What happens when educators can't read?

Kane, What you do is not debate.
It's closer to filibuster, except you swear and insult a lot.
Aren't those the signs of somebody LOSING a debate?

Greegor wrote:
Kane preaches "trust building" amid all of his attempts at slurs.
He tries to use bogus ""diagnoses"" of his opponents to win arguments.
Of course, calling them maladjusted!
The humorous implication is that Kane is a social butterfly!
(Posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year?)
If you're a rabid knee jerk feminist liberal and anybody
disagrees with you you can simply accuse them of
a personality disorder called misogyny.
If they're less socialist than you the misanthropist label
always works too!
Golly Kane, that SURE looks like the liberal playbook!
But you claim you're a conservative!

Kane wrote
All this to avoid debate?
Laughable.

Greegor wrote:
Kane, What you do is not debate.

You are now lying.

It's closer to filibuster,

Nope. What appears to you to be long posts is a dedication to the
reader's opportunity to follow the flow of the discussion if they wish.
I INCLUDE ATTRIBUTIONS THAT YOU CUT TO HIDE THE CONTENT AND SUBJECT OF
OUR DISCUSSIONS.

In other words, you lie, boy.

except you swear and insult a lot.

As long as you continue to "debate" by falsity, misuse deduction and
induction and basically LIE, asshole, as you are doing in this very
post, you will be treated like the little thug you are. Simple, eh?

YOU have a way to control the content of my posts, Greg. Be honest.
Accept when you make a mistake. Correct it if possible, or try. Provide
clear authoritative evidence of your claims. And stop with the innuendo
as "debate."

You'd be amazed as how very polite I can be, even when you are wrong.

The problem that creates my reaction, Greg, is that you are liar and
fool that believes the garbage you peddle. What do you expect as a
response...respect?

Aren't those the signs of somebody LOSING a debate?

They would be if you telling the truth.

Would you claim that your diatribe and ad hominem below constitutes
"debate?"

When I post citation after citation supporting my position and rebutting
someone else's my understanding is that THAT IS debate.

Do you know the difference?

Simply asking me insinuating questions is not debate...not where I come
from.

Where did you learn this "technique" of debate, Greg?


Greegor wrote:
Kane preaches "trust building" amid all of his attempts at slurs.

You are an adult, Greg, we presume, at least chronologically. If YOU do
not contribute to trust building don't expect ME to carry your load. And
what you call "slurs" is the constant content of your mindless babbling
contributions to this subject.

You do NOTHING to further your argument that "spanking" works or is and
should be acceptable. That's why you get insulted, Greg. Because you are
a phony. You are here for your ego, not the issue.

Your kind is a dime a dozen. A troll. In your case, a constant Troll.

He tries to use bogus ""diagnoses"" of his opponents to win arguments.
Of course, calling them maladjusted!

There is nothing bogus about them. Nor are they diagnosis. (For ****
sake run your spell checker, idiot) And winning is not why I point them
out.

The humorous implication is that Kane is a social butterfly!

A social butterfly? That's someone that goes from event to event without
serious regard for their input or attention to what is happening outside
their own little sphere. I'd say you fit this description closely.

(Posted gratuitous obscenity for over a year?)

I never charge a dime for my ****ing rude sayings. I know you assholes
don't have a dime to spare. Go get a bottle refund and get back to me.

If you're a rabid knee jerk feminist liberal and anybody
disagrees with you you can simply accuse them of
a personality disorder called misogyny.

Again, with NO substance. No post of mine to prove you assertion. And I
can produce more than one post that shows YOUR and other's hatred of women.

Want some?

How about what you did to Lisa? How about the earlier Domestic Abuse
CONVICTIONS? Were not the victims of you self serving and selfishness
women?

Doesn't lil 'o' spend a great deal of time screeching about how women
are trying to take over society? Do you agree with him?

What it proves to me, and anyone that thinks for themselves, and can
reason, is that you are impotent little wimps that can't stand up for
yourself and are so weak that you have to "battle" women rather than
partner with them.

If they're less socialist than you the misanthropist label
always works too!

The correct term, and the one I use, is "misanthropic," or
"misanthrope." It means, "one who hates or mistrusts humankind."

Wouldn't you say that lil 'o's diatribes constitute exactly that?

His recent laughable attempts to attack and discourage becca, for
instance, exhibit both a high degree of woman hating, and a
psychological violent streak wherein he wishes to convince her all is
hopeless so why try....because "something awful" is likely to happen
anyway.

You don't consider that "misanthropic?"

And "misogynist?"

Golly Kane, that SURE looks like the liberal playbook!
But you claim you're a conservative!

