Les chiens peuvent aboyer mais la caravane passe. ;-)

Doan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
[color=blue]

beccafromlalaland wrote:
I'm snipping away portions of text because the forum I use to post only
allows 10,000 characters in a single post.

The attributions, so we may who is saying what, are badly mangled. I
find the free mail program, Thunderbird, does an excellent job of
controlling attributions display properly. It will handle, if your IP
provides the service, an excellent newsreader as well.

I’ll try to sort through your post as best I can, as to who said what
when. Bear with me and correct where you see I might have erred.

kane Wrote:

beccafromlalaland:
I was being playfully friendly with you when I asked for your
copy...hence the use of the "LOL" I was joking

This below is my response.
Ordinarily "LOL" is not used playfully. Playful usually consists of
smilies. Such as :-)

LOL means Laugh Out Loud which is also an acceptable communication of a
joking or playful attitude. Sometimes one must read between the lines
to catch the meaning. kane Wrote:

No, it is more often used derisively. If one is kidding playfully
useually a winker smilie is the preferred symbol. 0;-

And the problem with written communication, unless people are long time
associates and preferably know each other personally, is that no, one
should not have to read between the lines. Doing so creates the kind of
errors of assumption you made when I asked you if you used the same
tactics with your children, as a question.

Or, if you insist that we must “understand each other” and you
understood me to be asking a question in a accusatory manner, then my
comment about stands. You were using LOL derisively. See how badly it
works to force the other to read between the lines?

If you can't remember and follow a simple dialouge from day to day
that's your problem not mine.

In a two way conversation if one asks the other to clarify such a reply
is extraordinarily rude. I make NO apology for not being able to follow
some specific thought of yours if you do not attribute it when you
remark later about it. If for nothing else then for accuracy it needs to
be seen adjacent to the later commentary about it.

No it becomes your problem if you wish me to follow the thread. Please
don't assume you are the only person I have conversations with. What
is it especially about you that would be so remarkable that I'd
remember
from day to day? I have a wife I provide that attention to.

I don't have a problem remembering who's who and what's what from day
to day week to week, but I do have a very good memory which aids in
that.

Neither do I, beyond the ordinary. I also have a good memory. That does
not mean I remember everything, and especially not fine details that I
might NOT have given the weight to the other did. Propertly attribute
your remarks please. That is NOT and unreasonable request, while yours
that I remember whatever detail out of all your postings contents you
chose to refer to blindly, is more certainly an unreasonable request.

I may be at an unfair advantage given that talent.

It would not do you the least good if I remarked on some past comment of
mine with poor reference to the content of my prior remark. You do NOT
refer to a prior remark clearly enough for me, or anyone, to know what
you are referring to.

I can
remember the plot and characters of nearly every book I've read in
recent years, as well as the lines from plays from highschool. One of
those weird things that comes in handy for me but can annoy others.

Then you are willing to annoy others deliberately? Refusing to
accomodate them in such a simple thing is in fact rude.

kane Wrote:
Having Lengthy bits of conversation
floating through posts irritates me, it is redundant and
unnecessary....at least for me
Then you have a problem with normal Usenet and Web protocols. Snipping
the content of a subject then remarking about it is rude.
I don't use "Usenet" and 90% of my postings are on forums in which one
can easily scroll up to refresh their memory.

You are posting to a Usenet newsgroup (Now delivered by Google...or any
other newsreader you wish..but still Usenet) and I do NOT have your
forums, nor should I be forced to join them to read your prior posts in
the thread. Kindly quote the material you are commenting about.

Your newsreader, whatever it is, badly screws up the attributions, so
that I had to go through and hand correct the various incorrect “” marks.

kane Wrote:
In fact, below was yet another one. YOUR comments were in double “”
when they should have been singles. I have to hand correct them now for
any reader to be able to follow. This is not a personal correspondence.
We are in a public forum and it’s inconsiderate of the other readers and
posters to post incomprehensible material that loses which author is
saying what.

Perhaps you should do some memory
excercises, to aide in your ability to follow along, without a
reference to something either you wrote or you read from an earlier
post.
You are now, since my requests were politely offered, are being
harassing and rude.

