The great divide still claims your child's hide.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006, Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded
It's been posted many times.
Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!

Hihihi! How true!

Nope. She reads my posts. She admonished me for it.

I must have missed that one. Can you point me to it?

Some one is lying, and it's name is Gregdoan.

No. It's YOU! ;-)


AF


I love to watch you wallow about with your personal attacks, the both of
you. Neither of you have anything to debate any longer so harassment is
all you have.

It's laughable. And concedes the debate that you'd have been smarter to
concede years ago when Chris cleaned your clock for you, Doan.

Is this the same Chris that called you STUPID? ;-)

AF

Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded

It's been posted many times.


Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

It's like saying one should acquire credible information before stating
opinions as fact.

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

I'm talking about the actual research, which you would know if you had
cared enough to take the time to read the research. References to the
actual research were posted.

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!

I'm not on the ng to judge a poster's profanity. I'm on the ng to
discuss the content and credibility of the post.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded

It's been posted many times.


Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!


Gosh, you are a liar.

She admonished me for it. That's hardly "unaware."

I did mention this, and your posting style was very different from mine.
However, I am not hear to critique posting style. I am here to
discuss content of the posts. Greegor's posts are content

As for the research....you are free to look any up and study it, then
get back to us with your critique, analysis, or bs, your choice.

If you do not wish to then it's obvious you have relinquished the right
to criticize it with any credibility.

You have, in other words, conceded.

Of course Greegor has conceded the debate. He has provided no credible
evidence for his position. He has read nothing credible that would
support his position.

This really isn't all that suprising for the "hurt the kids" group, is it?

LaVonne

Or you can remain silent.

Challenges without follow-up with facts are empty pointless impotent
pieces of babbling, Greg. Something you have practiced for years.

So, let me suggest you peruse the archives, pick "the back cover
synopsis of a book that mentions it, printed by a kook group" and look
up the research and show it is incorrect?

Otherwise you continue to prove that you are an intellectual and
argument lightweight.

Best of luck.

What a hoot. Greegor and Doan are now Gregdoan. I suspect the name is
much longer. Try for starters, Gregdoanfern.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 17 Apr 2006, Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded

It's been posted many times.

Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!

Hihihi! How true!


Nope. She reads my posts. She admonished me for it.

Some one is lying, and it's name is Gregdoan.


AF


I love to watch you wallow about with your personal attacks, the both of
you. Neither of you have anything to debate any longer so harassment is
all you have.

It's laughable. And concedes the debate that you'd have been smarter to
concede years ago when Chris cleaned your clock for you, Doan.

0:-

Imaginary logic is so interesting. Doan simply rejects evidence that
doesn't support his position. And believes this represents logical
thinking.

He really is a hoot!

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:


I've also heard the claim here that violent crimes has been going down
for
30 years because spanking is down, but only if you ignored the period
from 1973 to 1994! Lies, damn lies and statistics! ;-)


If I wanted to ignore it, I'd have not provided a citation. Something
you and your cronies do routinely with your babbling nonsense.

0:-



AFfromDreamLand

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

It's unfortunate that you wasted so much of your time on this meandering
post. Research has clearly demonstrated the correlation between
paddling and non paddling schools, and academic achievement as well as
violent crime in the schools.

Read it yet? It's been posted many times.

Of course, you want to operate on opinion. An uninformed opinion means
nothing.

Do you believe the earth is flat? This is an opinion that was common a
few generations ago.

Good grief.

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:

Listening to no-spanks babble about the great divide between
paddle-permissive and paddle-exclusive school zones has all the
reassurance of some stilted but dutiful toady running about the Titanic
at midnight four days into its maiden voyage almost a century ago
reminding the passengers that the deckchairs on the upper deck are
preferable to those closer to the water.

It didn't much matter which deck level a child was on that April night.
If he or she was not among the relatively few to make it to a
lifeboat, their destination was eventually to progress at a leisurely
pace to the cold dark ocean bottom 12,500 feet below and become fish
food! A few minutes one-way or the other wasn't going to make much
difference in the deadly outcome.

Like the Titanic, American public education is fatally flawed in
design. The design flaw begins with its basic structure. The
difference is that, unlike the Titanic, public education is designed to
fail the majority of its captive minds. These are the children locked
in the educational equivalent of third class steerage.

Even the name is a misnomer since the purpose isn't so much to produce
bright creative minds as to brainwash. Only certain thoughts are
permitted. Others are purposefully excluded. Attendance is
compulsory. Instructional competence is often questionable.

American public education is a place where little boys are expected to
behave like little girls and little girls are told they are better than
little boys. In many schools, male teachers are barely tolerated.
Although there is a chronic teacher shortage, the welcome mat is out
from under males at the collegiate undergraduate level.

Have you ever wondered why the competition to get into elite
kindergartens is so fierce or why certain private schools can charge so
much for the educational experience offered? Those with the money and
talent to do so, avoid public education. They understand its purpose.
After all, people just like them designed it to produce cheap labor
with mediocre minds.

By the way, although certain prep schools can virtually assure a
punched admission ticket, really good colleges don't just pick top
grades and perfect test scores. They look for regional diversity among
other things.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Imaginary logic is so interesting. Doan simply rejects evidence that
doesn't support his position. And believes this represents logical
thinking.