I am a happy conservative. I have a positive outlook even in the subject
area of this ng. I would if we were LOSING this battle, because I
believe in the basic goodness of humanity. To the person.

One just needs to know how to tap it. And for some, who are sadly so
very terribly lost, sometimes that means locking their sorry asses UP
for offenses against humanity and giving them some contemplative time to
restructure.

The judge should have given you a year, directed you to get to the
library, study up on whatever the hell it was you blamed your ex for
that made you domestically abuse her, and get over yourself.

Your capacity for self control and empathy toward children, for
instance, is clearly demonstrated by your spanking a six year old girl,
not your own, and using cold shower aversion to her wetting herself, and
NOT seeing YOUR part in connecting the two...her being spanked by
someone NOT her own blood, and YOU thinking you are hot **** and know
better than the child's own body and mind knows.

Kane wrote
All this to avoid debate?
Laughable.

You are both an emotional and intellectual cripple. Stupid.

You have a great deal of growing to do and I've seen you in this ng, and
by reading some of your archived material, BACKSLIDING.

You aren't learning, either in thinking skill, or growing
developmentally and emotionally, by your bull**** on these ngs. You are
feeding your ignorance and stunting your emotions by recycling the same
crap you started with.

The earliest post I can find of yours is a pretty simple description of
the events around the child, Lisa, and yourself.

When you did NOT get the desired response, did not get a pat on the
head, did not got sympathy, did not get encouragement to do MORE of what
already had been shown not to work, you blew out.

And anyone that did it right was immediately your enemy.

You are a lightweight self indulgent fool, Greg. Nothing more, as yet.

Take to heart what I am telling you. I used to charge for it.

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

"Opinions" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane is a classic verbal bully. Individuals like this are little more
than frustrated children in adult bodies. When they can't get their
way, a tantrum follows. Once this is understood, everything they do
and say makes perfect sense.

He makes a valid point though. You fail to support what you are saying with
links to the data. Thats a classic tactic of some posters in usenet that we
call "flamers". Now, if it is your intent to get a rise from the others by
failing to provide links, you qualify for the title. Providing a link is
easy, takes less than 2 seconds (in most cases, since you are already
reading the information), and prevents these inane little arguments. It
also allows for the rest of us to review the data and comment with all the
available facts in hand.

So, take a few extra seconds and give us the link. Either that or put
"flamer" at the bottom of your posts, where it belongs.

Ron

Ron wrote:
"Opinions" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane is a classic verbal bully. Individuals like this are little more
than frustrated children in adult bodies. When they can't get their
way, a tantrum follows. Once this is understood, everything they do
and say makes perfect sense.

He makes a valid point though. You fail to support what you are saying with
links to the data. Thats a classic tactic of some posters in usenet that we
call "flamers". Now, if it is your intent to get a rise from the others by
failing to provide links, you qualify for the title. Providing a link is
easy, takes less than 2 seconds (in most cases, since you are already
reading the information), and prevents these inane little arguments. It
also allows for the rest of us to review the data and comment with all the
available facts in hand.

So, take a few extra seconds and give us the link. Either that or put
"flamer" at the bottom of your posts, where it belongs.

Ron

And before you get too carried away, Onion, know that Ron and I are not
on the same side in this issue.

Why does he get my respect when you and those like you don't?

Because he doesn't debate as you do...by lies, innuendo, lack of facts,
and general unethical conduct.

We can disagree, Ron and I, and move on with things.

And YOU?

Hell, you hate everyone and are a loser. You are the tantruming child
lil 'o'. Every post is a demonstration of your childish lack of
intellectual and emotional development.

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

Well, Ron, it's like this: Much of what I know I didn't get off the web
or from popular media. You can either believe what I write or not
believe it. If you can use it, fine. If you choose to ignore it or
me, that's OK too. I don't much care one way or the other. There are
individuals in this newsgroup that I disregard as well. I understand
that.

As I told Kanevonnie after her little rant, I am impervious to personal
attacks. I am not overly concerned with what anyone thinks of me. I
will respond to posts of interest, but feel no personal responsibility
to worship sacred cows or support pet agendas. I have very little
interest in how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, who has the
most typos in their posts, or related tail-chase arguments largely
based on semantics, gotchas, and parsing infinitum. I am terribly
sorry if any of this bothers you.

Ron wrote:
"Opinions" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane is a classic verbal bully. Individuals like this are little more
than frustrated children in adult bodies. When they can't get their
way, a tantrum follows. Once this is understood, everything they do
and say makes perfect sense.