Actually, that was a serious bit of friendly advice. Doing Memory
excercises not only improves your short term memory but there is some
evidence that it will improve your recall ability in your waning years.
And accourding to a researcher friend of mine may even help lessen the
severity of memory loss in Dementia patients.

You are being deliberately ageist. My memory in fact is far better than
most people my age. My request is not out of line, and it is
unreasonable for you to ask this of me above to follow YOUR sloppy
posting habits.

kane Wrote:
(again having to snip double attribution marks to singles)
Another bit of advice. and yes I am yelling at you in this next
portion just so we are clear.

Of course. You are rude. I know that. You've demonstrated it before.

You've poked Momma bear one too many times, I'm not rude...I'm
defensive.

Defensive? I have your family here and threaten them? How? My remarks
are to YOU, not your children. In fact I’m the one being DEFENSIVE of
your children.

You are simply defending yourself against what you took as an insult,
and may or may not have been. You cannot know unless you ask.

kane Wrote:
(again you say I am making a statement, but this yelling is YOUR
statement. This time I’ll leave the double attributions so you can see
it and do something about it, hopefully)
NEVER EVER, MENTION MY PARENTING OR THE WAY I CHOOSE TO RAISE MY
CHILDREN IN A DEROGOTORY MANNER AGAIN.


NOW Kane responds:
Sorry. I'll mention it any time I wish.

Now who's being rude?

I am not being rude. This is a newsgroup titled
“alt.parenting.spanking.” There is nothing rude about discussing
children, since they are impossible to remove from such a subject. They
are the object of the “spanking” in the title. This is about parenting.
One parents children.

I do not question your parenting ethics...nor do
I even mention your children in posts. I would never DREAM of doing
something that rude, not even with provocation.

You have been repeatedly rude, almost from the start of this ng. You
have accused me, for instance, of not answering your questions, only to
find that after I had to jostle you famous “memory” that I had indeed
answered them ALL, as asked. Even correctly attributing them in my post.

kane Wrote: NO I DIDN’T. The forum you post to and through does NOT
translate it’s attributions to other formats, such as google, or various
newsreaders. The rest of us are standardized...it’s YOUR forum that is
not. And I should NOT have to join your forum to discuss these issues
with you. This is USENET, not your forum.

This is YOU, incorrectly attributed by YOUR forum service. Get it fixed,
or use a proper newsreader. Plenty of free ones to not make this jumbled
mess.

This is YOU:
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME YOU
HAVE SAID SOMTHING IN A NASTY TONE TO ME ABOUT WHAT YOU PRESSUME
ABOUT
MY FAMILY.
So what? You have seen fit to be rude and nasty to me, have you not?

Yes I have said rude things to you, but NEVER in a million years would
I poke you about the way you raise your children.

You can’t even keep straight whether or not I’ve answered you. You
insult my memory, when your own, that you claim is so special failed you
miserably over the claim I hadn’t replied to your questions. You were
rude then, you are being so NOW.

That hardly equates with any justification to lecture me as you are now
doing. You can’t even apply the newsgroup title properly. Children are
in the subject field of this ng by default.

I WILL ask questions about and discuss children here, yours, mine, or
anyone’s I choose. Your “orders” are refused. Again.

Here’s some of you polite discourse directed at me from prior posts,
after you totally screwed up by NOT properly attributing and thus losing
YOUR own way and falsely accusing me of failure to respond:

“,,,I didn't quote Kane in my prior post because it would have
been more confusing trying to filter through the bs...”

“ ... I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portionsof
your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am
responding to...but I've been wrong before. ...“

You WERE wrong. And yet YOU are accusing me, where I was trying to
direct your attention to correcting your error by the use of direct
quotes of my posts, with an insulting comment that I was just trying to
“cover” my butt.

“Until then get off your hobby horse, and
learn to play with the grown ups who actually discuss CURRENT research,
CURRENT parenting challenges, and CURRENT solutions to their parenting
challenges. b~ “

I did not start the insulting in this exchange with you in this thread.
You have pushed the boundary of civility constantly.

