Another child killed in kincare

(Kane) wrote:
snip
I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...

Name 'em Wuss. Or be the flatulent liar that you are doggie boy.
snip

Run coward, run.

That would be you. Coy-boy.

Kane

LOL

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

wrote in message ...
(Kane) wrote:
snip
I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...

Name 'em Wuss. Or be the flatulent liar that you are doggie boy.

I see. Those folks that don't submit to other's demands are flatulent
liars and doggie boys...hhhmmmm, yes, that would describe your pack of
mindless hyenas right to their furry little butts.

Tell you what, next time I want you to do something and you refuse
I'll remind you of the ad hom above, okay, butthead?

snip

Run coward, run.

That would be you. Coy-boy.

What am I a coward about? I've offerred again and again to debate the
Doananator on the Embry study, if he will stop the nonsense evasion
that precipitated him jumping on the Embry study as a bolt hole, and
to clarify his "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" that I responded to.

I think you are an arrested development victim, about age 4
psychologically who is incapable of dealing with truth.....but you
have many to keep you company here I note...the phony balogna crony
crowd of Anti CPS failed "Reformers" that can't even use simple
information to help families get their children back from CPS and
deeply resent someone who can.

Poor things. But of course a serious menace to parents.

Your defense of an ass-to-couch grafted little **** that moved in on a
women and displaced her child and stays for free on the promise he
makes to her that they will get rich off a settlement with CPS says a
great deal about your character, dimbulb.

You make it too easy Leaky. Waaay to easy to point out to any visitors
just what you are.

Kane

LOL

I should hope so. You sure haven't shown any worth here to parents.

Hows that great job with CPSWatch going, by the way. You still their
state director in IL? Tell us how many families you personally have
been responsible for recovering their children from CPS.

I think I asked earlier, so we could celebrate your skill and tactical
acumen.

Anything?

Naw, that's why you hang with and defend The Whore, and The Public
Doananism of a Weasel.

Peace, Bro.

Kane

(Kane) wrote:
wrote in message
...
(Kane) wrote:
snip
I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...

Name 'em Wuss. Or be the flatulent liar that you are doggie boy.

I see. Those folks that don't submit to other's demands are flatulent
liars and doggie boys...hhhmmmm, yes, that would describe your pack of
mindless hyenas right to their furry little butts.

Tell you what, next time I want you to do something and you refuse
I'll remind you of the ad hom above, okay, butthead?

Ahhh? You got a court order? If you do the there is no "anonymous"
remailer, unless you can prove that. Can you? "Just the facts Ma'am."

snip

Run coward, run.

That would be you. Coy-boy.

What am I a coward about? I've offerred again and again to debate the
Doananator on the Embry study, if he will stop the nonsense evasion
that precipitated him jumping on the Embry study as a bolt hole, and
to clarify his "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" that I responded to.

I think you are an arrested development victim, about age 4
psychologically who is incapable of dealing with truth.....but you
have many to keep you company here I note...the phony balogna crony
crowd of Anti CPS failed "Reformers" that can't even use simple
information to help families get their children back from CPS and
deeply resent someone who can.

Poor things. But of course a serious menace to parents.

Your defense of an ass-to-couch grafted little **** that moved in on a
women and displaced her child and stays for free on the promise he
makes to her that they will get rich off a settlement with CPS says a
great deal about your character, dimbulb.

Hey, right now..tell us where you were typing from...Standing up? What a
fricken hypocrite.


You make it too easy Leaky. Waaay to easy to point out to any visitors
just what you are.

Kane

LOL

I should hope so. You sure haven't shown any worth here to parents.

Hows that great job with CPSWatch going, by the way. You still their
state director in IL? Tell us how many families you personally have
been responsible for recovering their children from CPS.

I think I asked earlier, so we could celebrate your skill and tactical
acumen.

Anything?

I recall me saying you were the only one invoking CPSWatch's power here.
h-ha!


Naw, that's why you hang with and defend The Whore, and The Public
Doananism of a Weasel.

Peace, Bro.

In your wildest dreams. Not till it's over coy-boy. Not till it's over( :


Kane

Lol.

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:28:54 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"

wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your
child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with
blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out
of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing
time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their
child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in
situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank
and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of
spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger,
it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long
as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows
that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c)
AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning
model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual
model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11
years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change
in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer
fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking
fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims
of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).

Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward....

LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling
obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage???

Dodger.

Stupid dog! :-)

All I asked is for you to answer a couple of simple questions. You
immediately went to a non related issue. Coward.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have
the
Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you
would mail it to anyone that requested it.

No shows on that, eh?

I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)

Ah, please show by my not replying that that "proved" you had the
Embry study?

Bad English! :-)

Still not going to include the information from the page number I
questioned you on, right? RIGHT! R R R R R

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I
gave
you?

Tsk, little coward, tsk.

The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-)

See, wadddidItellyah? No answer to the question.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

Are all the folks that post anonymously cowards then? I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...tsk there little boy, tsk.

You don't see them hurling obscenities, do you stupid dog? :-0

R R R R R

So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the
interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would.

And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your
master,
has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-)

Which should prove to others (you are beyond normal thinking and will
never get it) that I am not the subject of anyone. Chris doesn't get
to tell me what to do, or did you fail to notice that in your mad
scramble for something, anything, that would distract for your
childish challenges and loudmouthed, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
and then not replying when I asked you to follow through.

LOL! He kicked you butt. He publicly called you stupid!

So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response
to
YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a
silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big
boys?

Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-)
I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in!

Nope. The burden of proof is not on me and that isn't what I said on
any of the issues we are discussing. The Embry Study, the claims about
"never-spanked" and most of all, The Question you failed to answer
honestly.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in
honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You
haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty.

I used your logic against you, stupid dog! ;-)

The Canadian court was honest though....they said that "reasonable"
standards don't cut it as they are not precisely definable enough for
law or for parents to use as a guideline.

That is your interpretation, stupid dog. Read it again:

"The court did apply guidelines for what's acceptable and what's not. It
said reasonable force under the circumstances, such as spanking with an
open hand, by parents of children aged two to 12 was okay."

Did they use "reasonable"?

Do you disagree with the Canadian courts?

Nope! Do you?

There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even
rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how
parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left
turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little
feller like you.

Canada has banned spanking???? ;-)

The usual Doananistic Dodge. I said nothing about a ban. We were
discussing the limits on spanking where it passes into abuse.

Stupid answer as usual. And what did the Canadian court says?

But for your edification, they have greatly reduced the freedom to
spank by now reducing the LIMIT considerably and more precisely than
YOU have. Isn't that sad for those of you that need spanking as an
excuse for your emotional crippling as a child? I'm so sad for you.

LOL! Resorted to ad-hom again. :-)

So, are you going to point out where I said they banned spanking?
Please do.

So they did not!

I think you are losing it pretty badly. Your clever ploys and dodges
and gimmicks are giving out on you. I'm even sadder for you.

LOL! I feel the same for you, "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Look at what it's revealing about you to people that come here to
answer The Question for themselves.

What people? They come to see you hurling obsenities and calling
other women "smelly-****"???

And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply
posting
your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not?

But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't
you meet your burden of proof? :-0

Two reasons. All you've done with your "burden of proof" old ploy is
try the same bull**** you always do. You made a claim about me. You
challenged me to say one way or the other if you were correct.

I am just throwing the **** that came out of your mouth back at you.
AND HAVING FUN DOING IT TOO! ;-)

Does that sound to YOU like the burden is on ME? I made no claim one
way or the other about what I said or didn't say. I simply asked you
to put up.

And I have asked you to convince Gerald, Chris and LaVonne to be in
with you on this. It's no fun humiliating a little dog like you.
I still want you to hang around this newsgroup as long as I can.
I just remind people that you are a "never-spanked" boy! :-)

You are poor at bluffing. I noticed that about you from way back in
your posting history. Your idea of bluffing is setting up an elaborate
distraction then running off from whatever issue you knew you were
loosing the debate over.

Funny! Where is LaVonne and Chris? They are the one that ran away
from debating me, haven't you noticed? They thought they can stick
a dog like you on me. They are mistaken! ;-)

You've done it here twice at the first level and now once at the
second level on one of the first level challenges YOU created on the
dodge.

And you haven't answered me on the sample size of the Embry study!
YOU ARE THE DODGER! ;-)

It's all about the inability to answer The Question. First you claim
you did answer it, then you try to dodge by bringup up other
challenges, then you dodge on the challenges you brought up.

Already have - "reasonable". The same one that the Canadian court
used! ARE YOU SO STUPID???

No one is fooled, Doananator. Least of all me. I've dealt with cons
for years. You are a panty compared to most of them.

And you are still a dog, Kane9! ;-0

You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder.

I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan,
running
away from debating me? ;-)

I have no idea. But I do it's just another Dodge. I didn't ask you to
debate Chris. I asked you to respond to the very challenges YOU made,
and you haven't. Again and again.

And I have challenged you on the Embry study. If you don't answer my
questions, why should I answer you?

Now why would you suddenly bring up Chris as a criteria for YOU and I
to discuss three issues, shortly after he remonstrated with me for my
language? Hmmm....other than seeing it as an opportunity for another
dodge?

Because Chris is trying to tell you that you are a disgrace to the
anti-spanking angenda! Are you stupid as to miss that?

You are child dealing with a grownup, Doan, and you are a foolish
damaged child. You can thank your parents for your inability to debate
honestly, for the propensity to dodge rather than meet challenges.

I have respect for my parents. They taught me to respect women. Your
behavior is a reflection of the way your parents raised you. You called
other women "smelly-****". Do you think your mom proud of that?

You were spanked too much for you. They exceeded the limit for you, an
individual child, and it shows rather badly. You are terrified of them
and the loss of their approval so you'll do anything, no matter how
stupid, how dishonest, how callously thoughtless, to protect yourself
from facing the truth about them.

LOL! Why do hate your parents so much, Kane9? ;-)

Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge
on
the Embry Study.

Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment
component of it

The "wrong" you claim is nothing more than a disagreement with Embry
at the time of the study, and his views now. I doubt he would so
vigorously use the word "punishment" after years of watching his own
results as he went on to further the concept of teaching over forcing.

LOL! More weasel words. ;-0

There is an age range he still feels the "instruction" component is
less satsifactory on, but he takes no apparent stand on the cure for
that problem, and it's an age range, not a kind of child and he tested
kids of all manner of demographics including developmental problems.

Prove it! Show me the citation where he said that. My bet is you
will weasel again.

and can't even tell me what the sample size is.
What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)

You, as usual, confuse "can't" with "won't" because I will not debate
the study with you until YOU prove you have it, you have followed
through on your childish "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" challenge, and you
answer The Question honestly and fully as it was asked, not as you
tried to rephrase and reshape it.

So you are the dodger, stupid dog! ;-)

No loose ends, Doan. If Chris made a mistake with you it was allowing
you full rein in your sick distractions and dodges. I won't.

IOW, Chris is smart and you are stupid!

Now YOU, on the other hand, have set no restrictions on me for debate,
other than your continual dancing about. So when I ask YOU to produce
something from the study, some so simple as to be rediculously easy,
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE.

You are in no position to ask anything of me. YOU ARE JUST A SICK LITTLE
DOG! You don't have the Embry study. I do and I am willing to share it
with anyone who asked. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TO EMAIL ME! ;-)

You remember: the page content of the numbered page I queried you on?
The subject of the page is sufficient to satisfy ONE of the three
criteria for debate.

And you still have not answered me on the question of the sample size?

What's holding you up?

What's holding you up? :-)

And why hasn't anyone asked you to mail them the study and have it and
can produce the answer for you? You do have friends here don't you?
Aren't there those that would happily refute me if they could? If not,
why not, Doananator?

Why don't you ask LaVonne? She is on your side! ;-)

Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you
now?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

The subject of the page, Doananator Dancing?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! :-)

You are stalling, just as you have on the other two issues.

You are stupid, as always! ;-)

Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a
copy.
Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one.

Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked.

Gee, why hasn't anyone asked? Because they know you don't really have
it. Or are they afraid that if they got it what they might find about
the Embry Study that would blow their little dreams of child
controlling out of the water?

So why are you keeping it a secret? Are you so stupid? Here is
your change to "blow their little dreams of child controlling out
of the water". Why don't you do it, stupid dog? ;-)

Not only are YOU a coward, Doananator, but so are they.

And you are stupid! ;-)

Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the
number of?

Why haven't you answered me on the sample size?

Because YOU created this challenge, Doananator. It's up to YOU to
provide proof, not I. Who brought up The Embry Study in the course of
our exchange on The Question?

YOU!

Was it moi? I don't think so, but you are free to prove it was and
then I'll give you the sample size, and even the categories and
characteristics of the sample individuals.

Dodging again. Why keept it a secret?

R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R

Stupid little Kane9! :-)

How stupid am I considering that you are nervously dodging and dancing
as fast as your little bow legs will carry you? R R R R R

What is the sample size?

YOU made all the challenges, Doan, after The Question, you couldn't
and won't answer. Yet there you are, unwilling to answer a single
challenge. All I've said to you is, "go ahead and prove your
challenges."

I have answered, you just stubbornly stupid to acknowledge it. :-)

All YOU'VE done is Doananate by asking yet ANOTHER question. I'm still
on my first question and waiting. You are piling yours up like the
straw and fish they are.

And you still haven't answered mine!

Such a child.

Stupid dog! ;-)

When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have
lied
all this time about having it.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

What "lied" was that, Doananator? This ploy isn't going to work any
better than the rest you've tried.

That there is no punishment component in the Embry study. I proved
that you are wrong by quoting directly from the study. Are you
denying it now?

You challenged me on the Embry Study. I said I'd fill your dance card
when you proved you had it, when you cleared up the challenges you
posed with your "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and you still haven't presented
your dance card to me properly. How impolite and rude you seem.

HA! HA! HA! You are calling me "impolite and rude"? You are really
stupid after the obscenities that came out of your mouth! :-)

You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all
these
years of practice to. {-

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

Why did you beat your wife?

Dodging again. Why are you so stupid? ;-)

Stop being silly, boy.

Stop being stupid, little dog! :-)

I didn't "lied" about punishment. I have followed Embry's work for
years and am especially impressed by his New Zealand work. He is not
an advocate of punishment. The fact he used the word in his study to
describe something that I do NOT consider PUNISHEMENT, doesn't make me
a liar.

Then you are stupid then?

You've about beat that one to death. How many more Herrings are you
going to throw out there? Enough to think that I'll give in to utter
disgust with your duplicitiousness and lies as Chris did and give up?

Still fond of your master, Kane9? ;-)

Forget it. I'll be here hectoring you until every twit filter in the
world has been activated on our postings addy's.

Good luck! :-)

And still, you won't answer The Question, and the "I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
challenge, nor prove that you have the Embry study.

Weasel words again! :-0

You'll be throwing out the herring and I'll be happily watching you
prove what you are by your doing so.

I'll be happy to show your stupidity to the world! ;-)

I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some
critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely
tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my
students
to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not
to
embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright
I'll change the objects but retain the context.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

Why do you lie about my comments on the punishment component? Are you
assuming I don't have the study? All you have to do is come up with
the answer to what is on that page I queried you about and you got me.
Right? Especially if you answer the other two issues and I have to
then debate the study with you, or run like a coward with my tail
between my legs? No?

Yup! Your tail is between your legs, Kane9! ;-)

You'd pass up such an opportunity just to dance away from such simple
to answer issues? Tsk.

LOL!
I think you are a coward. I KNOW why your are, and I know how badly
you want to stay away from the Embry study EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE IT.

Why don't you post the detail so I can't "stay away"? Are you really
as Chris implied - STUPID??? ;-)

If you've seen it you know you are not going to be able to fudge it or
misinterpret it so easily as you did other studies you've lied about.

All you have to do is post the details and everybody will see it for
what it is? Why keep it a secret if you have it, stupid?

I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up
the offer.

What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)

Stop the dancing, Doananator. I know it to the letter.

Stop the Kane9 Kan't Kan't dance. Everybody is laughing at you! :-)

I told you no debate until YOU answer my reponses to your challenges.

So you are dodging, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

Simply dancing away with yet another questions isn't going to work
with me, and not with any reader that get's what you are up to.

So expose me by posting the details of the Embry Study! I DARE YOU.
I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)


Kane

9 Kan't! :-)

Doan

Doananator publically exposes himself again.

Kane9 Kan't showing his stupidity again! :-)

I don't respond to childish dares, Doanieboy.

You can't, stupid dog! :-)

Answer civil questions about YOUR challenges to me first, then I'll
answer your pile of questions very quickly. About fast enough to take
your head right off your shoulders.

Keep on dodging, Kane9 Kan't! :-)

Tell yah what. I'll make a single concession in the ongoing hope of
honesty from you:

You tell ME what page the demographics of the sample group begin on
and I'll tell you the sample size and characteristics, in detail.

I asked about the sample size first. Don't play games with me, little
dog!

Hell, get it within one page either way and I'll play. You could guess
right, who knows. Let your buddies who were too cowardly to ask you
for the study, or that know you don't have it, to help you guess. If
ANY of them get it right on the money, I'll answer your "size"
question and with the demographic characteristics, all of them
including the parents. Deal?

Why don't you post it for everyone to see. You post it to prove that
you have study. I will post the sample-size to prove that I have it.
Deal?

Bet you weasel.

And I bet you will run like a dog. :-)

Or are we going to be treated to yet another Doananism Dance?

Are you going to do the Kane9 Kan't Dance? :-)

...........Doan is a coward and it's pretty plain he is stalling for
the arrival of his copy of the study. Or still searching.

I have already posted the "punishment" component of the Embry study
to prove that you lied. How is that possible if I don't have the
study? Are you so stupid?

You don't have the study, coward.

I have already posted the "punishment" component of the Embry study
to prove that you lied. How is that possible if I don't have the
study? Are you so stupid?

And if you do get it you still have two other issues to clear up
before I'll fully engage in debate on the study.

Dodging again. :-)

Run coward, run.


Dance, stupid dog, dance.

Kane9
Kan't

Doan

Doan wrote in message ...
On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:28:54 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote:

toto wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine"

wrote:

Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your
child
in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with
blind
acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out
of
another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing
time-out.

Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their
child
beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in
situations
where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank
and
those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of
spanking
the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally
unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger,
it's
quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long
as
I have the power, I can hit too.

That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the
context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows
that
taking toys away
from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!!

Here is a summary of the study:

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c)
AMA
1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental
Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning
model
to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual
model
in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to
spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11
years in
the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several
family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems
Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change
in
chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer
fights
for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more
fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white.
Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking
fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims
of
increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in
single-mother
families (P =.05, F test).

Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward....

LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling
obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage???

Dodger.

Stupid dog! :-X

Dodger. {:-

All I asked is for you to answer a couple of simple questions. You
immediately went to a non related issue. Coward.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

Exactly what Embry says on a certain page. What page is it, Dodger?

I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have
the
Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you
would mail it to anyone that requested it.

No shows on that, eh?

I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)

Ah, please show by my not replying that that "proved" you had the
Embry study?

Bad English! :-)

You understand it well enough, Dodgerboy.

Please show by my not replying to your request that that prove YOU
have the Embry study? You have done zero to prove it except bluff.

Still not going to include the information from the page number I
questioned you on, right? RIGHT! R R R R R

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

It is your obligation, since you tendered the challenge of the Embry
study and I challenged your claim you had it, to prove you have it. Or
you may continue to unzip your trousers and expose your tiny little
dinky dick.

And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I
gave
you?

Tsk, little coward, tsk.

The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-)

See, wadddidItellyah? No answer to the question.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

Tell me the page it's on and I'll tell you the size.

Why do we know you don't have the study? Easy, the Doananising Dodge.

Are all the folks that post anonymously cowards then? I've checked out
a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but
very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and
proxies...tsk there little boy, tsk.

You don't see them hurling obscenities, do you stupid dog? :-0

They ARE obscenities. Just as you are.

