Let's clear this up once and for all. My exact words on May 7th were

"Hey doan,

Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke
screens? Read the study and let's debate."

No, I am not going to provide you with "pieces of the study." I invited
you to read the study and then debate the study.

You responded with "I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a
copy from you? What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the
Baumrind & Owens study? As you said, let's debate."

And then you said: "So I have to go to the library? Sound like a
delaying tactic. Oh, well. Are you going to answer the questions I
asked about this study. WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE?

Doan"

No, I am not going to answer your question. I'm still trying to figure
out how I'm supposed to give you a copy of the study that you requested.
You haven't figured that out yet, and you can't seem to find a library
with research journals. You also appear to think that actually going to
a library and reading what you try to discuss is an imposition. How
ridiculous is this, Doan?

LaVonne


Doan

Doan



LaVonne


a123sdg321

On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote:


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?


It's you who seem to be having the problem with English!


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



Nope. You are being stupid again. I cannot offer something that I DON'T
have. Here is an English lesson for you. From dictionary.com:

Accept:
v. accepted, accepting, accepts
v. tr.

1.To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water;
accepted their contract. P


Offer:
v. offered, offering, offers
v. tr.

1.To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink.


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?


LOL! You are the one that lied and cheated! And stupid too! :-)
I am saying that she is afraid the details of the study. Haven't you
noticed that she avoid me questioning her on the details of the Power &
Chapiesky study!


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."


You are being stupid again.


Please get a dictionary.


Already have. SEE ABOVE!


Who's "stupid?"


You are!

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


Yep! You are just stupid!


Who's a "liar?"


You are! ;-)

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


You are lying again!


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.


Another lie! I ASKED her for the report. She refused!


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


You are looking in the mirror again!


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

And you are the same Kane0 - that's 9 less than a Kane9! :-)


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.


I don't! You do!


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.


I posted the details of the study. You didn't and can't! ;-)


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


LOL!


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


You are lying again. LaVonne challenged me - I accepted!


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


You are looking in the mirror again. :-)


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.


Which you are too stupid to comprehend!


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.


I posted the details. What is your proof? :-)


See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar?


That would be you! :-)


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.


LOL!


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!"


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


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 lying!


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.


You are being stupid again!


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


You are being stupid again!


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?


You are being stupid again!


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


You are being stupid again!


You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years.


You are being stupid again!


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?


Stop lying!


Okay.


So you are lying!


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.


You meant unlike "never-spanked" kid like 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.



You are being stupid and a bad liar again.


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?


What a "formidable research" skill! ;-)


R R R R R R


Howling like a dog? :-)


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.


Where is your "formidable research" skill? ;-)


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


It is for you, I see. :-)


Doan

See yah, Droany.


See yah, Kane0!

Doan


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