You began with me by calling my response that exposed Doan for the
harassing vicious little provacatuer he obviously is, “childish.” You
haven’t let up since.

I don’t pretend to be nice, or demand it of others, you phony.

Before you correct ME, clean your own house. Or we can continue on our
merry way insulting each other – and not going indignant about it, phony.

kane Wrote:

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAMILY LIFE,

Nonsense. Where’s that famous memory of yours. You wrote that you have
two high needs children.

That's right, and that is why I did NOT presume about your family. I
asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me. Do you not
understand the interogatory sentence?

What kind of question is that?

An ordinary question.

You are an adult, not a child.

That’s correct.

I treat
adults in the way adults should be treated, and I treat children in age
appropriate fashion.

How would I know that unless I asked you?

Do you and realize that you confirmed my feeling
that your original question was in fact meant as an insult...or are you
going to choose to ignore it?

Ignore what? Your “feeling?” No, why should I.

Given that I had a “feeling” your comment about getting my copy of the
Embry study from me ended in “LOL.”

Get it?

kane Wrote:

A question is a question, not an accusation. I could have been
speaking
rhetorically, but hte only way to tell for sure is to ask me. Not
assume, as you just did.
One can ask a question in an accusatory fashion. That is what you did.
That question asked in the context it was in was inflamatory.

Sure one can. And no, you do not KNOW that it was meant to be
“inflamatory”[sic].
And stop pretending YOU have not been deliberately insulting since first
posting here and continuously ever since. There are just too many examples.

“And you are still arguing about it...one word comes to mine It starts
with a C ends with a Y and has RAZ in the middle. “

kane Wrote:

Ask me if I meant to be nasty about your child rearing methods. Go
ahead.
I don't need to you already answered it.
No I didn’t.


Kane said: I asked IF you behaved toward your children as you do me.
That statment answers that question...YES In my opinion you meant to be
nasty about my child rearing methods.

You cannot logically draw from my question that I meant to be nasty. You
can infer it, but nothing logically proves it. It’s your feeling, not a
fact. That statement, with the “IF” in it does NOT prove that I meantto
be nasty.

kane Wrote:

AND YET YOU FEEL
IT'S ALRIGHT TO FORM ASUMPTIONS ABOUT ME, AND HOW I TREAT MY
CHILDREN.
A question is not an assumption.
the context in which you chose to ask that question, turned it from a
question to an assumption. if you had not assumed that I treat my
children poorly you would not have asked that question.
No such logical inference can be made. I could have asked you that
question for a number of reasons, none of which was “nasty.”

You made a rude accusatory comment toward me. You have a record of doing
so throughout this thread and this ng when you posted to it in response
to me, and on an occasion toward me when responding to Doan. I want to
know if you treat your children the same way.

Is my question provoking the very response that I suspected it might,
but hoped it wouldn’t?

kane Wrote:

What I said was, and thank you for this time not snipping my actually
comments from the flow:
" Do you treat your children the same way? Or were you just being
playfully friendly with me?"
Do you see the question mark? Twice? How could you miss it and presume
I am making an assumption. It's YOU that made the assumption and
accused me.
Of course I saw the question marks. Again the context in which you
asked the question lead me to the assumption that you were presuming
that I treat my children poorly.

Nope. That was YOUR reaction. I was concerned you MIGHT BE. And even IF
I made such an assumption rather than ACCUSE you, I asked for
clarification from you.

kane Wrote:

How do you know that I feel alright to make assumptions about you,
without asking me?
How do you feel about asking questions that force someone to assume
that you assumed something?

No one forces you to assume anything. YOU assume it. You did not even
come back with a question to find out IF I meant to be nasty. You simply
accused me of it.

And further more what gave you the idea
that it was OK to ask a question that inflammatory?

What is NOT “OK” about asking that question?

Unless invited one
should never speak of anothers children...and from what I can recall I
never gave you any inkling of permission to make comment or question
after my children.

You joined a newsgroup called, “alt.parenting.spanking.” We aren’t
discussing fetish spanking here. We are discussing parents, spanking,
and by obvious inference, the children that would or would not be spanked.