You are a liar and a fool who thinks he can hide forever behind what
he thinks is clever lying and sneaky dodging.

You are exposed. Even your buddies are laughing at your dishonesty.

R R R R R

So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the
interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would.

And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your
master,
has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-)

Which should prove to others (you are beyond normal thinking and will
never get it) that I am not the subject of anyone. Chris doesn't get
to tell me what to do, or did you fail to notice that in your mad
scramble for something, anything, that would distract for your
childish challenges and loudmouthed, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
and then not replying when I asked you to follow through.

LOL! He kicked you butt. He publicly called you stupid!

You just dodged again. As I said, Chris doesn't tell me what to do, so
I'm hardly upset at what he might call me. If I was to get upset at
people using ad hom with me as the target I'd have had to leave long
ago.

Notice I'm still here, Little Dick?

So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response
to
YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a
silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big
boys?

Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-)
I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in!

Nope. The burden of proof is not on me and that isn't what I said on
any of the issues we are discussing. The Embry Study, the claims about
"never-spanked" and most of all, The Question you failed to answer
honestly.

What is the sample size of the Embry study?

The same as it was when he did the study. You haven't told me anything
that proves you have the study. I'm not participating in any debate on
the study until you do the three tasks related to concluding
CHALLENGES YOU MADE TO ME, and the one I made to you....THE Question,
little liar, THE Question.

When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in
honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You
haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty.

I used your logic against you, stupid dog! ;-)

I'm not interested in debating whose "logic" is being used, I'm
interested in your dishonestly and dodging. You are providing clear
and irrefutable proof of your dishonesty.

The Canadian court was honest though....they said that "reasonable"
standards don't cut it as they are not precisely definable enough for
law or for parents to use as a guideline.

That is your interpretation, stupid dog. Read it again:

"The court did apply guidelines for what's acceptable and what's not. It
said reasonable force under the circumstances, such as spanking with an
open hand, by parents of children aged two to 12 was okay."

That was not the ONLY comment from the court.

http://tinyurl.com/23yew

(from a citation in this very ng as recently as 2004-01-25 - and you
hoped no one would see it, right?)

"The word "reasonable" draws particular criticism. Even lower-court
judges have complained of loose wording.

In a 1996 child assault case, Mr. Justice Ian MacDonnell of the
Ontario
Court of Justice (provincial division) complained of "the elusive
nature
of the standard of reasonableness." Two years later, Mr. Justice Brian
Weagant of the same court cited "the wide variety of judicial
interpretations" of Section 43, and said the law "begs for legislative
reform.""

I did not say which court commented on the lack of clarity, but that
the judicial didn't see it as clearly as YOU pretend it is. Facts and
the spanking enthusiasts, never the twain shall meet.

Now, little Dick, who is the liar?

Did they use "reasonable"?

Sure did. And not all Canadian judiciaries are accepting of the use of
the word as a measure, as I said.


Do you disagree with the Canadian courts?

Nope!

Sorry, you do by hiding from a posting and citation right in this ng.

Do you?

Yep...the one that is trying to use "reasonable" as a measure when
it's clear and uncontrovertable fact NO ONE can possibly define it as
a static measure.

It changes with variables, and when you admit it, and that we have far
too little measurement of the many variables hence can't have a
"reasonable" standard, you will have answered The Question.

All it takes is getting your head around the facts, and letting go of
the justification of spanking you are so married to in defense of the
brutality of your parents upon you.

Should be easy for anyone brave enough to face it. I've seen others do
it.

One in this very newsgroup did it years ago...another intelligent well
educated fellow like yourself. Now THAT is courage, and I'm sure he's
forgiven any that used CP on him, and even himself for using it before
he awoke and used his mind and determination to learn better.

But there YOU are, Doan, still whackin' your pecker publically,
anything rather than live with the truth that a part of you you have
deeply tucked away KNOWS.

There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even
rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how
parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left
turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little
feller like you.

Canada has banned spanking???? ;-)

The usual Doananistic Dodge. I said nothing about a ban. We were
discussing the limits on spanking where it passes into abuse.

Stupid answer as usual. And what did the Canadian court says?

But for your edification, they have greatly reduced the freedom to
spank by now reducing the LIMIT considerably and more precisely than
YOU have. Isn't that sad for those of you that need spanking as an
excuse for your emotional crippling as a child? I'm so sad for you.

LOL! Resorted to ad-hom again. :-)

No. Expressing genuine sorrow over your being so stuck.

It IS the reason you can't answer The Question factually. It is the
reason you dodge. It is the reason you even lie to yourself in the
arguments you make.

There is an unhealed wound in you and you need to get it taken care
of. It takes courage though, and so far the only courage I've seen you
exhibit is that of the determined court jester, The Fool.

Maybe that's a sign you are brave enough to face it and deal with it.
You'd be amazed how much of a relief it is and how refreshed you'll
feel when you face it.

So, are you going to point out where I said they banned spanking?
Please do.

So they did not!

No, they severly limited it and introduced yet MORE centralized
federal control over parenting......all because of twits and fools and
neurotic cowards and their insistence on defending a practice that
should have gone out with slavery and women and children as chattel.

It seems the cowardly and stupid cannot get it without heavy authority
being placed on them...it's, of course, the only thing they understand
and respect. They are incapable of acting out of conscience based on
empathy.

I think you are losing it pretty badly. Your clever ploys and dodges
and gimmicks are giving out on you. I'm even sadder for you.

LOL! I feel the same for you, "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Thank you, but you lie again. You don't know if I was never spanked
and you using that as an ad hom and refusing to conclude the "I DARE
YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" schoolboy challenge you used to dodge The
Question gives folks a pretty clear idea of what you are about....you
are a liar. And a coward.

Look at what it's revealing about you to people that come here to
answer The Question for themselves.

What people? They come to see you hurling obsenities and calling
other women "smelly-****"???

Probably. My obscenities are nothing compared to the bloodbath those
like It have produced, and the pain and humiliation of children you
defend and promote.

YOU are obscene. That is obscene. "****" and "****" are just harsh
expletives.

****s are nice things, if well cared for, and to **** is joyful and
happy.

The fact that most of the population can't even read those words, or
see bare tit with an ornament in it without losing their cool and
hurling abusive claims over them, shows the results of practices such
as spanking.....the tool for creating shame based society.

You're sick, Doan, very.

And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply
posting
your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not?

But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't
you meet your burden of proof? :-0

Two reasons. All you've done with your "burden of proof" old ploy is
try the same bull**** you always do. You made a claim about me. You
challenged me to say one way or the other if you were correct.

I am just throwing the **** that came out of your mouth back at you.

Which "****" would that be? That you don't have the Embry study? That
won't take the simple step of proving it if you have it? That you play
at claims you won't prove just so you can dodge The Questions? That
"****?"

AND HAVING FUN DOING IT TOO! ;-)

Sure you are, because dodging is what is your "fun!"

Notice you still are doing it? That's Doananism. Tsk.

Does that sound to YOU like the burden is on ME? I made no claim one
way or the other about what I said or didn't say. I simply asked you
to put up.

And I have asked you to convince Gerald, Chris and LaVonne to be in
with you on this.

Ask all you wish. I don't control any of them. If you wish to have an
exchange with them do so. OUR exchange is between us.

Coward.

It's no fun humiliating a little dog like you.

It's no fun at all because you can't. I've never been humiliated by
anyone lying about me or playing at dodge'm and being sick with their
neurotic facade.

I still want you to hang around this newsgroup as long as I can.

Your wish is granted.

I just remind people that you are a "never-spanked" boy! :-)

Why?

You are poor at bluffing. I noticed that about you from way back in
your posting history. Your idea of bluffing is setting up an elaborate
distraction then running off from whatever issue you knew you were
loosing the debate over.

Funny! Where is LaVonne and Chris?

That's what I just said. Yet another poor silly bluff. It's not
between you and them for me. I have no investment in your exchanges
with them that superceed mine with you.

You are just doing your dodge again. Bluffing. You have nothing and
know nothing and you prove it with each post.

They are the one that ran away
from debating me, haven't you noticed?

I noticed you lied to the point they had nothing left to say to you.
You did your own fanciful and exotic interpretation of various
studies, making points important that not only didn't matter, but were
far from your original debate....each one a step away from the point
you lost badly to hide your loss from yourself and hopefully, on your
part, from others.

Hair spitting silliness instead of sticking to and admitting that that
facts didn't support you in the imporant findings of the studies.
That's pretty much your game all the time.

You've done it with me. The Question was asked. When I refused to
accept your utterly stupid answer, lack of accuracy being the fault,
you simply jumped to another rather unrelated subject: whether or not
I said I was unspanked, or some permutation that you kept burying
deeper and deeper behind semantic walls of obscurity.

And then YOU brought up the Embry study. When I challenged you on
that, you claimed that my citing the quote of Dr. Embry was
insufficient and I had to produce the study.

I offered to WHEN YOU HAD A COPY. You wouldn't get one, claiming it
couldnt' be gotten, yet sure enough in time you claimed you had it.
All the while I'm sitting here with it on my desk (I've had it from
when you were just a little tyke getting your butt beat for running
toward traffic) because I've followed Embry from his earliest work.

And I looked forward to you getting honest and passing the easy test
of the three issues.

Much to my surprise (R R R R R) you weaseled and waffled. Claiming you
had the study but completely unwilling to prove it when the whole
escapade about Embry was of YOUR making, not mine.

They thought they can stick
a dog like you on me. They are mistaken! ;-)

Well, I assume you are covered with dried dog **** and are very
sticky, but no one needs to introduce me to you or invite me to debate
you. I am not likely to follow anyone's lead on that but my own.

Are you trying out for the Victim Role Championship? The Whore's got
that covered, sorry.

You've done it here twice at the first level and now once at the
second level on one of the first level challenges YOU created on the
dodge.

And you haven't answered me on the sample size of the Embry study!

I told you clearly what you had to do to debate any part or all of the
study with me. You haven't done those very simple things.

YOU ARE THE DODGER! ;-)

No, you dodged The Question, then you dodged my response to your own
"DARE" challenge of me, then you dodged The Proof you had the Embry
study.

