On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote:



I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate".

Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for
toilet
paper then?

You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED!

As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive?

"ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for
content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate?

She was the one that made
the challenge.

Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked
her
for various pieces of information from the study.

Which she could seem to provide yet! :-)

Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as
reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat?

Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very
bad LIAR! ;-)

Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate
LaVonne when she challenged you, right?

She made the offer. I accepted!

"I accepted!" = "I offerred to."

Please get a dictionary.

Who's "stupid?"

You are!

At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that
means.

Who's a "liar?"

You are! ;-)

Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the
tables were kind of turned.

For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with
the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE
come up with the report.

You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not
meet.

yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R

Doan

Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that
from
time to time you don't lie.

I don't have to lie.

Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled.

You do! ;-)

Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to
have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused
to come up with, there was no way of varifying.

Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but
refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions.

Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate.

No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple.

You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire
posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself.

Looking in the mirror again? :-)

Nope, just at your posts.

You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked
for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her?

Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I
asked her for it

Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you
challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you
had it.

See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar?

Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You
refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you
are the liar and cheat.

Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation
exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them?

LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy!

LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!"

So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R

Already answer.

No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge
to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had.

You are still too stupid to understand it? :-)

I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging
agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal
use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my
question.

"Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is
crossed, that is, damage is done.

Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little
bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly?

Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all
your tricks.

You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years.

Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly
related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will
tell
the truth about The Question?

Because I still having fun at your expense! :-)

You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have?

Okay.

Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind
of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common
response from folks such as you.

Chicken**** to do it, aren't you.

Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy!

Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and
haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result.

I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of
my
other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?"

I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-)

Sorry, "Arline" then?

R R R R R R

I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is
honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the
relationship.

English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality.


Doan

See yah, Droany.

Kane



Kane


On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is
simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he
has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his
illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she
was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame"
(sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children
through
poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly
making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the
point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful
abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to
emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He
left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back
many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent
disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all
comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral"
and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise
their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing
out
of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently
treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER
come
up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is
switch
to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual
is
to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as
well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to
prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit
around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not
here
to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is
here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane