Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane.
He had his chance. He ran, as you did when you had yours. You weren't
even willing to prove you had the same study I did. Coward.

The coward is you, hiding behind a fakery name! ;-)
Observer. Opinions. Fern. and the hundreds of others. Are they cowards?

Are they you? ;-)

Are they me?

You know my name, and you know why I don't post it here. And you know
that it's morally acceptable to mislead if others are in danger, or even
one's self. Physically, and for one's life.

Hihihi! So you are now claiming that you are a moral LYING COWARD?

Nope, just a moral liar.

So, tell us are you so moral that you would not lie to protect your mother?

You can't believe I've had death threats, or not, but I know, and anyone
reading the ascps newsgroup knows the kind of folks that have posted
here in the past

Isn't it delusional to think that everyone is out to kill you?

Nope. Everyone isn't.

Isn't it delusional claim I said "everyone?"

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Not hardly.

Very easily done because, Kane, you are SO STUPID!
Nope. Very easily done because you know of one instance were I
deliberately mislead.

Yes, because you are SO STUPID!

No, because I care about my families safety, and Don's as well. He
concurs and is content with the path I have taken to work toward as much
safety as possible.

Would you care to put someone's family at risk, Doan?

Whose family is at risk, Kane?

Don's and mine, plainly.

You wish to deny that?

Tell you what. You post all those posts that mention killing
caseworkers, and claiming I am one, and that others wish me dead because
of their belief ( false one, by the way ) and I'll concede that my
family is not at risk, nor Don's, if there aren't any. Fair enough?

I wonder if you are as without honor as I say you are.

Your mom taught you that it's a honor to call others a "smelly-****"?

Not specifically, but I venture she would have if confronted with
someone of the low moral character and danger to children and families
that fern clearly represented.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
No he didn't. And I didn't make that claim.

You are lying again! Yes, you did make that claim!
Show where I claimed that "spanking causes aggression," as you claim above.

In you many post here. ARE YOU SO STUPID?

I didn't ask you to SAY where. I asked you to show where. Simply
repeating your claim is unethical and corrupt...and one of your many
morally bankrupt dodges.

I am not too stupid to see that. You seem to be though.

Do you think no one would notice you failed to answer a reasonable
request for proof?

I never said 'cause,' as "leads to," does not note an affirmative claim
based on cause. It can be correlation, as anyone knows that read the
article, and anyone knows that reads or participated in social science
research.

You are EXPOSING your STUPIDITY again!
Nope. The article shows no such claim was going to be supported. And
"leads to" can mean either.

You are STUPID!

Prove My claim is not correct then. Show how stupid I am.

Show that "leads to," can only mean "caused by," as the poster claimed.

And support it with evidence from the entire article.

The weight would go to what follows.

Does the material following the title support any claim that the
researchers found "cause" for spanking leading to aggression?

Exposing you STUPIDITY again, Kane!

Exposing your's and Ken's. Or is it your duplicity?

You are just trying to run interference for him, establishing once
again, your moral turpitude.

Establishing, once again, that you are a STUPID LIAR!
Well, first, you are morally decadent. Anyone can see that.

More baseless accusations, STUPID Kane!

Nope. As I said anyone can see your are morally decadent and will say
anything to support your bogus claims, including flat out lies, let
along thinking errors and illogical nonsense.


Even in this short exchange.

Hihihi!

Can't respond cogently I see.

You tried to threaten me with exposure as part of you losing so badly
here and wanted so desperately to recover. I can provide evidence of the
threats to myself and my family. And I have publicly stated them here,
and I have proof you have read those posts because you replied when I
made the claim.

Where is the evidence you provide, Kane?

I am not going to post them, of course, as that would give warning to
those making the threats.

It is sufficient to point out it has happened, for my purpose. To put
them on notice, and inform you such threats exist and if you ignore my
notice you may will be involving yourself should they follow through.

Think about it, bright boy.

Of course, you following through with your threat would prove my point,
Doan. Even you know that. And I'd report you to your authorities. You
know that too. Let them deal with you.

Hihihi! I've threaten you and your family???

Nope. You would have ignored my notice of threat.