You are still dodging. Page number of the demographics of the subjects
pleas?

And if you think you can drive me off as easily as you thoroughly
disgusted LaVonne and Chris with your games you are sadly mistaken.
I've worked in slaughter houses, and prisons. Little you could come up
with would turn even a hair on my head.

You are a rank amateur at evasion. But your characteristics are dead
on in prison settings.

It's all about the inability to answer The Question. First you claim
you did answer it, then you try to dodge by bringup up other
challenges, then you dodge on the challenges you brought up.

Already have - "reasonable". The same one that the Canadian court
used! ARE YOU SO STUPID???

The Canadian court "used" it to limit not to extend parental spanking
rights, and that same "Canadian" judicial admits, in the opinion of
another member of it, that "reasonable" is not enforcable....my very
point from the beginning when I first asked The Question.

It is not a static measure of anything but opinion. And we all know
from years of posting to this newsgroup that is highly
variable....hence, "reasonable" isn't a measure at all...just a
subjective filler word in the finding of the court.

The answer will become clearly to you as case law fallows over time.
In time the only out for the court will be to accept the opinion of
one of them, and many other professionals, that the only "reasonable"
thing to do is to simply do away with spanking completely, and I
suspect they, in their knowledge and wisdom that undoubtely surpassed
yours and mine, know that full well...they just need to the time to
let it happen.

That's how the judicial avoids trouble and political upheaval...they
can see very well what's coming but they hold off in their findings
and do things gradually. I've seen our own SC do the same thing.

No one is fooled, Doananator. Least of all me. I've dealt with cons
for years. You are a panty compared to most of them.

And you are still a dog, Kane9! ;-0

No, actually I'm human, little Dick.

And still unable to honestly debate. Just a running coward.

You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder.

I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan,
running
away from debating me? ;-)

I have no idea. But I do it's just another Dodge. I didn't ask you to
debate Chris. I asked you to respond to the very challenges YOU made,
and you haven't. Again and again.

And I have challenged you on the Embry study. If you don't answer my
questions, why should I answer you?

Now why would you suddenly bring up Chris as a criteria for YOU and I
to discuss three issues, shortly after he remonstrated with me for my
language? Hmmm....other than seeing it as an opportunity for another
dodge?

Because Chris is trying to tell you that you are a disgrace to the
anti-spanking angenda!

Please quote the words you think support that interpretation? If you
can.

Are you stupid as to miss that?

No, I read very well thank you.

I do not believe that is what he said. He had something else in mind.

He gave it more thought than your interpretation of him. He spoke to
what he felt was the better way to pursue debate. We disagree. I can
accept that. That doesn't mean I'll follow his lead.

But if he claimed I disgraced the anti spanking agenda you'll point it
out for me, will you not, Silly asshole?

You are child dealing with a grownup, Doan, and you are a foolish
damaged child. You can thank your parents for your inability to debate
honestly, for the propensity to dodge rather than meet challenges.

I have respect for my parents.

Based on fear.

They taught me to respect women.

But not if they are minors. You are perfectly willing to have females
below the age of majority humilated and in pain administered by their
caregivers.

You are terribly inconsistent, Doananator. Or did you forget that
women can also be "girls," simply young women?

Your
behavior is a reflection of the way your parents raised you.

I told you it was. Why would you think it necessary to tell me what I
told you already?

You called
other women "smelly-****". Do you think your mom proud of that?

If my mother saw what The Smelly **** has written her in defense of
beating and killing children under the LIBERTY INTEREST of parents
over their children SHE WOULD CALL THE **** A ****.

And a genteel and refinded lady she is, too. But absolutely
unforgiving of people that would hurt children deliberately and lie
about it and use euphonisms like "spanking" to excuse it.

I'm not going to tell you what she'd call you, after placing her
teacup precisely and gently in it's saucer and placing it on her
table. Even I can be embarassed.

And if you were within her reach and hit a child.....brrrrr...mom's
six foot, a long golfer of of considerable skill. She makes money on
the course...the men all think she is so feminine and she dresses that
way to put them off their game.

Last I heard she was pulling down about $75 a shot on her tee drives,
in foursomes. The private clubs have had to ask her to ease up a bit
on the membership. The men come in redfaced from the shellacing this
gentle soul delivers to them.

Your silliness wouldn't be tolerated for two minutes.

You were spanked too much for you. They exceeded the limit for you, an
individual child, and it shows rather badly. You are terrified of them
and the loss of their approval so you'll do anything, no matter how
stupid, how dishonest, how callously thoughtless, to protect yourself
from facing the truth about them.

LOL! Why do hate your parents so much, Kane9? ;-)

I don't. Why are you so terrified of yours that you'd create this well
defended protective shield of denial? You were hit, little boy. And it
hurt. And somewhere in you there is a small hurt child vacillating
between rage that terrifies him, and terror and cripples and cows
home.

Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge
on
the Embry Study.

Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment
component of it

The "wrong" you claim is nothing more than a disagreement with Embry
at the time of the study, and his views now. I doubt he would so
vigorously use the word "punishment" after years of watching his own
results as he went on to further the concept of teaching over forcing.

LOL! More weasel words. ;-0

Why would it be weasel words, other than an attempt by your to
redirect folks from you constant weaseling. I've followed Embry for
some time. Go read his website. You'll see what I mean. He found out
long ago that punishment isn't a very effective tool for teaching.
Verbal or physical.

There a section in the study you are lying about having that goes into
the experience with ... well, no more until you take care of the
simple criteria for debate.

There is an age range he still feels the "instruction" component is
less satsifactory on, but he takes no apparent stand on the cure for
that problem, and it's an age range, not a kind of child and he tested
kids of all manner of demographics including developmental problems.

Prove it! Show me the citation where he said that. My bet is you
will weasel again.

No, I'll simply remind you that YOU are weaseling on the requirements
for debate. It's okay if you do, though I'll be disappointed, but it's
your choice to expose what a coward you are, or not.

You are under no constraint, as I am having set criteria. You could
answer any question I've asked that would go toward proving you have
the study, but instead of answering you simply ask another question.
That's the classic dodge of the liar.

The tool of misdirection.

As I said, you are a lousy bluffer. And you think time is on your side
because you've used that and the reams of babbling posts to drive
those that debate you honestly away in disgust.

Interestingly I've noticed LaVonne challenge you recently and you
haven't replied. How odd that you'd claim SHE runs from you.

I think you are just a bit misogynistic, don't you? Okay for you not
to reply, but if she doesn't, she's "running."

Your nothing special in the coward class...just a common one.

and can't even tell me what the sample size is.
What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)

You, as usual, confuse "can't" with "won't" because I will not debate
the study with you until YOU prove you have it, you have followed
through on your childish "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" challenge, and you
answer The Question honestly and fully as it was asked, not as you
tried to rephrase and reshape it.

So you are the dodger, stupid dog! ;-)

How have I dodged? Are you unable to, or unwilling to clear up the
three issues? I'm eager and willing to debate on Embry with you should
you come to the table honestly not holding on to the old dodges you've
pretty well worn out in the past couple of months...well, not much
different than those you used on Chris and LaVonne and others over the
years.

So, you ARE prepared to follow through now on your challenges? You are
going to prove you have the Embry study? You are going to answer The
Question with precision and accuracy in measurement, and you are going
to prove I said something one way or the other that shows I was never
spanked?

Okay, go ahead.

And if not, why not?

No loose ends, Doan. If Chris made a mistake with you it was allowing
you full rein in your sick distractions and dodges. I won't.

IOW, Chris is smart and you are stupid!

I have no opinion on Chris I'll share with you. I'm not him, and it is
I you are dodging at this time.

Your attempts to draw him and LaVonne as well into this exchange is
one of your more obvious ploys to avoid honest debate...and any long
time posters here are well aware of your silly tactics.

You are being laughed at constantly.

Now YOU, on the other hand, have set no restrictions on me for debate,
other than your continual dancing about. So when I ask YOU to produce
something from the study, some so simple as to be rediculously easy,
YOU CAN'T PRODUCE.

You are in no position to ask anything of me.

Oh, I see. You can challenge me, but if I respond and challenge back I
am suddenly persona nongrata. Interesting ploy.

I asked you for nothing more than the page number of points YOU
challenged me on. I've told you proof of your possession of the study
is required before I'll open debate with you. A perfectly logical and
reasonable request given the common knowledge of debate and argument.
Wouldn't it be foolish of me to begin debate when you could claim any
response was based on "Facts" I have no way of knowing you have?

No, Doan, the criteria please, then we'll debate. Adn it doesn't
matter a whit whether or nor you think I am "in not position to ask
anything of you."

That's just more silly schoolboy bluster in the same vein as "I DARE
YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU."

People are laughing at you.

YOU ARE JUST A SICK LITTLE
DOG!

And you are yelling. Isn't that odd?

You don't have the Embry study.

I have it and have had for years.

I don't debate with people that challenge me then will not prove they
have what they claim they have. It was YOUR introduction of the Ebry
study issue, so it is YOUR responsibility to provide proof of your
readiness to debate...by producing the study or sufficient proof you
have it.

I do

I believe you are lying.

and I am willing to share it
with anyone who asked.

Has no one asked?

ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS TO EMAIL ME! ;-)

I'm interested. How would you deliver it to me?

Would you please send it electronically?

I want it, your copy.

You offered to "share it with anyone who asked."

Okay, I am asking for it now, and just to show you what a sport I am
I'll set up an intermediary that will hold it without showing it to me
but will answer the two questions I've ask of you about it. What is on
a certain page, and what page do the subject demographics start on.

After all, you said "with anyone who asked" didn't you?

You won't publically prove yourself a liar and dishonest by refusing
me would you now?

Yah know, I find it odd, sinceyou've been saying that for a couple of
weeks as I recall that no one has announced they have the study from
you. How come you have no takers? And why are you yelling your
invitation so frantically?

And when you have delivered it to the intermediary I'll answer the
question you asked.

Then we will deal with the other two issues, or you can back out now
and save face, well, a little.

You remember: the page content of the numbered page I queried you on?
The subject of the page is sufficient to satisfy ONE of the three
criteria for debate.

And you still have not answered me on the question of the sample size?

