Doan's phony offer to "debate"

Doan wrote in message ...
And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked by referring to information not included
in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the library. Just
continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan

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

Doan wrote in message ...
And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked it by referring to information not
included in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the
library. Just continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan

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

Doan wrote:

Doan,

How exactly would you like members of the ng to provide you with
studies?


A good and quick way is to point to a URL. Didn't I just do that
with the latest study? :-)

I realize you hate libraries, but is your thinking really so limited as
to assume all research studies have a URL?

Mail them to your home address?

This is a good alternative. I am even willing to pay the postage! ;-)

I could care less about paying for postage. This is the internet, and a
ng to boot. I have no intention of mailing anything to anyone's home
address.

Deliver them in person to
your doorstep?

Impratical! ;-)

Of course it is.

Perhaps fax them to you at a publically disclosed fax
number you would like to provide on the ng?

I will provide nothing of the sort on this ng, or any other ng.

You can also use email. That is what your little friend, Kane0, claimed
he did with the Embry study. :-)

I could, if I had a scanner that that worked reasonably well with text,
which I don't. I also don't know why I should. I gave you the
reference, asked you to read the study, and debate if you chose to do so.

I gave you a reference. Yes, you may have to go to the library yet
again. People who read, discuss, and debate research often visit libraries.


LOL! More hoops to jump! Can you at least tell me what the sample size
is?

Yes, Doan, there are more hoops to jump. I jumped the hoops. I went to
the library. I read the study. I made a copy of the study. If you
want to debate or even discuss this study, I suggest you show the same
initiative.

LaVonne

Doan


LaVonne


Doan wrote:


And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Doan

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

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals. How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)


Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked by referring to information not included
in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the library. Just
continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan


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

Yes, Doan, I offered to debate. I gave you a reference, and asked you
if you wanted to debate, once you had read the study.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



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.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really up
to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.


So was it YOU who offered to debate?

Doan

Kane wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:11:13 -0500, Carlson LaVonne
wrote:



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.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really

up

to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.


May I say, R R R R R ...

Doan? Debate?

Are you the last of those that think he has any honor at all?

No, I don't think he has any honor. I gave him a reference, asked him
to read the study, and debate if he chose to do so. He went into
typical doan mode. This is an individual who advocates hitting
children. I continue to think that people reading this ng will realize
the mindset of the child-hitters. And I think Doan and Fern (whoever
she is) are some of the best examples.

He played with The Question by throwing in the Embry study when he was
stuck and knew I had him. Then when I agreed on the condition he come
up with a copy of the study himself, he immediately descended in to
his usuall weasel ways demanding I produce proof I had it.

Of course he did.

In other words, as usual, when challenged he has to play his little
ego games.

He has no other games to play, Kane. He's a child-hitter.

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.

One thing I will say for him though -- his behavior is consistent
through the years.

So was Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Doesn't make them honorable.

I didn't make them honorable, nor did I make Doan honorable. However, I
do like the comparison.

Anyone who has been on this ng for any length of
time knows exactly what to expect from him. You've described his
behavior perfectly!


Yep. If you actually make a point he can't refute he'll go to "show
that non spanking has been a rigorously studied as spanking" or quote
yet again the Cargo Cult article not noticing it's a perfect
description of spanking compulsives...who think that because children
obey that they are learning anything other than to obey....and all the
little games that come with fear of pain

Yes he will. And that is what is so great about doan. This is the
behavior of a spanking advocate.

In fact, he is a spanking poster child himself.

You bet he is. And in the past, other readers of the ng have noticed.
I'll debate him, not because he is honorable. I'll debate him because
his bizarre and posting behavior do more for the cause of non-spanking
than any other poster I know.

LaVonne


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)

I read through this post and previous posts in the thread. I smiled,
rolled my eyes, and thought -- with as many years as I have been

reading

Doan's posts I could predict his responses in my sleep.


Unless I see a major change in his behavior, fat chance, he's of
little interest to me. He's been disproven so many times, and refused
to accept it, that he IS that poster child I mentioned. In denial.


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.

Not only is Doan unable to support his claims, he consistently
misinterprets research methodology and comes up with some conclusion
that apparently makes sense to him but is totally in error. When the
error is pointed out by several individuals, he continues to repeat

the

error, over and over, for years.


Yes. Makes for nearly as much entertainment as visiting the nocturnal
exhibit at the zoo, in the daytime, high noon.


