On 31 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:03:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 17 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Discipline (a parent decided somewhat imprecisely where "spanking"
ends and "abuse" begins). Doan could have helped him discover the
"reasonable standard" measure, but somehow didn't come forward in
time....Doan? Doan? Where are you Doan?

LOL! Still showing everyone that you are still stupid?

LOL! No, just letting you show how stupid you are.

LOL! And you succeeded as showing your own! :-0

Missed the recent Canadian court finding on "reasonable" didn't you?
They can't figure it out and admit it. So they have cut the right to
spank to the barest of minimums, leaving a great many how have come
here and "made up their own minds" very much in the lurch.

They didn't outlaw spanking!

They can't do, in Canada, legally what your buddies here claim is
okay.

You meant they can't vote for BUSH? ;-)

Too lazy to
call your local DA or CPS on what is "reasonable"???

They don't know and neither do you. The question isn't, by the way,
what is "reasonable" but what is abusive. And you still haven't
provided the marker that would tell people where that boundary is, now
have you?

Ah! Showing your stupidity again. You can't know what is abusive without
knowing what is "reasonble"! If you want to know what reasonable is, call
your local DA or CPS.

Studying up on the Embry study? Remember, you have a little chore
to
do before I'll discuss it with you.

Oops! Still talking about the Embry study, Kane?

Yet another public exhibition of Doanism, eh?

You brought up The Embry study out of the blue with NO prompting from
me for the express purpose of dodging The Question.

Still dodging the sample size of the Embry study, Kane7? ;-)

You, in your usual stupidity, challenged me to produce the study. And
then claimed you have the study yourself.

So produce the study, if you dare. ;-)

I recently asked you to name what was on a certain page, and you are
noticably unable to.

And I asked you about the sample size! ;--0

Any particular reason?

Could it be I just having fun playing with a little dog like you? ;-)

No punishment, right?

No, no punishment, though Embry used the word to describe a "sit and
watch" time out.

Lying again. He did use the work PUNISHMENT, did he not?

Now let's see if you really have the study and can tell me why I say
with confidence there was no proven use of punishment by any of the
participants.

Just tell them the sample size, Kane6. :-0

That would assure everyone you aren't BSing.

Same can be said about you! :-)

I notice, by the way, either no one took you up on your offer to send
them a copy of the study (RRRR, it doesn't even exist in electronic
form, smartass - though I may, as a favor key it in as such one day)
via e-mail reply.

You would never know! The emails to me are private. You see unlike
stupid dogs like you, I don't divulge who emailed me. Ask LaVonne! ;-)

Or you're are practicing more of your public Doanism.

And you are doing the Kane9 Kan't dance! :-)

Doan, you've never had anything but bluff and lies since you first
posted here to the present. It's ALL smoke and mirrors with you and
you do it in public much to your embarrassment.

Nobody called me McBragg! ;-)

;-)

Nothing to offer eh? No measure for when spanking becomes abuse. No
proof one way or another if I ever claimed I was unspanked. No proof
you have the Embry Study.

And the Kane9 Kan't dance continues... ;-)

Nothing by whackin' off publically....that's all yah got. Even Canada
is against yah....R R R R R

Talking like a "never-spanked" boy again. Do your mother approve? ;-)
They outlawed spanking in Canada? In fact, they uphold Sec. 43!
Who you gonna appeal to next? :-)

Doan

Poor Doanator.

Sad Kane5! ;-0

{:-]

Kane4 - 5 less than a Kane9!

Doan