If you know anything about the law, right now the very last thing you
need to wish for is that there is not follow through by those that
threaten.

Greg, for instance, would cave in a minute if his ass was on the line
and right up to you identifying me by name.

Or don't you understand the thugs you cultivate?

I won't compromise my family for you. Only you have the power to do that.

Huh?

In that you could compromise my family and Don Fishers. Unless of course
you have incorrect information.

But even sharing incorrect information about real people that are
injured or worse, would put you at considerable risk of having to answer
for your part in any such events. The revelation of their names to
certain elements in these newsgroups.

You know perfectly well what the threats have been, Doan.

Secondly, you are intervening in the claims of a liar and coward, who
ran from a simple debate and now is continuing to lie about what I did,
what I said, and even what he said.

The only liar I see here is YOU, Kane!

Then you are selectively blind.

He lied about the source, the content, and his claim that he knew of
evidence to prove that unspanked children are at risk of developing
"sociopathy," as he put it.

The burden of proof is on you, Kane!

No, he made the claim of the effects of non-spanking. It's up to him to
support that specific claim.

And yours, if you agree. Do you?

You interjecting your self between us is plain enough, Doan.

This is a public forum, STUPID! If you want to keep it private, take
it offline!

I see no need for that. I didn't claim, by the way, that you were
invading anyone's privacy.

Only participating thus opening yourself to challenges on the issues you
intervened in.

Got any proof that non-spanking results in sociopathy in children?

Ken claimed it, now you are demanding I prove the opposite, but it's not
my turn. It's still his. And so, yours as well, unless you wish to not
participate.

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)
Beauty?

Yup! It's in the eyes of the beholder! ;-)
You have failed to support his claim.

Is it my burden to support his claim?

Not unless you support his claim. Do you?

The burden is for you to support
your claim, Kane!

What claim did I make?

I challenged his claim. I asked him to provide proof of sociopathology
in children due to not spanking them. That's his claim, not mine, nor
the opposite.

I haven't made a claim one way or the other. Just asked him to prove his.

Did he? If so I missed it.

You seem to think he did, since you are claiming it's not my turn to
refute him.

Where is his evidence then?

Claiming that the only meaning possible for "leads to" is "cause," and
denying that it can mean "correlation," as the research was actually about?

You are EXPOSING you STUPIDITY again. Do you understand what a
"correlation" is?
Absolutely.

You haven't demonstrated that.

Too bad. I'm not obligated to answer any question you ask. I will if
they are logical reasonable questions.

How have I not demonstrated? It's your turn.

You even stupid enough to PUBLICLY stated
that car crash studies are "correlational"!

The are causal for dummies, correlation applied to humans.

Prove otherwise?

How does one extrapolate from dummies to humans, casually

No claim for anything else was made.

So auto makers cannot make claims regarding the safety of their cars???

Sure they can, based on the correlation of some similarities of dummies
to humans, but they have not tested the cars in crashes using humans,
have they?

You have not supported his claim that the title can ONLY mean "caused by."

So the title CANNOT mean "cause by"???

It can mean either, I believe.

Now show that it only meant cause, and that the report on the study that
followed the title helps establish Cause, rather than Correlation.

And what follows the title shows that no such claim of causality was
being made, as he claims.

So now you are now saying that the told the truth?

I am claiming they did not attempt to show a causal relationship.

You found they were trying to?

Nope.

You wouldn't be deliberately trying to mislead folks, would you now, Doan?

I am deliberately exposing your STUPIDITY, Kane! ;-)
That I disagree that "leads to" means, "caused by," and cannot mean, "is
correlated to?"

Which dictionary gives you that definition, Kane?

Phrases are not usually covered in dictionaries.

What source provides you with proof that "leads to" can only mean,
'caused by?'

No, Doan. You are proving your own. And exposing it.

No, Kane. I am proving yours STUPIDITY and LIES!

So far, you've failed, and for years, in fact, Doan. But you keep
stomping your foot and claiming so.

See, you did it again above.

About on a par with "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU," I would say.

Childish. Obvious. An attempt to convince yourself, any reader thick
enough to miss that you can't make something true by stamping your foot
and yelling.

