors hear evidence and witnesses' testimony, and are allowed to question witnesses. Defense attorneys are not allowed to attend grand jury proceedings.

Rigg said grand juries are often used to decide on charges in cases involving police shootings, child endangerment cases and cases that generate public debate about whether a charge should be filed.

A Polk County grand jury last year examined the death of Charles Lovelady, who died after a scuffle with bar bouncers. The jury charged the two bar bouncers who removed Lovelady from Graffiti's bar with manslaughter. The men were acquitted.

Grand juries consist of residents drawn from a jury list. Five of the seven grand jurors must decide to file charges.

Rigg said grand juries give prosecuting attorneys a sounding board for a case.

Once a prosecutor presents all evidence to a grand jury, Rigg said, jurors have a limitless amount of time to make their decision.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 20, 2001.

Investigation is over. Iwill quit posting these things now. I just thought you might be interested in how this came out. God only knows how long a trial might be.

Perry mother faces felony in baby's death Engholm pleads not guilty to charges By APRIL GOODWIN and LEE ROOD Register Staff Writer 07/21/2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Perry, Ia. - The charges filed against Kari Engholm on Friday in the death of her 7-month-old daughter were the most severe she could have faced, legal experts said.

The Dallas County attorney charged the Perry hospital executive with neglect of a dependent person and involuntary manslaughter. She pleaded not guilty to both charges and was released on a promise to appear at future court hearings.

Engholm forgot her baby, Clare, nearly a month ago in the back of a hot minivan and discovered the little girl dead nine hours later. Engholm's husband, Dennis, and the family's priest have said she had a hectic day of daunting meetings, combined with a change in routine, that caused her to forget the baby.

Kari Engholm, 34, made her first public appearance at a press conference outside the family's church Friday morning. She stood with her husband and their 3½-year-old son, Eric.

"No one can ever know the loss and despair I feel," Kari Engholm said. "We all miss her so much, but I know she's in heaven with God. . . . I pray every day that God will give me the strength to get through this."

Dennis Engholm said the family was disappointed and saddened by the charges "because what occurred was a tragic accident."

"We respect that the county attorney had to make a decision and will continue to cooperate with local authorities as we have from the beginning," Dennis Engholm said.

Criminal neglect of a dependent person is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The involuntary manslaughter charge is a misdemeanor, which could carry up to two more years.

Dallas County Attorney Wayne Reisetter declined to comment Friday on his decision to charge Kari Engholm.

Bob Rigg, director of the criminal defense program at the Drake University Legal Clinic, said Reisetter did not likely have evidence supporting charges of either first- or second-degree murder, which would have required proof that the child was killed intentionally.

Rather, Reisetter must prove under state law that Engholm knowingly or recklessly exposed Clare to the hazard that ultimately killed her, Rigg said. He said to win a conviction on involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must prove Engholm committed an act that unintentionally caused her baby's death.

"I'm not aware of any harsher statute that he could have proceeded with," Rigg said.

The charges did not surprise child-welfare and legal experts.

"It is a tragedy for the whole family and the community, which has lost one of its children," said Vern Armstrong, chief of the Iowa Bureau of Protective Services. "But we cannot lose sight that a child has died and someone was responsible for that child being safe - and that didn't happen."

Child advocate Kathryn Miller, head of Des Moines' Youth Law Center, said the charges tug at the heartstrings of a public divided over what penalty, if any, a parent should pay in the death of a child.

"God, I've had a hard time with this one myself," said Miller, who represents children in abuse cases. "I think the decision is certainly consistent with other decisions in other jurisdictions. . . . but I can't imagine prison as a circumstance. She has her punishment."

The charges disappointed the Engholms' friends and the family's priest, the Rev. Ray Higgins of St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Perry. He said the family was shocked by the severity of the charges, but plans to cooperate with authorities nonetheless.

"The legal charges only add to her grief," Higgins said. "The family is asking for understanding and compassion at this time."