The burden of proof is on the initiator of the claims. You Challenged
me to prove I had the study. YOU made the first challenge. My request
for you to prove YOU had the study logically and ethically followed
your insistance that I didn't have the study.

You know how it works, Doananator. It's entirely up to you.

And try to learn...don't make challenges your are prepared to follow
through on when you are counter challenged.

I didn't even discuss having the study at first, being sensative to
copyright issues, but cited the Embry magazine quote.

It was YOU that insisted on the study itself.

SO, produce it. Easy enough, eh?

What's holding you up?

What's holding you up? :-)

The fact you have the burden of proof for opening this issue. Please
show me in the challenge of The Question where I brought up Embry.

It's been a very long time since I've brought up Embry on my own and I
do not believe I ever have with you, but I could be mistaken. In any
case the current subject of The Question is the real issue, and YOU
brought up Embry as a diversion.

Follow through on your challenges or be known even more clearly as a
coward.

I didn't challenge YOU to prove I said I was spanked or not. I simply
invited you to prove your challenge of me. Your language was so obtuse
as to be nearly indeciferable. If you have something to say, simply
say it.

Double daring me on something I made no claim about, just asking you
to prove your claim, is total foolishness on your part, and yet
another of your public exhibitions of Doananism.

Same for the Embry study. YOU brought it up, YOU follow through.

I'm sitting her snug with my old copy of the study...and I sure had to
dig. Two five drawer file cabinets of studies and articles on spanking
and other parenting issues.

I should send you a research bill.....R R R R R

You little rascal you.

And why hasn't anyone asked you to mail them the study and have it and
can produce the answer for you? You do have friends here don't you?
Aren't there those that would happily refute me if they could? If not,
why not, Doananator?

Why don't you ask LaVonne? She is on your side! ;-)

She may be. I suspect she is, but I don't know if for a fact. How is
that an answer to my question, "who hasn't anyone asked you to mail
them the study?"

Are you doing one of our oblique references again...the avoidance
behavior typical of the neurotic self defense tactics of the spanked?

Did LaVonne ask for it and did you send it to her in an email
attachment?

I'll be happy to ask her the two questions that prove the existance of
the study in your possession.....if you really have it.

I think you are bluffing. If you have it you can send it to anyone,
even if they don't ask for it. Imagine how embarrassed I'd be if in
the next couple of hours I got an e-mail from someone you consider an
opponent of you and a friend of mine, or at least agreeing with me
subtancially telling me they had the study from you.

Imagine how you could crow...and they'd be sure to tell me. I know.
And I'd welcome it because the field would be clearing up nicely for a
lively and informative debate.

I do so love and HONEST debate. Still not going to offer one, are you?

So, will you e-mail me the debate, as you promised you would to
"anyone" that aske for it?

Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you
now?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

The subject of the page, Doananator Dancing?

The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! :-)

You are stalling, just as you have on the other two issues.

You are stupid, as always! ;-)

Do you consider it stupid to ask an opponent who challenges you to
produce evidence supporting their claim?

You challenged me on the Embry study and it's posession. I asked you
to produce evidence you have it as claimed. When you do I'll be happy
to respond to your question regarding MY proof of possession. But not
before.

You opened, you prove.

That is the rule of debate.

Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a
copy.
Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one.

Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked.

Gee, why hasn't anyone asked? Because they know you don't really have
it. Or are they afraid that if they got it what they might find about
the Embry Study that would blow their little dreams of child
controlling out of the water?

So why are you keeping it a secret?

No secret. Anyone that is dilegent and works at it can get the study.
Hey, they can even get it from you, can't they? So it's certaily not a
secret I'm keeping, though it sure appears you are, eh?

Are you so stupid? Here is
your change to "blow their little dreams of child controlling out
of the water". Why don't you do it, stupid dog? ;-)

Because I don't debate those that have not demonstrated they have the
information I have. It would be unethical of me to do so. I would have
all the cards, and they none. So far, you haven't given even the
tiniest proof you have the study.

All studies have subject demographics, Doananator, so that's a no
study in hand question. Why not pick a question that could not be
answered without actual possesion of the study BY YOU?

LIke how many of what particular characteristic, and there are some
very particular demographic characteristic in Embry's study, is part
of the subject members?

In fact I'll ask you yet another question. What is the most extreme
characteristic of the subject population? Something one wouldn't
normally expect in such a study?

Watch the dodge folks. Watch the dodge. It will be either a question
or a sudden ad hom and claim he doesn't have any obligation to answer
because I curse or am a "dog" anything but an honest answer.

Not only are YOU a coward, Doananator, but so are they.

And you are stupid! ;-)

You've never successfully demonstrated that I am. In fact you keep
right on giving me oppportunities to demonstrate otherwise.

None of your tricks, are working on me, not even the one of dragging
out a debate until the opponent is exhausted and digusted and gives up
(as you will learn in time).

Burying the issue in layer after layer of obscure claims and
counterclaims and counterlclaims on top of those isn't working.

People can read. They can google you and see quickly what your tactics
consist of. I assume there are a few who will admire you....a Plant, a
Whore, both practiced in duplicity and lying, but no honest people
will miss how you lie and how cowardly you are.

Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the
number of?

Why haven't you answered me on the sample size?

Because YOU created this challenge, Doananator. It's up to YOU to
provide proof, not I. Who brought up The Embry Study in the course of
our exchange on The Question?

YOU!

Please point to that. And remember it's about The Study, not the
quote. I never discussed anything beyond the magazine article. And I
never have in all the times I've quoted Embry. He talks of his study,
I do not, until now.

If you are correct that I cited or invoked The Study first, I will
answer your question on the demographic size.

Was it moi? I don't think so, but you are free to prove it was and
then I'll give you the sample size, and even the categories and
characteristics of the sample individuals.

Dodging again. Why keept it a secret?

Because I will not be drawn into a debate with a known liar. You
produce proof you have the study and we'll go from there....and you
have two more criteria to meet.

R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R

Stupid little Kane9! :-)

How stupid am I considering that you are nervously dodging and dancing
as fast as your little bow legs will carry you? R R R R R

What is the sample size?

No different than when you asked before. What is on the page I asked
for and what page does the demographic information begin on?

Or just send the study email to anyone you think is on my side of this
debate. They know by now not to send it on to me. But only to answer
my two questions to prove you had it.

You don't have it. That is becoming very plain. You are dragging this
out for two reasons. You are hoping to find it. And you are hoping to
wear me down.

Do I look like I'm easily worn down? R R R R

YOU made all the challenges, Doan, after The Question, you couldn't
and won't answer. Yet there you are, unwilling to answer a single
challenge. All I've said to you is, "go ahead and prove your
challenges."

I have answered, you just stubbornly stupid to acknowledge it. :-)

The answer to The Question, the one you produced, did not respond to
the question as I asked it. I want a measure that can be used by
parents, not one that requires varying opinions. And that is all that
"reasonable" does....invokes opinions that can and do vary widely.

You know the real answer to the question, but honesty being your
sticking point, you won't answer the facts.

All you have to do is answer factually...even it if turns out to be
unusable for spanking parents to use as a measure, and you've gotten
one more hurdle out of the way of the Embry study debate. And I'll
tell you what I'll do. I'll issue a formal invitation to LaVonne and
to Chris to join us in the debate so you can humiliate us....R R R R R

All YOU'VE done is Doananate by asking yet ANOTHER question. I'm still
on my first question and waiting. You are piling yours up like the
straw and fish they are.

And you still haven't answered mine!

Stop being silly. You spend your entire argument on these ngs with
this tactic. It's always YOU that gets to ask the question while you
refuse to answer questions yourself.

No more Doananator. Either get with answering my questions or go play
with your kiddy friends in your usual circle jerk. The Plant and The
Whore await you.

Or I await you here with honest questions and honest debate.

Take your pick, coward.
Such a child.

Stupid dog! ;-)

Gettin' desperate, aren't you? Can't even dream up a decent ad hom
flamer.

When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have
lied
all this time about having it.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

What "lied" was that, Doananator? This ploy isn't going to work any
better than the rest you've tried.

That there is no punishment component in the Embry study.

I told you I simply differ in my interpretation of what was in the
study, and if you had it you'd know I have it because of what I
revealed about the study in my statement. Embry called a "punishment,"
and I looked at the description and it was NOT phrased as punishment
at all. And in fact Embry lacked proof that the one family that
claimed to have used it actually did so at all.........

I proved
that you are wrong by quoting directly from the study.

Please requote the line. I'll do a little search and see if has been
revealed in any comments of Embry's in interviews and other articles.
I suspect if you quoted anything it was just a requote of his from
somewhere except the study.

Are you
denying it now?

Yes. You need to provide explict proof based on what I choose, not on
what you may be dredging up from another source. In fact all this time
you have been stalling on answering very simple questions suggests you
have been combing with search engines looking for things you could
pretend were from the study...

Like asking me "the size of the demographic" as though you had some
inside knowledge. That's a giveaway question as ALL studies have
subject demographics.

The question certainly doesn't prove you have the study. Ask a
question based on something you actually have extracted from the study
that COULD NOT exist anywhere else and I'm much more likely to believe
your claim to having it.

Although by the time you do ask something that specific it will be
quite obvious you stalled until you finally found it. The department
of social science must be working overtime trying to find it for you.

You are all bluff.

You challenged me on the Embry Study. I said I'd fill your dance card
when you proved you had it, when you cleared up the challenges you
posed with your "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and you still haven't presented
your dance card to me properly. How impolite and rude you seem.

HA! HA! HA! You are calling me "impolite and rude"? You are really
stupid after the obscenities that came out of your mouth! :-)

And you really can't keep using that to dodge this:

You challenged me on the Embry Study. I said I'd fill your dance card
when you proved you had it, when you cleared up the challenges you
posed with your "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and you still haven't presented
your dance card to me properly. How impolite and rude you seem.

I don't mind if you babble on about impolite and rude as long as you
get that you just used it to avoid answering the question. And you
most obviously did.

But if not that you'd have used something else. You always find some
way to bail out on what you can't answer.

You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all
these
years of practice to. {-

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

Why did you beat your wife?