Doan

He ran.

Hihihi! You are STUPID!
I waited in aps for him. He didn't show.

He is in the original newsgroup you post.

He lied, and you just did, unless of course you erred.

The article was posted by me as the opening to the thread. Go check. It
is posted solely to aps.

Come back, admit, and apologize, or run. Your choice.

He is still there!

He's not where I originally posted the article citing the international
study. That is where we started, that is where he or someone added the
other addies, and where he refused to come back to, and debate.

My first post, and all those afterwards, mine or LaVonnes, or others,
though there were none but you, all had this Newsgroup addy name:

Here is my first post addy line and my name and with a line from the
opening:

From: "0:-"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking

.... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development...


Then for nine posts, including a number of yours the group addy stayed
the same....just aps.

In the post just prior to Ken joining the group with his commentary,
that I have challenge this was the addy group:

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services

Want to just guess, or go look for yourself, or shall I tell you whose
post that was?

Here's the short header...did someone fraudulently post your name in the
from Field:?

From: Doan
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless
Of Cultural Norm
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:22:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California

Recognize it?

So who brought Ken to aps?

Who cross posted?

Who posted the original opener to this thread?

You
ran to aps, STUPID!

No, as you can see, I stayed right were I was, but politely, since YOU
cross posted out to ascps, Doan, the liar, I addressed Ken in both
groups so as to be fair and insure that he'd see my challenge.

In other words, you were dishonorable, I was fair and honest, and you
are now lying about it.

Will I see your admission and apology?

I hope for the good name of your family you will own up, and ask for
some forgiveness for your mistaken claims that I LIED, and an posted
from ascps when I did not.

Is that all you can say in the way of argument?

Exposing your STUPIDITY and LIES is my hobby! ;-)

You exposed that you lied, or was mistaken, and didn't check before you
falsely accused me of posting to ascps, when in fact I did not, until
YOU forces the debate there.

I acted honorably. You did not, as usual.

Notice all his resource material to prove his claim that children are at
risk of developing "sociopathy" behavior if they aren't spanked?

The burden of proof is on you, STUPID!
Nope. He made the claim above. I asked him to show that evidence he knew
of.

Take it up with him.

I did. He ran. I learned from you that expecting honorable responses
when you have been proven wrong or unwilling to debate on a level
playing field that giving more than a few days opportunity to respond
honorably or honestly would result in simply being exercise by a liar,
you before, Ken now.

You haven't convince me on anything

I can't seem to work up much sympathy or care about that.

but STUPIDITY
and LIES of yourS!

Let me see now. Who accused me of posting from ascps and not aps?

I certainly didn't do that to myself. It appears you didn't check. I'd
say that's at least careless, if not stupid.

Where is it? Possibly you'd like to find it for him if he hasn't
produced it.

You are asking me?

If you wish to claim he has such proof. Do you concede that he does not?
And that he cannot produce it?

Or would you like to check out of the debate at this point on this
particular issue?

No fault of course. You weren't trying to lie for and cover his sorry
ass, right?

Tell you what. Why don't you take a look at that evidence he provided
and give us your comments on it, pro or con?

Why would I do that? I am not arguing with him,
I didn't ask you to.

You just did, STUPID!

I didn't asked you to argue for him. I asked you to comment yourself.
Give YOUR opinion.

I am arguing with you,
I know you are....

Then why are you talking about him?

Because that's the discussion underway.

You are desperately thrashing about now. I expect more intelligent
dodging from you, Doan.

STUPID!
And I asked for your opinion of any evidence he posted to prove his
claim about non-spanked children.

The burden of proof is on your claim about spanked children!

No, I didn't make a claim that children are or are not made to have
sociopathy by way of not being spanked.

He made an affirmative claim to that effect, and said there were
multiples of scientific evidence to support it.

So far I haven't seen that evidence. Have you? Where is it?

If he posted it, please comment.

If he didn't then feel free to find it yourself.

You are now asking me?

Because you came into the conversation claiming it was my obligation to
respond before he did to these claims.

It's his turn. If he took it, as he appears to claim and you seem to be
backing, then where is the evidence he mentions?