I think there are two problems:

One, Doan truly doesn't know how to read and interpret a research

study,

nor does he understand research, so he pulls a sentence or idea out

of

context in a single study. He then puts his twist on the idea that

fits

what he believes, and thinks he has presented truth or is engaging in
logical debate.


It's supposed to wear us down you know. Like a moody child on the play
ground that won't let anyone else have the bat until he has finally
hit the ball...of course...with NO skill at baseball whatsoever.

We, like the other children in the example, have to go off and have
our own game without him. He hates that.


Two, I think there are times when Doan does understand a study and is
disturbed by the results. He then searches desperately for some way

to

twist the results to fit his personal beliefs.


Look at the simple question I asked. How does one find the line of
demarkation between safe CP and injurious CP.

Had he the least sense of honor he would have admitted it cannot be
answered, hence my claim that parents being encouraged to "make up
their own mind" are being told, by him, that they know something that
is unknowable.


Either way, Doan doesn't debate, but he certainly does appear to

enjoy

entertaining "himself and his biases."


I think he's a fake in that area just as much if not more than in his
"debate." At some level he knows perfectly well he has been defeated
again and again here, but cannot face it. Cannot let himself face it.

It's the spanked child symptom of overcontrolling. Compulsive and
stupid, and gets people killed. I hope he isn't accident prone.


LaVonne


Kane



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

Doan wrote:

Doan,

How exactly would you like members of the ng to provide you with
studies?


A good and quick way is to point to a URL. Didn't I just do that
with the latest study? :-)

I realize you hate libraries, but is your thinking really so limited as
to assume all research studies have a URL?

I don't hate libraries. :-) And I certainly didn't say anything about
ALL studies have a URL! What strange logic you have! Is it possible
that you are using smoke and mirrors to avoid admitting that Power &
Chapiesky (1986) have only 16 subjects in their sample size? ;-)


Mail them to your home address?

This is a good alternative. I am even willing to pay the postage! ;-)

I could care less about paying for postage. This is the internet, and a
ng to boot. I have no intention of mailing anything to anyone's home
address.

Fine. That just show that you are not willing to divulge that the data
in Power & Chapiesky (1986) contained only 8 boys and 8 girls! :-)


Deliver them in person to
your doorstep?

Impratical! ;-)

Of course it is.

Then why offer it? :-)


Perhaps fax them to you at a publically disclosed fax
number you would like to provide on the ng?

I will provide nothing of the sort on this ng, or any other ng.

Of course not! You are hoping that noone would take the time to
check up on your citation! :-)


You can also use email. That is what your little friend, Kane0, claimed
he did with the Embry study. :-)

I could, if I had a scanner that that worked reasonably well with text,
which I don't. I also don't know why I should. I gave you the
reference, asked you to read the study, and debate if you chose to do so.

LOL!


I gave you a reference. Yes, you may have to go to the library yet
again. People who read, discuss, and debate research often visit libraries.


LOL! More hoops to jump! Can you at least tell me what the sample size
is?

Yes, Doan, there are more hoops to jump. I jumped the hoops. I went to
the library. I read the study. I made a copy of the study. If you
want to debate or even discuss this study, I suggest you show the same
initiative.

I already giving you some of the details from the study, LaVonne. I am
just testing how far you would go with your smoke and mirrors. ;-)

Doan

LaVonne

Doan


LaVonne


Doan wrote:


And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Doan

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals. How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)


Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked by referring to information not included
in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the library. Just
continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan


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

Now where did I said I am unable to go the library, LaVonne? I said it
takes time and was hoping that you would provide the data so that it
would save me time! Unfortunately, you did everything you can to impede
that effort. You see, unlike you, I am willing to give EVERYONE in
this newsgroup the details of this data:
Sample size: 8 boys and 8 girls. Too small of a sample size
Age: 14 months of age. Even the evil Dobson wouldn't recommend
spanking children this young!
Needs I go on, LaVonne? ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals. How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)


Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked by referring to information not included
in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the library. Just
continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan


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

Then please explain to Kane0 that he was wrong and STUPID! ;-)
You was the one that made the offer. I accepted! Accept
is not the same as offer!

Doan

On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Yes, Doan, I offered to debate. I gave you a reference, and asked you
if you wanted to debate, once you had read the study.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



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.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really up
to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.


So was it YOU who offered to debate?

Doan