Dodging again. Why are you so stupid? ;-)

I did not "lied," I disagreed. Had I lied, what difference would that
make to the issue of how has or doesn't have the study?

Even if I didn't have the study, it's patently obvious YOU don't. And
until you prove you do, well that makes you a liar then, doesn't it?

And whether or not I'm one is of NO consequence on that point. YOU are
a liar.

It remains to be seen if I am or not. But you have lied repeatedly by
making such claims as "you lied."

Stop being silly, boy.

Stop being stupid, little dog! :-)

Prove you have the study, coward. And answer the questions as asked.

I didn't "lied" about punishment. I have followed Embry's work for
years and am especially impressed by his New Zealand work. He is not
an advocate of punishment. The fact he used the word in his study to
describe something that I do NOT consider PUNISHEMENT, doesn't make me
a liar.

Then you are stupid then?

I am stupid because I disagree with Embry on the teaching technique he
used being "punishment?" I may be wrong but I am not stupid to
challenge an issue. You are either stupid yourself or a cowardly liar
to claim so.

You've about beat that one to death. How many more Herrings are you
going to throw out there? Enough to think that I'll give in to utter
disgust with your duplicitiousness and lies as Chris did and give up?

Still fond of your master, Kane9? ;-)

My opinion of Chris isn't of any consequence to our exchange. Why
would you bring it up except to divert?

Forget it. I'll be here hectoring you until every twit filter in the
world has been activated on our postings addy's.

Good luck! :-)

I'm having a lot of it so far. If you continue to provide so much
opportunity I trust it will continue.

And still, you won't answer The Question, and the "I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
challenge, nor prove that you have the Embry study.

Weasel words again! :-0

My asking you to fulfill your own challenges is weaseling?

Your sanity is breaking down even worse than usual.

So tell me, have you answered The Question as asked? Have you followed
through on your obvious threat of "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU"? Have
you proven you have the Embry study?

Nothing. You have done a thing but weasel.

You'll be throwing out the herring and I'll be happily watching you
prove what you are by your doing so.

I'll be happy to show your stupidity to the world! ;-)

Please feel free to begin anytime you are ready..........tap tap tap.

I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some
critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely
tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my
students
to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not
to
embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright
I'll change the objects but retain the context.

Why did you lied about the punishment component?

Why do you lie about my comments on the punishment component? Are you
assuming I don't have the study? All you have to do is come up with
the answer to what is on that page I queried you about and you got me.
Right? Especially if you answer the other two issues and I have to
then debate the study with you, or run like a coward with my tail
between my legs? No?

Yup! Your tail is between your legs, Kane9! ;-)

Which failes to respond to:

"All you have to do is come up with the answer to what is on that page
I queried you about and you got me."

So, what's on the page and on what page do the subject demographics
begin?

Obiously you were not being honest when you said above:
I'll be happy to show your stupidity to the world! ;-)

Apparently you pass up chances willynilly. Not doing much of a job of
it.

You'd pass up such an opportunity just to dance away from such simple
to answer issues? Tsk.

LOL!

"LOL" can and does in this instance translate as "I'm a coward and
just pulled another schoolboy dodge on you."

I think you are a coward. I KNOW why your are, and I know how badly
you want to stay away from the Embry study EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE IT.

Why don't you post the detail so I can't "stay away"? Are you really
as Chris implied - STUPID??? ;-)

Now it's not "called you" but instead "Implied." You are nothing if
not a lying little twit constantly having to figure out how to cover
up one lie with another.

I made it plain I'm not posting any "detail" until you prove you have
the study. No question you've asked proves you have the study. And
picking out an oddity (and the study has a glaring one) and asking me
to position it on what page, or provide the information surrounding it
would nail me good if I didn't have the study, but oddly, you don't
come up with those kinds of questions.

Punishment question. Something that would HAVE to be in any study on
teaching toddlers not to do an unwantd behavior. And very likely from
another quote of his not in the study.

No, there are plenty of opportunities from the actual study to ask
questions I could not answer without the study handy. You just don't
have the study. R R R

What a mental runt you are. Clever in the dodge, stupid as your Stump
and Whore friends on actual debate.

If you've seen it you know you are not going to be able to fudge it or
misinterpret it so easily as you did other studies you've lied about.

All you have to do is post the details and everybody will see it for
what it is? Why keep it a secret if you have it, stupid?

No, actually I don't have to post the details. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE I
HAVE THE STUDY. The question here is if you do or not.

YOU didn't refuse to debate me wihtout my having the study, so you
have no challenge to offer that has any meaning related to advancing
the debate. I DO.

I will not debate you until I'm satisfied you actually have the study
and nothing you've offerred so far would support that you do.

You want desperately to debate on partial information and pick up
clues that make it appear you have the study, because you have been
caught and soundly, in yet another lie and dodge session.

I don't need to prove I have the study, because if you don't want to
debate it and meet some simple criteria to do so, you have proven
clearly is that you wanted to use it to draw attention away from your
inability to come up with a definative measure of when CP becomes
abuse.

And that really IS all that this is about. You got your ass handed to
you in a gunny sack on that one and your are dancing as fast as you
can to kick up some obscuring dust.

And really, unless you answer The Question honestly as asked, then
this "debate" isn't going ot happen anyway, so you can avoid all the
chances of you being recognized for the immoral unethical little lying
twit you have been for years.

And you won't have to ever think about what role your spanking parents
had in your unethical behavior here...and I presume in other areas of
life.

I suspect you'll never resolve this. You'll never take on proving you
have the study. You'll never clear up your silly ad hom on spanked
unspanked. You'll never answer The Question.

Each of them has the potential to bring your carefully built barrier
that you thought was impregnable down down doan.

You know the chinks in it now. And it's got you locked in to the
circular spinning to the point of blinding you so you don't have to
look at the frightening facts.

I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up
the offer.

What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-)

Stop the dancing, Doananator. I know it to the letter.

Stop the Kane9 Kan't Kan't dance. Everybody is laughing at you! :-)

I hope so. I want folks to not get too terrible bored. That is one
thing about the less artfull liars such as yourself. When you are
finally caught soundly you fall into a deedly droning repetitious
spinning. It's horribly boreing.

I've exercised you repeately through your repertoire of dodges so I
know folks have to be getting bored. I wish I could dream up something
that would inspire you to greater heights of dissemmebeling
creativity. Something new, for goodness sake, Doananator, something
new please.

I told you no debate until YOU answer my reponses to your challenges.

So you are dodging, Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

I will not debate with someone that I do not know has the information
to debate with, nor with someone that dishonestly makes claims they
will not follow through on. Nor with someone that used two other
issues to dodge answering a still unanswered question.

You may think forcing people to debate you by stumbling from one of
your diversions to another is funny and clever, but I'm not having any
of it. You'll debate me cleanly or not at all.

And I don't debate when there is unfinished business with the
opponent.

Simply dancing away with yet another questions isn't going to work
with me, and not with any reader that get's what you are up to.

So expose me by posting the details of the Embry Study! I DARE YOU.
I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

R R R ... that same old schoolboy stuff. Tsk.

No creativity at all.

I asked you first, silly boy.

You said you had the study, I said show me. So? Show me.

And please send along that copy your promised to anyone that asked.


Kane

9 Kan't! :-)

Doan

Doananator publically exposes himself again.

Kane9 Kan't showing his stupidity again! :-)

I don't respond to childish dares, Doanieboy.

You can't, stupid dog! :-)

It's not the point. It's you that claimed you obtained the study.

You never said I had to have the study to open debate so proving
possession is your problem.

And you have announced a solution that you haven't activated. Surely
you have someone that you can send an email copy of the study to that
will answer the two questions I've asked?

Or you can surely ask questions of me that cannot be framed from
anywhere BUT the study itself. There is information in there that I
KNOW has not ever been published anywhere else. You'd be amazed if I
told you how I can be so sure...R R R R R....

If you had it you could pick out a number of things, and I've offerred
to respond to the most bizzare piece about the demographics and am
waiting your response in the very next reply to this post.

Answer civil questions about YOUR challenges to me first, then I'll
answer your pile of questions very quickly. About fast enough to take
your head right off your shoulders.

Keep on dodging, Kane9 Kan't! :-)

There's no dodge there except yours. I asked ou to answer civil
questions. You have failed to or refused to. That is a dodge not
asking easily answered questions uncomplicated questions.

Are you feeling very threatened by my simple questions? I mean The
Question was about as simple and uncomplicated at one can get.

Just give us a standard measure on the level of a traffic sign as an
answer to how to judge where the "CP" terminates, and the "abuse"
initiates. Nothing fancy. You don't have to get out the charts,
research variables, nothing at all but be clear and accurate.

I mean parents how spank do it all the time, right? Why can't you?

Tell yah what. I'll make a single concession in the ongoing hope of
honesty from you:

You tell ME what page the demographics of the sample group begin on
and I'll tell you the sample size and characteristics, in detail.

I asked about the sample size first. Don't play games with me, little
dog!

Well, since I'm you're not the one refusing to debate unless there is
proof of possession I guess the order of request doesn't really
matter. I'm not going to answer your questions about the Study unless
you can come up with one that includes a core that comes from the
study and can only come from the study. They exist in plentiful
supply.

Questioning ME doesn't prove YOU have the study. And that IS the
question.

Or have you suddenly decided you won't debate ME unless I prove I have
the study?

That would be okay, because I didn't open this issue. YOU demanded the
Embry Study rather than the interview I always quote.

YOU have the problem, ducky, not I.

In the end I don't care much one way or the other about debating the
study. It's pretty academic considering the issue was The Question and
will remain so until you answer it accurately.

And I'm not debating until you do and you clear up the silly spanked
unspanked nonsense you can't let go of for fear you will lose one of
diverting tools.

Hell, get it within one page either way and I'll play. You could guess
right, who knows. Let your buddies who were too cowardly to ask you
for the study, or that know you don't have it, to help you guess. If
ANY of them get it right on the money, I'll answer your "size"
question and with the demographic characteristics, all of them
including the parents. Deal?

Why don't you post it for everyone to see. You post it to prove that
you have study. I will post the sample-size to prove that I have it.
Deal?