And what is my obligation to respond until he does?

I didn't make a claim. My comment was challenge to his claim. I'm waiting.

If you don't wish to, of course you are not obligated to argue it with
me, but you just said you are arguing with me.

I haven't seen you meeting your burden of proof!

For what? That children aren't getting pathologies from being non-spanked?

He made the first claim, let him show his proof. I cannot prove a negative.

He made an affirmative claim. It's up to him to prove it with the
evidence he claims exists.

I presume if he claims it he knows where to find it.

About what? If not the subject I brought up. That was about Ken and his
claims, which is the subject so far.

Nope! The subject you brought is the claim that spanking causes
aggression. Are you now distancing yourself from that claim?

Nope. I made the claim by posting the title of the article, that it
leads to it. That is not a claim of cause at all.

"Leads to" is chronological. One thing follows another, is correlation
gospel, not causal at all.

It has to say is "caused by."

Try again.

Or stomp your foot and claim again that I'm stupid. Everyone is
impressed with the proof that provides. 0:-


I won't even ask for a bi-opponent setting.

No, you just being stupid!
Nope. Just once again, offering to debate you, and watching you lay down
your path out of here.

And seeing me exposing your STUPIDITY and LIES!

Nope. The plain truth that everyone sees. Your buddies are squirming
because you are doing such a poor job of covering your tracks.

So, what do you think of his evidence?

The burdent of proof is on you. Stop trying to divert!
No it isn't. I didn't make the claim. He did. If you don't want to carry
water for him, that's okay with me.

So you wan't to carry the water for him???

I can't. I cannot find either claim of his being true, especially not
the strong of lies he ran out from the point I challenged both issues.

"Parade Magazine?" R R R R

"Sociopathy" CAUSED, as he claimed, by not spanking children?

NO evidence that the sentence saying "leads to" meaning causal, because
it can't mean that, neither by itself alone, nor by the following text
in the report.

You are just treading water hoping you don't drown in your **** before
you can figure out an escape.

However you are trying to, and failing, on the issue of "leads to" only
meaning "caused by."

Why are you inserting "only" in there? Is that your clever way to dodge,
Kane? ;-)

Because that is the nature of his claim. And apparently now yours.

That "leads to" means causal, and that is the only meaning it can have.

It doesn't and it isn't. It's far more likely to and according to
logical grammar and syntax, to mean "correlated to."

Be sure and provide a link back to it. I can't seem to find it myself.
Just poor research ability I guess. R RR RR R R R

You are famous for your "formidable research skill" right?
I seemed to be able to find posts by me about your dear old teacher
Aline, where I had mentioned her before and you seemed to have "forgotten."

So now she is my old teacher??? Is that a lie too?

Hard to say. Did you not take any classes from her, and are you claiming
you are unaware of such a well known character, who is even written up
on the university web site?

You must live in terrible isolation.

I don't know them, is what I think you said.

I don't!

You don't have to know someone to know of someone. That's all I claimed,
that you likely knew of Aline, the nun on campus. Written up in the
website for the university.

You don't know Doheny Mansion and the nice old nun that taught language
for so many years on the campus?

You do know that Doheny Mansion is in Mt. St. Mary's College, don't you?

Sure. Where is that in relation to the campus and how would that matter,
given the Sister Aline is listed and featured one the University website?

I doubt there are many former or current students, or current long term
employees that would at the very least, recognize her name as being
connected to USC.

Are you exposing your stupidity again? Or is it just another example
of you "formidable research skill"?

Even if I didn't know about Mt. St. Mary's how would that indicate
stupidity. No one can know everything.

I know enough to put it into evidence that you were very likely the
generator of the Alina that you yourself mistakenly called Aline in
post, who tried to get a copy of the Embry report from me, rather than
honestly debate the content.

What was it, a year, you would not identify your copy for authenticity?

Kane

I can see the steam all the way from USC, Doan.

Yes, you can expose your STUPIDITY all they way here! ;-)

Nope. Yours, and our self delusion at thinking you aren't exposed.


R R R RR R R

I repeat.

And, you're busted.

0:-]