He really is a hoot!

LaVonne

Hahaha! What a hypocrit! You rejected the Baumrind study as the BEST
study out there when even Straus acknowledged that fact! You even LIED
when you said that Dr. Baumrind has rejected "authoritative parenting"!

Doan

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Imaginary logic is so interesting. Doan simply rejects evidence that
doesn't support his position. And believes this represents logical
thinking.

He really is a hoot!

LaVonne

Hahaha! What a hypocrit! You rejected the Baumrind study as the BEST
study out there when even Straus acknowledged that fact!

And you reject the obviously polite Dr. Straus and being questioned in
public by the media (I've been misquoted by the media myself, to mean
very much the opposite of what I actually said. I've had to go to
newspaper publishers personally to have it corrected).

You even LIED
when you said that Dr. Baumrind has rejected "authoritative parenting"!

Nope. LaVonne's reasoning is sound. From once studying and researching
families that did NOT use spanking, but did authoritative parenting, she
went to become a shoddy darling of the spanking set with her UNPUBLISHED
study presented to a conference that claimed that a demographic stripped
of what is both LEGAL "spanking" even promoted by some that have come to
this ng as "normal" could be excluded and NOT upset the findings of a
study on spanking.

You have NOT debated this, just avoided it by quoting Straus who did NOT
examine nor comment on the details.

Please show what Straus meant, specifically, and his exact words.

And not that you have nothing but a string of logical fallacies you
attempt to pass off as "debate."

Straus is an authority that you misuse by quoting a casual remark,
rather than pointing to his actual PEER REVIEW of her study. (There is
none, of course).

Was he even referring to the Berkeley presentation?

If you wish to debate Baumrind and her change of heart, just calling
someone a liar without proof does NOT amount to debate. Just your usual
harassment, monkeyboy tricks.

Debate, or don't, but don't lie and claim others are.

Doan

0:-



0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Imaginary logic is so interesting. Doan simply rejects evidence that
doesn't support his position. And believes this represents logical
thinking.

He really is a hoot!

LaVonne

Hahaha! What a hypocrit! You rejected the Baumrind study as the BEST
study out there when even Straus acknowledged that fact!

And you reject the obviously polite Dr. Straus and being questioned in
public by the media (I've been misquoted by the media myself, to mean
very much the opposite of what I actually said. I've had to go to
newspaper publishers personally to have it corrected).

And yet you relied on the media instead of reading the actual study.
What a hypcrite! ;-)

You even LIED
when you said that Dr. Baumrind has rejected "authoritative parenting"!

Nope. LaVonne's reasoning is sound. From once studying and researching
families that did NOT use spanking, but did authoritative parenting, she
went to become a shoddy darling of the spanking set with her UNPUBLISHED
study presented to a conference that claimed that a demographic stripped
of what is both LEGAL "spanking" even promoted by some that have come to
this ng as "normal" could be excluded and NOT upset the findings of a
study on spanking.

Now, which study did Baumrind "researching on families that did not use
spanking"? Stop the LIES, please!

You have NOT debated this, just avoided it by quoting Straus who did NOT
examine nor comment on the details.

Hihihi! Debate with LaVonne? She has been avoiding me like a vampire
avoding garlic! ;-)

Please show what Straus meant, specifically, and his exact words.

Already did!

And not that you have nothing but a string of logical fallacies you
attempt to pass off as "debate."

Hypocrit! ;-)

Straus is an authority that you misuse by quoting a casual remark,
rather than pointing to his actual PEER REVIEW of her study. (There is
none, of course).

Huh? I can't point to something that doesn't exist!

Was he even referring to the Berkeley presentation?

If you wish to debate Baumrind and her change of heart, just calling
someone a liar without proof does NOT amount to debate. Just your usual
harassment, monkeyboy tricks.

Hahaha! Have you looked in the mirror?

Debate, or don't, but don't lie and claim others are.

I hope you take your own advice! ;-)

Doan

Frankly, I like Kanevonnie. It has such a nice sound with emphasis
placed on the first syllable. Then, there is Kanvonnie. It, too, has
its merits.

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
What a hoot. Greegor and Doan are now Gregdoan. I suspect the name is
much longer. Try for starters, Gregdoanfern.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 17 Apr 2006, Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded

It's been posted many times.

Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!

Hihihi! How true!


Nope. She reads my posts. She admonished me for it.

Some one is lying, and it's name is Gregdoan.


AF


I love to watch you wallow about with your personal attacks, the both of
you. Neither of you have anything to debate any longer so harassment is
all you have.

It's laughable. And concedes the debate that you'd have been smarter to
concede years ago when Chris cleaned your clock for you, Doan.

0:-

Profanity is fine. It is disagreement with the tenants of rabid social
reengineering that is the sin.

Doan wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006, Greegor wrote:

LaVonne expounded
It's been posted many times.

Isn't that like saying it's in print
so it MUST BE TRUE?

Are you talking about the actual research
or the back cover synopsis of a book that
mentions it, printed by a kook group?

But, then, Kane publicly posted profanity
for over a year and you were blissfully
unaware of it!

Hihihi! How true!

AF