He makes a valid point though. You fail to support what you are saying with
links to the data. Thats a classic tactic of some posters in usenet that we
call "flamers". Now, if it is your intent to get a rise from the others by
failing to provide links, you qualify for the title. Providing a link is
easy, takes less than 2 seconds (in most cases, since you are already
reading the information), and prevents these inane little arguments. It
also allows for the rest of us to review the data and comment with all the
available facts in hand.

So, take a few extra seconds and give us the link. Either that or put
"flamer" at the bottom of your posts, where it belongs.

Ron

Opinions wrote:
Well, Ron, it's like this: Much of what I know I didn't get off the web
or from popular media.

From which orifice then?

You can either believe what I write or not
believe it.

That a big 10-4 good buddy.

If you can use it, fine.

I am running short on fertilizer for my roses. Do you mind?

If you choose to ignore it or
me, that's OK too.

Of course it is. You are starting to become a tad redundant.

I don't much care one way or the other.

Yes here you are, caring big time by even addressing it. Announcements
of non-interest alway disclose real interest. Or the announcement
wouldn't be made.

There are
individuals in this newsgroup that I disregard as well. I understand
that.

No you don't. You rise to just about ever bait cast.

As I told Kanevonnie after her little rant, I am impervious to personal
attacks.

R R R R ....user lil 'o'

If you are impervious how come you have said so twice already and
continue to counterattack?

I am not overly concerned with what anyone thinks of me.

You mean you "stuff."

I
will respond to posts of interest, but feel no personal responsibility
to worship sacred cows or support pet agendas.

Except your own misanthropic and misogynist babbling, right?

I have very little
interest in how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, who has the
most typos in their posts, or related tail-chase arguments largely
based on semantics, gotchas, and parsing infinitum.

Interestingly you do contribute your own share though.

I am terribly
sorry if any of this bothers you.

You are SO got lil 'o'

You wouldn't have written this if you didn't want to "bother," Ron, and
by golly, just like your great truth revealing the evil feminist
conspiracy to take over the world, and your local park, I can hear Ron
sobbing clear from here. Really. Truly. Yes. Sobbing. It breaks my
heart. Stop torturing the poor man.

0:-




Ron wrote:
"Opinions" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane is a classic verbal bully. Individuals like this are little more
than frustrated children in adult bodies. When they can't get their
way, a tantrum follows. Once this is understood, everything they do
and say makes perfect sense.
He makes a valid point though. You fail to support what you are saying with
links to the data. Thats a classic tactic of some posters in usenet that we
call "flamers". Now, if it is your intent to get a rise from the others by
failing to provide links, you qualify for the title. Providing a link is
easy, takes less than 2 seconds (in most cases, since you are already
reading the information), and prevents these inane little arguments. It
also allows for the rest of us to review the data and comment with all the
available facts in hand.

So, take a few extra seconds and give us the link. Either that or put
"flamer" at the bottom of your posts, where it belongs.

Ron



--
"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

Ronald VanDyne, avid role playing gamer, former
cop and Nebraska Foster parent says he is on a
different "side" from Kane?

So you're NOT a system suckup now, Ron?
Are you a different KIND of system suckup or what?

As a Foster Parent you are PROHIBITED from spanking.
It's part of your CONTRACT.

Greegor wrote:
Ronald VanDyne, avid role playing gamer, former
cop and Nebraska Foster parent says he is on a
different "side" from Kane?

Of course. And so?

Do you think Ron and I can't disagree and still maintain an honest
dialog? His beliefs don't make him evil, Greegor, nor do mine make me
evil. It's only you twits that insist that disagreement means someone is
wrong.

So you're NOT a system suckup now, Ron?

Ron never was a "system suck up." He was a foster parent and did it out
of caring for children. And it cost him financially far more than any
foster subsidy.

But he got his reward. He got to see children safe, healing, and back on
track to being decent responsible adults. Too back he didn't get a
chance to foster you.

Are you a different KIND of system suckup or what?

Are you a different kind of lowlife little ****ant with nothing better
to do than lie about your betters?

As a Foster Parent you are PROHIBITED from spanking.
It's part of your CONTRACT.

Gosh, we had NO IDEA. You mean Ron's been hiding this all these years?

Look, stupid. This is an indication of his integrity, NOT his lack of it.

And you have done for anti CPS propagandists and liars exactly what
helps show you are all without ethics and morals by attacking someone
with personal integrity.

Someone that does NOT let his beliefs interfere with his contracts and
commitments.

And I'll betcha he knows something YOU don't. That abused children are a
high risk of trauma if, after placement, they are subject to corporal
punishment.

You aren't worthy to shine the shoes of someone of Ron's worth to
children and families. ****ant.

Now go sulk for awhile and get back to us with some more of your
revealing prose.

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