Sure. You first. I don't have any NEED to post it. It's you that is
hungry to debate to take the heat off yourself over your abject
failure with The Question.

The Embry study is an aside. I may debate it at some time with someone
else, but not unless they demonstrate they have it. I might even send
it to them, but I'm not sending it to you, as you are a liar and
cheat. I don't do favors for liars and cheats.

Get your own study, and when you have it finally, prove you do, and we
can spend a bit of time NOT talking about The Question.......R R R R
..... maybe!

Bet you weasel.

And I bet you will run like a dog. :-)

I'm not going anywhere. The issue isn't if I have the study, but if
YOU do. If you don't want to debate me claiming I don't have the
study, that's perfectly fine with me. ....as I much MUCH MUCH prefer
to get back to the subject issue....The Question.

YOu know, the one you still haven't answered and are dancing around
with this diversionary subject or two and any others you can think up,
stalling, backing and filling, weaseling, crabwalking, generally
making a total fool of ourself with.

I'd love to debate the Embry study and educate folks to the simple but
very telling descoveries Dr Embry made. I can do it at any time
though. I'm not on YOUR schedule, of you haven't noticed.

Did I remember to ask you again for an answer to The Question? R R RR

I think I did, but your running about in your little frantic circles
can be exhausting to a poor feeble old man like me....snicker


Or are we going to be treated to yet another Doananism Dance?

Are you going to do the Kane9 Kan't Dance? :-)

Nope. I'm just going to remind you again that this is YOUR side
tracking tactic not mine. I'm still very much on The Question. It
deserves more study and thought I believe.

If YOU want to try and shuffling me off with The Embry study or any
other issue it's going to be YOUR problem to follow through.

How yah like being lead around by the nose, little feller?

Thought you knew me, didn't yah, Tiny?

...........Doan is a coward and it's pretty plain he is stalling for
the arrival of his copy of the study. Or still searching.

I have already posted the "punishment" component of the Embry study
to prove that you lied.

Proved, my ass. I disagree with the interpretation of the use of a
tactic Embry described in his study and made a later referance to as
punishment. I think he misused the term in relation to the described
tactic...but then I can disagree with someone and still highly value
their opinions and their discovery and work.

You are desperate to make a mountain out of a rather minor issue. I
wonder if Embry still feels that his technique, that pareticular one,
still is deserviing of the title "punishment." I don't think, from
his later work.....which I also have copies of....that he would. But I
could be wrong. I try not to interpret others work without taking
responsibility for my *opinion* vs what the author might well have
meant.

That was all I meant when I said the Embry study wasn't a punishment
model application. It was, in fact an exploration of much more,
especially for the time, and Embry stated in his interview that he was
surprised to discover the power of teaching and focusing on wanted
behavior vs focusing on trying to stop unwanted behavior. The study
supports his statement very well.

Now we've played at YOUR game just long enough for you to get off, so
let's get back to the real subject. Well, I'll answer one more of your
silly stupid diversionary questions then that's it for this post.

How is that possible if I don't have the
study?

Well, how about from his class syllabus for aviation safety training
classes?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...5KF.doc&e=7872

How about from his other works that would be BOUND to mention
punishment since teaching theory IS his area of study and expertise
and punishment is nearly always considered in such social research?

Say, would you mind pointing me to that "quote" you claim to have made
from the study. I'd like to see the exact words so I can check it
against my copy and prove that you have told the truth.

Or will you dance away yet again?

Are you so stupid?

Gee, now what do you think, given my answer to your silly claims as I
did above with citation and all.

Claiming an Embry study has a mention of the use of punishment in it
is like placing a bet on the sun coming up tomarrow. You have terribly
strong odds in your favor, something I notice you constantly strive
for in what passed as debate with you.

You don't have the study, coward.

I have already posted the "punishment" component of the Embry study
to prove that you lied.

No, you attempted to prove I lied when the most you could say was that
I was mistaken. I would not deliberately mislead anyone on the
question around spanking, so if there is an error on my part, then it
is simply that...and errors are not lies unless they are made
deliberately rather than a matter of misunderstanding, lack of
information, or misinformation.

None of those would be a "lied" Doananator boy.

How is that possible if I don't have the
study? Are you so stupid?

You are repeating yourself. I've explained how very easy it is to
assume that a study on training children would very likely have the
word and consideration of "punishment" in it. It would be remarkable
if it didn't.

You could have made a very easily made bet on it being there.

And if you do get it you still have two other issues to clear up
before I'll fully engage in debate on the study.

Dodging again. :-)

No, you DO have those issues to clear even if we don't debate. As long
as you leave them on the table unanswered you have told any ready
something vital to know about the pro spank camp. Goes to dishonestly
and manipulation of facts.

Run coward, run.


Dance, stupid dog, dance.

I have no where to dance to and no reason to dance. I'm just sitting
her waiting for you to **** or get off the pot.

YOU want to debate Embry far more than I. You have self serving
motives. Mine are to educate the reader...you, I've given up on...and
I can wait for that until someone that is interested in honest debate,
with no loose ends lying about for escape hatches.

You are just dancin' away from The Question by keeping this silliness
goin on and on.

As I said, when YOU are ready to debate or to answer The Question, or
prove something (who knows what) about my status as spanked or
unspanked, I'll proceed with you forthwith.

But the ball has been in your court all this time, and you've failed
to return the serve.

You don't want to debate Embry. And you certainly don't want to face
the embarrassment of your failure to answer The Question.


So you will dance.


Kane9
Kan't

Don't care about anything but The Question.

And I'll debate anyone on Embry that will do so honestly. You haven't
qualified as yet. Your loss, not mine.

Your only gain is the very public exhibition you are performing in
your frantic attempt to distrance yourself in time and "dust kicking
up" from The Question.

Doan

.....anator Supreme.

Anytime you are ready let me know. I've given you so many options it
is pretty obvious what is up when you don't take them.

Asking me questions is NOT answering my questions.

When you answer mine, I'll start to get back into the mood of
answering yours, as I used to much more freely, YOURS.

Play nice, boy.

Kane

(Kane) wrote in message . com...
[snip]
Probably. My obscenities are nothing compared to the bloodbath those
like It have produced, and the pain and humiliation of children you
defend and promote.

YOU are obscene. That is obscene. "****" and "****" are just harsh
expletives.

****s are nice things, if well cared for, and to **** is joyful and
happy.

The fact that most of the population can't even read those words, or
see bare tit with an ornament in it without losing their cool and
hurling abusive claims over them, shows the results of practices such
as spanking.....the tool for creating shame based society.

You're sick, Doan, very.

LOL! And you are a "never-spanked" boy!

You called
other women "smelly-****". Do you think your mom proud of that?

If my mother saw what The Smelly **** has written her in defense of
beating and killing children under the LIBERTY INTEREST of parents
over their children SHE WOULD CALL THE **** A ****.

There you have it! Is this typical of a "non-spanking" way to raise your
kids? :-)

Doan

If spanking is as Kane says
the tool for creating shame based society.
this is very interesting considering how
much of Kane's posting has been sad efforts
to promote shame in people.

If "shaming" is so bad, then why does
Kane use derisive profanity in sad efforts
to do that very same thing?

a123sdg321

On 6 Feb 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:

If spanking is as Kane says
the tool for creating shame based society.
this is very interesting considering how
much of Kane's posting has been sad efforts
to promote shame in people.

If "shaming" is so bad, then why does
Kane use derisive profanity in sad efforts
to do that very same thing?

Because he is a "never-spanked" boy and learned it from his mom.
"If my mother saw what The Smelly **** has written her in defense of
beating and killing children under the LIBERTY INTEREST of parents
over their children SHE WOULD CALL THE **** A ****."

Now, that is the proper way of raising your kids the non-spanking
way! :-)

Doan

On 6 Feb 2004 16:10:38 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

If spanking is as Kane says
the tool for creating shame based society.

I do hope you cited me accurately. You compulsives who spank are
notorious for misquoting.

I will, at the end of this post, explain to use why I shame you.

this is very interesting considering how
much of Kane's posting has been sad efforts
to promote shame in people.

And with you I am entirely unable to. Have you noticed? Nothing shames
you. You grandstand your most abusive and ugly behaviors and even brag
of some of the worste of it.

When the facts are in front of you you turn you back on them so that
you can be the whining victim you make of yourself.

If "shaming" is so bad,

I didn't say it was "bad." More creative writing, Whore? I feel like
this issue could end up in a Motion to some higher authority. Why
don't you write one up and entertain us some more?

I simply stated that shaming does something to a people when it is
appllied in childhood by pain and humiliation.

There IS a valid use for shaming. And that is when and adult, who
should be held fully responsible for his or her own behavior, refuses
to see the injury they do others, and correct it.

then why does
Kane use derisive profanity in sad efforts
to do that very same thing?

Ah, and now we get to it. I was hoping you would do what you and
others like you here would do this.

I use shaming with you because you were shamed as children, and your
behavior and attitude now show plaining that you integrated pain and
humiliation created "shame" into your belief system as a valid and
useful tool to use on children to teach them.

Since you believe in it, and you are still behaving like children
(your development was arrested by the shock of CP used on you) then
you have to be spoken to as you believe if you are to be reached at
all.

What you haven't seen yet, and are unable to see in threads where I've
posted to someone rudely AND THEY GOT THE MESSAGE is that I change my
style of communication to a more adult one the instant they show the
maturity to move to the next level.

In fact if you have any capacity for critical reasoning applied to the
printed word you would see that I don't even care of they agree with
me or not.....AS LONG AS THEY ARE OPERATING AT THE NEXT ADULT LEVEL.

So far, with you and your childish destructive friend here, the
Donanator, and your Leaky buddy, as well as the Plant, I haven't seen
but a small breakthrough from time to time (and I won't tell you which
person) but you could find out if you read carefully and notice my
sudden change in attitude toward them.......until they slid back into
childishness and irresponsibility again.

I'm patient. I used to be given the most recalcitrant mentally ill
folks in lockup and treatment settings because of that very thing. Not
only was I good but I just never gave up.

One patient took me over a year to get him to sign a simple release
form so we could get him services to keep him alive on the street and
out of the hands of people that would exploit him.