It would be like me asking after your sex life.

No it wouldn’t.

One's family life is intensly personal, and unless asked to make
comment or question or given express permission to do so it's best to
leave well enough alone.

No it is not “intensely personal.” I do not preform sexually in public,
but I do and have parented in public. I don’t discuss my sex life
publically, but I do my parenting.

As for “unless asked; Not if you join a newsgroup that is expressly
about the subject of children. This one is. That means you have given
permission to discuss family life in the context of child rearing.

kane Wrote:

I asked YOU a question. YOU made a bald faced accusation.
See the difference?
You asked a question that forced me to become defensive. kane Wrote:

“Forced” you? You are FORCED to answer my question? To become
“defensive?” You have no other choice, or choices? How about you simply
ask me my meaning, first? Then you don’t have to become defensive until
you are sure I am trying to be “nasty.”


IT IS A VERY RUDE THING TO DO.
To ask a question about whether or not you are rude to your children
as
you appear to be behaving toward me?
To assume that I would treat my children as I treat an adult, yes.
Full circle, and I will remind you of that with the same response as
befo A question is not an assumption or an accusation. It’s a
question. Because it is YOU get to answer it as you see fit.

You chose to come back and accuse me of being nasty. Which of us is
being presumptuous?

To
bring my children and my family life into a conflict between you and I?
YES.

beccafromlalaland, the name of this newsgroup is
“alt.parenting.spanking.” It’s google (Usenet) description is
“Discussion about punishment methods for children.”

You wish to only discuss this issue by proxie, and other people and
their children?

kane Wrote:

IT IS AN INSULT, BUT OF COURSE YOU
ALREADY KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU INTEND YOUR "QUESTION" AS AN INSULT.

Yelling makes it true, does it? How about you ASK me if I meant to be
nasty and insulting?

How can you be sure of that unless you ask? Are you not making an
assumption about my meaning? With out any real cause to do so?
I have answered this already. The context that you asked that question
was such that it forced me to assume you were being insulting.

The context is this newsgroup, which subject is “children” “parenting”
and “Discussion about punishment methods for children.” It is NOT
automatically an insult to ask, if someone has been posting a long
string of insults if they treat their children the same way, but I
certainly can see, given your long string of insults why you might take
it as one.

kane Wrote:

I'll ask it again, in fact, no accusation intended but simply a
question related to how rude and attacking and accusatory you are
being
toward me. Are you doing the same with your children?

This has been sufficiently addressed. NO, I am not rude attacking or
accusatory with my children.

I am relieved to hear that. I had both intent to be nasty and insult
you, and some concern that you might carry this attitude into parenting
situations.

See how easy that was when you stop presuming and answered the question?
You then didn’t even have to ask me, I told you freely, as I would, had
you ASKED.

Yes, and you deserved my implication, beccafromlalaland. And you’ll get
more if you keep up the stupid insults. Trust me.

kane Wrote:

And, beccafromlalaland, your response is clearly indicative that you
DO
know you are being rude and abusive in your language toward me.
Or you wouldn't take offense at my specific question asking if you are
being so abusive toward your children.
I was/am bieng rude to you...as you have been rude to me.

But I must stop, while you continue? Interesting take on debate.

Perhaps we
both need to go back to primary school and relearn the "golden rule"
And any parent being asked if they are abusive toward their children
would take offense, and defend themselves.

Yup, but they also have choices not to, to consider the poster might
have more than one reason for asking, and intended no harm to your
children. Do you think I intended to harm your children? If not (and
it’s obvious I did not) what’s all your ranting about?

It’s about knowing, I believe, that you got caught up with on your
constant stream of insults and your accusations. Your deliberate
presumptions that I’m lying, and Doan is telling the truth, when in fact
any objective reading of his past posts on this subject from it’s
beginning, that I supplied you by link would have shown you he only
recently found the abstract.

Have you actually tried to get it and found it if it is actually still
available, as he posted from a screen readout? I’ve seen inaccuracies in
those before. AAA, for instance, according to him, told him that they
have always had it available. They told me differently, but he insists
I’m lying.

