Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, krp wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane wrote
Since I'm not going to answer this in ascps, but most likely will, if
I
find anything not based on lying about prior post's contents, there
is
not need for the content of this post here.

Feel free to continue without me at ascps....

0:-}

Run rabbit run!
Kane wrote "there is not need for the content of this post here."?
That sounds dangerously like snippage!

It sounds dangerously like you cant abide by the rules gregg.

Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you
two are with yourselves.

But they sure can take things out of context while accusing others of the
same, without proof of course! That is Ron is throwing a fit at me now.
;-)

Doan

Gee doan, the only thing I have thrown at you is that I dont like your
posting style. I find it interesting that you attack anyone who may
disagree with you, and even those like myself who refuse to debate you.
I've given you no reason for your actions, but you are giving me plenty for
mine.

Ron

" krp" wrote in message
news:AvQrh.2092$R76.1615@trnddc05...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane wrote
Since I'm not going to answer this in ascps, but most likely will, if I
find anything not based on lying about prior post's contents, there is
not need for the content of this post here.

Feel free to continue without me at ascps....

0:-}

Run rabbit run!
Kane wrote "there is not need for the content of this post here."?
That sounds dangerously like snippage!

It sounds dangerously like you cant abide by the rules gregg.

Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you two are with yourselves.

Kane told you the terms under which he would debate the subject with you.
You have a choice, agree or don't. Both have a consequence kenny. The
first is that you can debate the subject with him, and in the second you
cant. Not my rules mind you, Kanes. And he is not forcing you to do
anything, your arm is not getting twisted here at all. He is just stating
under what conditions he will debate the subject with you. You don't like
those conditions, obviously, but all you had to do was not agree to them and
leave it at that. You just couldn't do that could you. He offers to debate
a subject with you openly and honestly and with some honest and open
guidelines, and you cant do that. Why does this surprise no one?

Compared to you ken, I am quite impressed with myself. I am at least honest
and above board. You on the other hand are a confirmed liar. You
manipulate, misdirect, misinform, and outright lie. All of that is
confirmed, not just by your buddy mr moore but by your own actions in this
news group since December 17th 2006. You continue to walk his line, just as
written on his web site. He has you pegged quite clearly, as one majorly
dishonest individual. A fact that you have taken great pains to prove all
on your own.

We have not seen you level of dishonesty in this news group in quite some
time ken. gregg does not even come close. You are a prime example of the
worst aspects of Usenet kenny, one that everyone should know about. mr
moore seems to be doing quite a job of making that happen, and you cant
stand that either. I'm sure it takes all the fun away when he follows you
into a new news group and informs all the other users what they are in for
with you. I don't feel sorry for you, not one bit. You deserve every line
of it. True or not, your own actions here have shown that what mr moore has
written about you is earned.

Life's a bitch aint it kenny.

Ron

Terms of debate:
At first I thought it was just Kane's usual Megalomania.
Now Ron is presenting it like some sort of blackmail.

Either Ken knuckles under to the "terms" or else (Ron says)
Ken has proven that EVERY BS accusation is true.

That sounds like the logic of a petulant 12 year old.

Illogical linkage of two different things....

Kane wrote
I note that you have no relevant comments. Were you,
like most passive aggressives,

Is it passive aggressive when you stand back and watch
a bully get whupped till they cry? If so, then I am.

simply baiting and waiting for others to comment so you
could jump on them, rather than take a position of your
own and express your thoughts?

Isn't that why you said you don't have a dog in this hunt?
You denied your defense of these stupid dolls until now.

I posted one of those PDF's in flat text form.

It actually e-mails, passes virus scan and opens, no problem!
No whining necessary!

Should I e-mail it to you in PDF form Kane?

Ron wrote:
" krp" wrote in message
news:AvQrh.2092$R76.1615@trnddc05...
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane wrote
Since I'm not going to answer this in ascps, but most likely will, if I
find anything not based on lying about prior post's contents, there is
not need for the content of this post here.

Feel free to continue without me at ascps....

0:-}
Run rabbit run!
Kane wrote "there is not need for the content of this post here."?
That sounds dangerously like snippage!
It sounds dangerously like you cant abide by the rules gregg.
Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you two are with yourselves.

Kane told you the terms under which he would debate the subject with you.
You have a choice, agree or don't. Both have a consequence kenny. The
first is that you can debate the subject with him, and in the second you
cant. Not my rules mind you, Kanes. And he is not forcing you to do
anything, your arm is not getting twisted here at all. He is just stating
under what conditions he will debate the subject with you. You don't like
those conditions, obviously, but all you had to do was not agree to them and
leave it at that. You just couldn't do that could you. He offers to debate
a subject with you openly and honestly and with some honest and open
guidelines, and you cant do that. Why does this surprise no one?

