en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/206123 Comments by Quimby156 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/local/42454387.html#IDComment18198283 Thank YOU! I was thinking the exact same thing... Or maybe they meant there really was a label on the body that read "Suspicious"? LOL Re-read the headline! :) Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:41:37 +0000 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/local/42454387.html#IDComment18198283 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192731 You have certainly piqued my curiosity about this. Are you saying DEL has not told you why you were denied? Surely they are required to tell people why they are denied (?) Was there ANY explanation?? Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:14:22 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192731 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192478 What have I said or done to "hurt the innocent"? Or are you referring to this news article? I keep hearing that the Cahills are innocent and that these allegations are false, KATU has their information wrong, etc. And I have asked time and again for someone to tell "their" side. If this story is completely wrong and inaccurate, then I would say it is time to contact an attorney and sue for libel/slander. If these people are truly innocent and their business will suffer as a result of this "untrue" news article, it sounds like an open and shut case (lawsuit) to me. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:03:39 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192478 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192363 But wouldn't you agree that a daycare SHOULD be shut down if chidren are being improperly cared for? I understand what you are saying about having to find another care provider, but you certainly wouldn't suggest that the "hassle" of having to do that outweighs the safety and well-being of your child, would you? Yes, it is a terrible position to be in--without child care and needing to work. But I don't think allowing sub-standard child care is the solution. Oh,one last thing, just so I do not inflame the ire of others--the statements I just made here on this particular post are in no way a reference to the Cahills. I am speaking of day care in general terms and is no way meant to infer anything about the Cahill's or their past/present businesses. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:57:48 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18192363 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42463902.html#IDComment18191923 I cannot help but wonder if the two unknown men involved might not be somehow affiliated with Law Enforcement in some way (?) It just strikes me as very odd that there were interviews, but no arrests were made. We are having to take this "eye-witness" at face value that the police had to pull the two men off of Duncan. She seems biased to me, seeing as she was this man's good friend, so I will admit I am a bit skeptical of her version of events. Still, the "no arrests" has definitely piqued my curiosity. Any other thoughts?? Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:45:08 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42463902.html#IDComment18191923 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18185471 Why didn't you say so before? So you are asserting that when KATU says she "lost" her license in 2004, it was to expiration and not revocation? I am curious, however, why do you think Ms. Blondin (spokesperson for WA DEL) concluded that "We did not feel that this provider could guarantee that she could offer safe, healthy care for children"? This is the statement she provided to KATU. I am not looking to be confrontational with these questions, Mr. Cahill. You and a few others on this forum have suggested that KATU has not told an accurate story. I ask these questions to provide an opportunity to hear "the other side", since it is apparent that you do not feel your side has been accurately represented. Mr. Jensen asserts that his story is based on documentation and interviews he has conducted with state officials. I would very much like to hear your "side" or take on this information. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 01:34:38 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18185471 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18184061 Thank you Jasmine for so eloquently expressing a sentiment I am sure many parents share. Your first sentence is precisely what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. Alas, SOME people chose to see what I was trying to say as a personal attack on the people in this story, instead of its true intent. Thank you for helping to put things into the perspective they ought to be--the welfare of our children! Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:41:57 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18184061 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183918 Thank you for your reasonable and rational response. I would agree that any allegations made should be reviewed. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:35:51 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183918 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183843 My statement was not even directed at the Cahill's so cool your jets and re-read my post before you start spouting off... My statement was a general comment that ANYONE who opens a daycare should be checked to see if there have ever been any other issues or revocation in another state. Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:32:56 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183843 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183732 Your retort is laughable as well as hypocritical. And yet I still see nothing posted by you by way of explanation as to why the revocation in Washington. If you are so concerned about me getting my facts straight, why don't you enlighten me?? Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:28:39 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18183732 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18154096 So if all of these allegations were "unfounded" and there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims to CPS or DEL, why was she revoked? Why did DEL investigate and determine she was not capable of providing safe and healthy care? I find it very difficult to believe one can be revoked for no reason at all. Please feel free to explain this--with concrete facts, not your speculation or opinion because you happen to feel sorry for your friends. Its easy for any of us to sit back and defend our friends with our opinions of "witch-hunts" because we do not want to believe our friends might be capable of wrong-doing. I would like to hear some concrete evidence that these people were wrongfully revoked. Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:27:20 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18154096 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18153858 Mr. Jensen has offered. If you are sincere about your "dream" and you truly feel there is a case to be made, why don't you take him up on it? Or is this all talk to make your friends look better? Talk is cheap. If there really is anthing to be "exposed" take advantage of this opportunity being offered to you now. If you won't do it, then I guess everything you have said is all BS, now isn't it? Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:10:46 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18153858 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18153276 Mr. Jensen, I highly doubt you will be given an answer. I suspect there never was an "attempt" to open a daycare by this person and that all of these allegations about DEL are nothing more than smoke and mirrors to give the impression that the "real" impropriety is with DEL and not the Cahills. Haven't you read these posts?? The Cahill's are the victims! (written very much tongue-in-cheek, of course...) Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:53:57 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18153276 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42455937.html#IDComment18152675 Carpe Diem....Seize the monkey :) Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:20:40 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42455937.html#IDComment18152675 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152572 Oh yes--she has done a fine job of explaining her side (or her husband has--whichever one it is posting the venom) or how she was a "victim" in all of the posts on this site... I have yet to see a single post (by either of them) in defense or an explanation of why she was "wrongfully" revoked. There seems to be more concern about nit-picking irrelevant information about a foreclosed house and name-calling than trying to set the record straight. I stated it below and I will say it again--the posts by Cahill give the impression of someone not quite altogether upstairs and I would not want either of them caring for any child I know. I dare either Cahill to post something on here of value to defend what this story is about--the revocation in Washington. I suspect neither Cahill will address that issue because they do not have a leg to stand on. Again, I dare them to prove me wrong. I welcome it. Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:15:04 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152572 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152422 (snicker) Really?? Are you serious? You really think this "goes to your credibility"?? That is the biggest stretch I have seen since the days of the Stretch-Armstrong action figure... Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:07:02 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152422 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152390 With all due respect, I would like to know what this has to do with the issue at hand? Specifically the allegations made that you were revoked in Washington? I sense an attempt to side-step the issue and cloud it with trivial nonsense that has nothing to do with what this article is about. Or are you trying to distract from the real issue at hand? Because I have seen nothing in any of your posts that even attempt to set any record straight--just allegations (and name calling) of truth-stretching, but nothing of any substance to back it up. But I see you managed to solicit some cronies to come on here and post favorably on your behalf. So much for having "better things to do" with your life. You strike me as a very acrimonious and angry person. I would never want you to watch any child I know. Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:04:47 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152390 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152260 Regardless of the "facts" in this case and whether or not the Cahill's are telling the truth, I find it reprehensible and completely unacceptable that anyone would be allowed to open a daycare in this state without the state inquiring or knowing about a revocation or past issues in other states. That needs to be fixed NOW! Sat, 4 Apr 2009 09:56:57 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/local/42363107.html#IDComment18152260 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/42456522.html#IDComment18152000 Always the same services being cut--police, medical, and schools. Yet we all know there are several "fluff" services/positions out there that could disappear and none of us would ever feel it. But the answer instead is to close prisons and cut law enforcement and other vital services. Lovely. And with the economy tanking faster than the Exxon Valdez, these freed cons are going to be able to get on out there, find jobs and become real productive members of society, right? No, instead we are sending a clear message, "Go ahead and commit as much crime as you want and you won't have to pay any price for it--we don't have the money to stop you!" And this is also going to mean big job losses for the "little people". The big wigs will, astonishingly, be untouched and will retain their jobs and pay while the peons who do all the work for little pay get to face large pay cuts or job loss altogether. Gotta love government. Sat, 4 Apr 2009 09:42:46 +0000 http://dev.www.katu.com/news/42456522.html#IDComment18152000 http://www.katu.com/news/41287827.html#IDComment17079659 What a class act. Hope all the other friends make note of this and re-think their friendship with this douche bag. This guy doesn't deserve any friends after this. Except his cell-mate named Bubba. Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:55:13 +0000 http://www.katu.com/news/41287827.html#IDComment17079659