You swallow what he says, and question what I say. Why is that,
beccafromlalaland? Because you are a sucker? Or his style of slimy
innuendo and clever lies appeals more? Or are you easily patronized?

kane Wrote:

Frankly, I think you are a fake. That you likely DO spank your
children
or will. Your need to be in control is excessive. Rather like Doan,
though he's more clever and weasel like.
That is your solution to everything isn't it.

Hyperbole. No, it is not my “solution to everything.” I have many
solutions to many things, and this one in particular does not follow if
you bothered to look at posts of mine to other “nonspankers.” My
disagreement with them, and you aren’t the only one, indicates I do not
blindly accept them just because they are “non-spankers.” Doan, on the
other hand has accepted and agreed with and defended PEOPLE THAT COME
HERE DEFENDING BEATING OF CHILDREN, not just spanking.

That someone who doesn't
agree with you on every point must be a fake, a puppet.

Nonsense. I don’t even agree with LaVonne on ‘every point.” I hold a
different view than her’s on “punishment,” I believe, and I’ve said so
publically. She hasn’t though done anything that would suggest she a
fake or a puppet. YOU have. So have others, that claimed to be
non-spankers, one going so far as to claim I “drove” them back to
spanking I was so rude.

I fear for the children of someone that shallow and weak...except of
course I know damn well it was a ringer that had no intention of
becoming a “non-spanker” but was here to harass.

I am a
recovering "spank-a-holic" I try very hard on a daily basis to use
Grace based discipline, and Gentle Parenting. And you're right, I need
to be in control...it sucks, I hate that about myself. I was not
allowed control over anything not even my own body for 17yrs.
Everything was in turmoil constantly so forgive me if I crave control.

I worked with teens in mental health for many years. The first thing I
told them after the three day observation period to determine baseline
behaviors was this: “Yes, it’s not your fault you were beaten, raped,
neglected, abused – or whatever – but it IS your fault if you impose
your reactions to it on ANYONE BUT THE PERP.”

In other words, no excuses. Nor will I accept them. You yelled at my
once in this newsgroup, “grow up.” And I had perfectly good reason tobe
debating a question of honesty with Doan, so your admonition was totally
uncalled for.

I think my saying to you now, “Grow up” is right on target.

I’m much more invested in you being a non-spanker than winning any
argument with you. So when you pull this power trip bull**** on me
naturally I’m concerned and ASK if you do this to your kids.

If I were anything less than honest here you would not be comparing me
to doan...I would get my own category, but because you can not make
heads or tails of me because I don't fit your mold of what a
Non-spanker thinks and feels then I must be a puppet.

Your honesty is what you think I compare you to Doan about? R R R
R...no, b~ , it’s not your honesty. It’s your tendency to NOT be honest
that did that.

The accusations you made that turned out upon examination to be false
(thanks for the apology, by the way, I may have missed it or forgotten
to acknowledge earlier, but reviewed it today) were what inspired my
comparison.

Along with the kinds of attacks on the Embry Experiment report. You
weren’t simply questioning. You even made up things along the way. And
your refusal to get it, but continue to attack it based on partial
knowledge from my comments were typical of his bs.

He spent a year without it, faking it all the while, picking up bits and
pieces from citations likely, and pretending he had it, even miss
quoting. And if he had it he’d have known about this, which he did
not....he was relying on the partial information in an ABSTRACT which of
course is partial by natu

There were charts of all 33 of the participants in the study. I knew
perfectly well the status of them, but he didn’t know that the 20
existed. Until I spoke of it recently. IF he had known he’d have said.
13 observed, and 20 non-observed.

He constantly walks into these little places I leave for him to go. And
they prove he’s a liar.
But you can’t, or won’t let yourself see it. You’d rather fuss oversome
exchange between us and blow that up to become indignant over.