Compared to you ken, I am quite impressed with myself. I am at least honest
and above board. You on the other hand are a confirmed liar. You
manipulate, misdirect, misinform, and outright lie. All of that is
confirmed, not just by your buddy mr moore but by your own actions in this
news group since December 17th 2006. You continue to walk his line, just as
written on his web site. He has you pegged quite clearly, as one majorly
dishonest individual. A fact that you have taken great pains to prove all
on your own.

We have not seen you level of dishonesty in this news group in quite some
time ken. gregg does not even come close. You are a prime example of the
worst aspects of Usenet kenny, one that everyone should know about. mr
moore seems to be doing quite a job of making that happen, and you cant
stand that either. I'm sure it takes all the fun away when he follows you
into a new news group and informs all the other users what they are in for
with you. I don't feel sorry for you, not one bit. You deserve every line
of it. True or not, your own actions here have shown that what mr moore has
written about you is earned.

Life's a bitch aint it kenny.

Aw, yer just "Pavlov's doggie," don'thchaknow.

R R R R R

We haven't had this much fun such chuckles the clown.

Pangborn is the perfect example of what is wrong with Usenet.

This is, despite our efforts to use it as a forum for debate, the
perfect place for dishonest, mentally and emotionally challenge twits
that have escaped the captivity in mental hospitals and prisons they so
richly deserve to come and exercise themselves public ally.

I delight in this actually, as the general public was isolated from
these folks completely in the past.

All they saw was the occasional feature movie.

Here in Usenet, if they come and look, they get to see the nutcases
actually performing up close and personal.


For most folks, normal folks, the exhibition of those that, without
inhibition, will **** in public, LIE, comes as a shock of reality.

These are what we turned loose on the public by politicos closing down
the central mental health facilities and overcrowded prisons.

Entertaining, isn't it?


Ron


And outside of exposing them for what they are, not a damn thing we can
do about it.

Personally I'm looking to the folks, the sane ones, in the states where
these mentally disabled folks live, to follow through and bring the
certification courts into the picture.

When Greg, for instance, is forced to undergo a psych evaluation and a
90 day observation in a secure facility this place will clean up in a
hurry.

THIS is evidence of their mental imbalance.

I'll be quite happy to provide the archives as any evidence needed.

0:-] heheheheheheh

Ron wrote:
" krp" wrote in message
news:AvQrh.2092$R76.1615@trnddc05...
"Ron" wrote in message
...
"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane wrote
Since I'm not going to answer this in ascps, but most likely will, if I
find anything not based on lying about prior post's contents, there is
not need for the content of this post here.

Feel free to continue without me at ascps....

0:-}
Run rabbit run!
Kane wrote "there is not need for the content of this post here."?
That sounds dangerously like snippage!
It sounds dangerously like you cant abide by the rules gregg.
Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you two are with yourselves.

Kane told you the terms under which he would debate the subject with you.
You have a choice, agree or don't. Both have a consequence kenny. The
first is that you can debate the subject with him, and in the second you
cant. Not my rules mind you, Kanes. And he is not forcing you to do
anything, your arm is not getting twisted here at all. He is just stating
under what conditions he will debate the subject with you. You don't like
those conditions, obviously, but all you had to do was not agree to them and
leave it at that. You just couldn't do that could you. He offers to debate
a subject with you openly and honestly and with some honest and open
guidelines, and you cant do that. Why does this surprise no one?

Compared to you ken, I am quite impressed with myself. I am at least honest
and above board. You on the other hand are a confirmed liar. You
manipulate, misdirect, misinform, and outright lie. All of that is
confirmed, not just by your buddy mr moore but by your own actions in this
news group since December 17th 2006. You continue to walk his line, just as
written on his web site. He has you pegged quite clearly, as one majorly
dishonest individual. A fact that you have taken great pains to prove all
on your own.

We have not seen you level of dishonesty in this news group in quite some
time ken. gregg does not even come close. You are a prime example of the
worst aspects of Usenet kenny, one that everyone should know about. mr
moore seems to be doing quite a job of making that happen, and you cant
stand that either. I'm sure it takes all the fun away when he follows you
into a new news group and informs all the other users what they are in for
with you. I don't feel sorry for you, not one bit. You deserve every line
of it. True or not, your own actions here have shown that what mr moore has
written about you is earned.

Life's a bitch aint it kenny.

Aw hell, I used to sit on certification boards that locked up people
like this, Ron. Nothing he does is a surprise to me.