Seems like a failure...a whole damn year to get a signature?

Well, noone had gotten one, and they tried, for the five years
previous. I was treated to a Champaign brunch, along with the patient
the next weekend.

You guys as pantywaists compared to me in the area of patience. Your
sickness is like nothing to me and my patience. I've done the same
with animals that others couldn't reach....tamed horses from rodeo
bucking strings and turned them into ponies for kids to take to
horseshows and win. Patience...I have more of it than anyone I've ever
met. Guess it came from being the primary parent to two children who I
wouldn't punish. Made me grow up and be an adult.

You have no idea what you ran into when you first confronted me.

Enjoy.

And Greg,
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID AND ARE STILL DOING TO THAT
CHILD AND MOTHER. {:-

Kane

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:04:03 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 6 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:30:20 -0800, Doan wrote:



a123sdg321

On 6 Feb 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:

If spanking is as Kane says
the tool for creating shame based society.
this is very interesting considering how
much of Kane's posting has been sad efforts
to promote shame in people.

If "shaming" is so bad, then why does
Kane use derisive profanity in sad efforts
to do that very same thing?

Because he is a "never-spanked" boy and learned it from his mom.
"If my mother saw what The Smelly **** has written her in defense
of
beating and killing children under the LIBERTY INTEREST of parents
over their children SHE WOULD CALL THE **** A ****."

That is absolutely correct. And I am proud of her, as she is of me,
for being direct, honest, and against assaultive abuse of children
and
excusing their murder.

LOL! What a mom! ;-)

I'm sure both she and I appreciate your approval of our attitude
toward those that would assault and abuse children.

And yes, I am exceedingly proud of her, as I am of myself for my stand
on spanking and all forms of CP, as well as punishment in general when
it comes to rearing children.


Now, that is the proper way of raising your kids the non-spanking
way! :-)

Why is it you are unable to ask if I was spanked or not, but appear
so
anxious to know?

Because I am just having fun with you. Keep posting. :-)

Because you are doing anything possible to avoid The Question and an
admission that you failed and cannot answer it as it was asked, just A
Simple Easy to Answer Question, as you claim spanking parents can
already answer and safely act on.

While of course, ignoring the record that shows spanking to escalate
all too often to both long term or permanent psychological and
physical injury.

Fact is Doananator the reason I use "shaming" is because that is
the
mode of learning you are most familiar with, as a spanked child.

LOL! So shaming worked with spanked children???

No it didn't. But it did train them to respond in certain ways, and
I've studied those ways and they are part and parcel of my exchanges
with you and other CSD parents.

Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS.... Did you use that with your child? :-)

Why would I use shame? No, I did use logic. The logic that refuses to
call hitting spanking or attempt to classify spanking as harmless.

You have integrated it well from childhood, hence you are have an
underdeveloped conscience and are unable to respond, as Chris and
long
string of other folks have clearly shown by their more polite use
of
language with you, to reason, ethics and moral influences, and most
especially are blind to harder evidence offered.

LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)

Truths, truths and more truths.

You seem to be having a problem with my statement. Why is that? {:-

So there is little left to reach you but shame...and because of
your
past you even have a built in defense against it..........lying to
yourself.

LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)

This is one of the typical responses of the shamed, especially the
punished shamed child. Adamant and vociferous denial.

As I said, Droananator, "because of your past."

Nevertheless, shaming is all that you know. You promote it with
great
enthusiasm so I presume you believe in it, thus YOU would respond
to
what you believe in for influencing and controlling people:
shaming
and punishment.

LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)

Ooooo...NOW I'll believe you. You have denied three times
consecutively without any other comment or contribution...so it must
be true.

In the plagerized phony FAQ you post from time to time strip the
emphasis of Chris on the positive desired outcomes, and replace them
with emphasis on the negative, the unwanted instead of the wanted
behaviors.

That is a very common characteristic of shame people, shamed by
parenting methods that humilated and shocked their young innocent
bodies and minds.

It helps, as any student of abnormal psychology and the captive can
tell you, if you can identify with your captor. We learn that after
WWII and the concentration camps emptied.

Or do you have a slightly different standard for others and for
children that for yourself?

Do u? ;-)

Yes, very. You are an adult....R R R R...and children are children and
unable to protect themselves. Are you having trouble protecting
yourself from my statements and claims?

You see, I am simply following your lead when I point out how
morally
deficient you are, as well as deficient in other ways.

Yup! You looked in the mirror!

No, that is childish self-protective evasion, much like your "LIES
LIES LIES AND MORE LIES!" Silliness and some of the other indulgences
you give yourself here because you can get away with it.

And it is also an object lesson on the same order as you wish to
have
applied to chidlren. Sort of like biting a child who bites another
to
teach him not to bite.

I mean that IS the logic you follow, is it not?

It is the logic you are practicing. :-)

No, actually I am not. The child is helpless, and presumably you are
not. If you are in any way incapacitated or have a disability that
would put you in a vulnerable position vis a vis my exhanges with you
just inform me and I'll immediately stop this approach and adopt
another. I have a million of them, as patients I worked with learned.

Let me explain to you what I use and how I use it and then maybe you
start to understand how utterly helpless you are to continue for the
rest of your life in denial.

What I use are various door closing methods....I won't tell you what
or how, and you've only experienced a couple from my large and
creative repertoire.

The doors I close are the doors of lies, deceit, evasion, until there
is only one door left, one that has been there all the time of course,
or I couldn't leave it for you to open yourself.

That last door is the truth.

I worked with people very much like you. Some you would have sworn
should not be locked upm, until you looked at their records and what
they had been convicted of doing to others and themselves and against
society.

Hundreds of them over a very long span.

Here's why I know I'll win. Either you are a more determinedly lost
criminal than them, and I really doubt that unless you are posting
from a locked criminal psychiatric unit (and I've considered that) or
you are honest and recoverable.

I haven't even broken a sweat yet, Droaner.

How do you like it when shaming and punishment are done to YOU?

I just throw it back the perp.! How do you like it? ;-)

Since I'm not dishonest I have nothing at all to be ashamed of. I am
ashamed only when I find that I have been dishonest in some way. So
far, I have not.

Despite your attempt to claim that disagreement with you constitutes
lying, as in "Lied." I am quite aware as you have had to figure out
by now, that Dr. Embry used Time Out in his study. And time out can be
either punative or instructional if the parent is present and
directing the learning to the desired and wanted safer or more
effective behavior.

Hence I don't call it, unqualified in intent, "punishment." In fact
I've taught a very similar method to the one Dr. Embry describes as
"sit and watch" and refers to always I believe in tandem with "time
out" that I refer to as a "time in" that is where the parent is
attentive to the child and the learning process.

Your own ignorance and resistence to such methods as being effective
seem to have colored you view so that you assume someone is trying to
decieve you.

What in my statement that Dr. Embry's study is a study in the use of
other methods than punishment is not true? He only studied punishment
to set baselines...and do you know what he found for both "time outs"
(the punative kind) and "reprimands" in establishing the baselines?

No, of course you don't. And I'm not going to debate them with you
until you have taken care of all three criteria for debate.

Besides, you and The Whore aren't children. I would never treat
them
the least bit as I treat you. As an adult I expect you to take full
responsibility for the harm you do others.

LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)

Let's see now. I have three claims there, each in it's own sentence.
Are you sure you want too call them lies? You are rather free with
that word. YOU wouldn't be trying to deceive, a lie, now would you?

Or are you just "playing with" me? {:-

Are you saying that you and The Whore ARE children? That I would treat
children as I do you? And that you cannot be expected to take
responsibility for any harm you do others?

What an odd response on your part. I could, if I didn't know better,
come from the mouth of a undeveloped child of about 8 or 9.

"LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)"

Well, okay, if you insist.

You are a child, I do treat you and children the same. You aren't
capable of my expectation of responsibility.

The latter is a claim I've made again and again, and you just agreed.

By the way, I notice you haven't cleaned up your lying [subject]
field
as yet. I said my mother WOULD approve if she knew. If you'd like I
can invite her here, but I suspect you wouldn't care too much for
what
she would have to say to something as slimy and evil as you and
your
little butt buddy, The Whore.

And you are a "never-spanked" boy. YOUR MOTHER APPROVED! ;-)

Oh now you are just being completely silly. An 8 year old in the
school yard yapping his frustration at being the last to be chosen in
a game of cometitive kickball.

You don't know my mother, her approval or not, or whether or not any
caregiver ever spanked me, or all didn't.

It's the usual dodge.

You are holding off The Question, about all you've got going any more
is misdirection, dodging, and Droananating.

You have this little habit I've found quite entertaining. It's a
Plantation trick. Accusing others of lying when it is obvious
either
you disagree, they do not have the same information you do, or they
are simply mistaken. None of which is a lie unless they
deliberately
disemminate the information to decieve.

You are looking at the mirror again! ;-)

And you are a frustrated 9 year old.

Now YOU, on the other hand, unless you are simply making a mistake
about what I said about my mother, are deliberately telling a
falsehood.

LIES! LIES! AND MORE LIES! ;-)

I'd say making a claim then refusing to back it up, even if you were
CORRECT, would be part of a larger attempt to deceive as well as being
deceptive in the particular.

Wouldn't you? Or do you not know the definition of lyining?

I think I've mentioned before you are a compulsive liar, and I tell
you so again...on the same or even greater scale than your Plant
friend.

You are looking at the mirror again! ;-)

I think all you have is school boy responses and the urge to avoid the
more important questions by "playing with" me, now wouldn't you?

Or is chanting schoolboy mantras an important piece of the knowledge
that you say parents need to make up their own minds about spanking or
not?

Here you are, on the cusp of the Embry Study debate, a vital Question
having been asked of you, but you haven't answered, and you continue
to respond with anything you think will draw me away from The Question
and your failure to answer.

Now is THAT really fair to parents that want to know?

Kane9
Kan't

Doan

Silly child. You are making such a fool of yourself.

I want to help you and families by imparting and sharing knowledge and
soliciting knowledge and truth from you in the same mission.

You want to chant your Droananating diversions, apparently.

Prove me wrong. Meet the challenge.

Kane