I have to ask you why you’d prefer to be patronized by him, than
challenged by me?

kane Wrote:

Chill, lady.
If I ask a question, it's a question. You can answer it, no matter
what
meaning you project into it. Ask. Find out. Stop assuming.
Find a better context to ask questions.
That’s absurd. That simply reserves to you the right to pick what next
to get indignant about. I might ask you about you husband, or ask if you
used objects to spank, or if you don’t like carnations. I have NO WAY of
knowing ahead of time what you already are sensitive about, or just
might pick out of thin are to use to duck a tough challenge of mine.

You want polite? Go to a moderated group. These correspondences are a
feed to and from Usenet and they are NOT in a moderated group here.

kane Wrote:

I think you are a puppet here at Doan's behest, doing as he directs
you.
A three dollar bill.
Show me were you have ever posted before that you were opposed to
spanking.
My other online name is coopnwhitsmommy
http://tinyurl.com/db977
I Googled coopnwhitsmommy+spank* for you.
There is a specific post at
gentlechristianmothers.com entitled How to become a gentle mother that
you may find interesting. It was the one that started me down the path
to Non-spanking.

I take it you are referring to this one: “ How to become a Gentle Mother
« on: June 29, 2005, 09:54:07 PM »
I am a Spanker...I HATE IT. I was raised in a spanking household. I
was spanked for every little infraction and I promised I wouldn't do
that to my children...but here I am [[icon reference removed-“bang
head”]] I think my big problem is I have no tools to deal with
misbehavior. HELP ME “

June of last year. You’re new. How you doing with learning alternatives?

Now I’m even more surprised at your response to my offerings about the
Embry study. You’ve got just 6 months since you started, July last year,
through January of this one. Yet you aren’t interested in a program that
describes precisely how to teach a child to reduce unwanted behavior?

Or have you learned others in that time?

And Why I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they
are misguided in their parenting...it wasn't long ago I was one of
them. I believe it is in the public domain. If you can access the
board without logging in you can see my post count is well over 600 and
I would gladly let you read any of my other posts if you so wish,just to
prove that I am not a fake.

Well, it’s easy enough to find. You apparently aren’t faking about your
desire not to spank. Nevertheless I find your style here, and your
defense of a proven slimy little liar incongruent to that end. Allowing
him to divert you from such important work as Embry’s isn’t suggestive
of a real interest in learning the methods of non-spanking parenting, in
my mind.

You mistake my sometimes harsh approach....I think of it as demanding
you THINK FOR YOURSELF... for something other than it is. Just a demand.

And yes, I DO know how those that have taken up non-spanking generally
respond. If you search the archives you can find them here. Rare as they
are in this ng.

You have NOT been responding like any non-spankers I’ve run into before.
They are usually eager to explore. They don’t consider a few minutes
reading to be an imposition in something so vital as learning new ways
of parenting that you ask for in your post to the above cited forum.

I am doing what Doan LIES about doing. Asking you to think for yourself.

And I don’t lie about being “neutral,” as he does. I’m honestly and
plainly against spanking and other deliberate attempts to hurt and
humiliate children to teach them.

I disagree, by the way with your definition about abuse and spanking,
and the intent of parents.
“I don't feel spankers are abusive, that they are misguided in their
parenting..”

That reads, if you go on, as an excuse for yourself. You don’t want,
apparently, to think of yourself as having abused your children by
spanking them.

If you hit them to cause them pain, which you did if you were a
“spanker,” then you abused them. It’s not complicated, and it does not
allow for excuses. You did it. Admit. Decide not to do it. And move on.

That is the courageous admission you need to make if you truly do not
want to revert to spanking and humiliation.

Actually DO think for yourself, instead of look for the Doan’s of the
world to “excuse you.”

He’s a slimy lying creep that has haunted this ng from early on. Snide,
nasty, lying and conniving, as he was taught to be.

He can’t read a sentence that he can’t twist and misconstrue. Go ahead,
read his history of posts.

And when you say, “it’s not about you” (Doan and Kane) you are verymuch
mistaken. It is most certaily about the debate between the Doans and the
Kanes. The spanking advocates and apologists, and those of us that
disagree with pain and humiliation being moral or useful as a way to
raise responsible citizens.

Wallow in Doan's slime, or answer hard challenges. It's up to you.

--
beccafromlalaland

Kane