Leesa Stoffers of Coon Rapids was Kari Engholm's coach and teacher at Colfax-Mingo High School. Stoffers was at the press conference Friday to support her former student and athlete.

"If you knew Kari the way I knew Kari, you wouldn't think of this as anything but a horrible, human accident," Stoffers said. "We're here to support her 100 percent."

Jamie Blubaugh of Colfax said she has been a close friend of Engholm's parents since high school, and has known Engholm since the day she was born.

"I couldn't believe it," she said in reference to the charges. "I think she's suffered way too much already."

Perry area residents were emotionally torn about the charges.

Lavonne Carr said she was glad to see that the justice system is unbiased and consistent, but, she said, "I hope she doesn't get convicted."

Shelly Pentico said: "What she did was terrible . . . but I don't think she should be charged."

Angie Aldridge, a Woodward resident who works in Perry, said she constantly changes her mind about whether Engholm should be charged with a crime.

"I can't take a side one way or the other . . . I go back and forth," Aldridge said. "I think they probably had to charge her with something."

Emma Violates, who was pushing her 10-month-old baby boy in a stroller downtown Friday, said the whole case is unbelievable.

"How can you forget your baby?" she said.

Child-protective services is conducting its own investigation into Clare's death, which is still incomplete, Armstrong said.

Workers must determine whether a reasonable and prudent person would have behaved as Engholm did. Parents deemed responsible for abuse and neglect can be placed on the state's abuse registry or face other consequences in juvenile court.

Reisetter has asked that the Iowa Department of Human Services keep the outcome of that investigation confidential pending the criminal trial, although such reports are sometimes made public after a child's death. Disclosure could possibly taint a jury, he said.

A list of potential trial witnesses, according to court records, includes four day-care employees, three hospital employees, seven medical experts, Clare Engholm's baby sitter, two detectives and a police officer.

Kari Engholm remains on a personal leave of absence from her position as chief executive officer of Dallas County Hospital in Perry. Engholm's job is being temporarily filled by an Iowa Health Systems employee. Eric, the Engholm's preschooler, remains at home with his parents, Higgins said.

THE CHARGES NEGLECT OF A DEPENDENT PERSON: A class "C" felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. To be convicted of this charge, a prosecutor must prove a person either: a) knowingly or recklessly exposed a child to a hazard or danger from which the child could not protect himself or herself or b) deserted or abandoned a child, knowing or having reason to believe the child would be in danger.

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: An aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in prison. To be convicted of this charge, a prosecutor must prove the person unintentionally caused the death of another by doing something likely to cause death or serious injury.

GRAND JURY: A grand jury was called in Dallas County this week, but court officials said the jury did not hear testimony or act in the Engholm case.

IMPORTANT DATES JUNE 26: Clare Engholm is found dead at 5:45 p.m. in a minivan driven by her mother.

JUNE 30: Funeral services for the 7-month-old are held at St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Perry.

JULY 20: Kari Engholm is charged with neglect of a dependent person and involuntary manslaughter. She pleads not guilty to both charges.

SEPT. 20: A pre-trial conference is set in the case.

NOV. 27: Kari Engholm's trial is set to begin.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 23, 2001.

As a babysitter of many children over the years, I'm pretty sure the parents of a child who died in a hot car while in my care would be screaming for the harshest possible penalty -- because it was my JOB to keep the child safe. No excuses like "I forgot" would be accepted. That said, I don't know how society will be served by sending this woman to prison.

-- helen (mine_stay@home.with.me), July 23, 2001.

JBT, I appreciate the posts. I plan to follow this case.

In other news, the Ding-troll is over on a competing thread, where his particular brand of obstinacy, obloquy and argument persists to this day. He has conceded that he was talking about his opinion from the outset -- something I had been trying to get him to admit -- but he is now refusing to prove, demonstrate or support anything he says, in addition to refusing to disprove, rebut or counter anything I say.

What some pets won't do for attention.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 29, 2001.