R R R R R R R R

Usenet will survive the nuts. Trust me. In time everyone will, that's
sane, reasonable, moral, ethical and honest, set the same criteria for
debate I just did, and the nuts will fade away, and you and I can have a
reasonable debate on any subject we choose and come to the conclusion
you did, honorably. And that I concurred with. Impasse is good for
debate. These ****ants are busy exercising their various but similar
pathologies.

We will, at the point we agree to demand the rules, get to explore
issues and sort them out.

Right now it's just ****ants against use because some of us aren't on
board with insisting on simple reasonable rules for discussion.

It's coming. Watch.

Ron

Kane

Greegor wrote:
Terms of debate:
At first I thought it was just Kane's usual Megalomania.
Now Ron is presenting it like some sort of blackmail.

Asking for rules before debating is BLACKMAIL?

Just how ****ed up is your mind, Greg

Hell, the sane among us don't even want to drive a car without RULES,
you dumb introverted ****head.

Either Ken knuckles under to the "terms" or else (Ron says)

Or what?

I won't debate?

Awwwww...poor Ken. He won't have to face me honestly, just by refusing a
few simply equally applied rules...to him, and to me.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.... ..

Ken has proven that EVERY BS accusation is true.

What, that I want to play by the well known rules of debate and he doesn't

****, Greg, he's a liar and fraud. What do you expect?

That sounds like the logic of a petulant 12 year old.

Most 12 year olds aren't up on debate protocols.

Apparently then, you and Ken aren't even 12 year olds, developmentally,
yet.

Trust me, the normal 12 year old understands agreeing to rules of play
or debate without it even having to be explained.


Illogical linkage of two different things....


What, rules and debate?

No Greg, you and your cronies are mental deficients. And badly need your
heads shrunk. You are social misfits, not fit to walk among normal
responsible adult citizens.

Hell, YOU are a danger to children.

Where do YOU get off with such judgments, you little immature ****ant?


0:-

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
I note that you have no relevant comments. Were you,
like most passive aggressives,

Is it passive aggressive when you stand back and watch
a bully get whupped till they cry? If so, then I am.

Well, I tried, heaven knows, to go as easy on Ken as possible.

simply baiting and waiting for others to comment so you
could jump on them, rather than take a position of your
own and express your thoughts?

Isn't that why you said you don't have a dog in this hunt?
You denied your defense of these stupid dolls until now.

And now I haven't defended their use unless certain conditions are met.
That's what adults do, Greg.

I posted one of those PDF's in flat text form.

Mmm..what PDFs, Greg?

It actually e-mails, passes virus scan and opens, no problem!
No whining necessary!

Well, of course. When Acrobat has a clean document file to convert
that's what happens.

I'm not quite sure, you mental case, what your point is. Care to
clarify, if you can sort through the confusion of your sick damanged brain?


Should I e-mail it to you in PDF form Kane?

E-mail what, Greg?

I'll just E-mail back the commentary and research that shows that this
issue is too far from resolution to pretend to final answers.

You are a certifiable nut and that's why you run from a psych eval, not
to protect your rights, stupid.

0:-]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, krp wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane wrote
Since I'm not going to answer this in ascps, but most likely will, if
I
find anything not based on lying about prior post's contents, there
is
not need for the content of this post here.

Feel free to continue without me at ascps....

0:-}

Run rabbit run!
Kane wrote "there is not need for the content of this post here."?
That sounds dangerously like snippage!

It sounds dangerously like you cant abide by the rules gregg.

Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you
two are with yourselves.

But they sure can take things out of context while accusing others of the
same, without proof of course! That is Ron is throwing a fit at me now.
;-)

Doan

Gee doan, the only thing I have thrown at you is that I dont like your
posting style. I find it interesting that you attack anyone who may
disagree with you, and even those like myself who refuse to debate you.
I've given you no reason for your actions, but you are giving me plenty for
mine.

Ron

Come on, Ron! Stop that "he hit me first" excuse. It's childish! I have
not attacked you. You were the one that falsely accused me of quoting
out-of-context. When I pointed out that you were the one that quoted
thing out of context, with supporting evidence I may add, you went postal!
You aligned yourself with Kane, a well known foul-mouth, who even had the
nerve to claim that his mom approved his calling other women "smelly-****"
and attacked me!

Doan

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Whose rules Ron? Kane's THE GREAT GOD? Yours? Are you the Usenet police?
You two do NOT get to dictate the rules. PERIOD! No matter HOW impressed
you two are with yourselves.

Kane told you the terms under which he would debate the subject with you.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! POOR BABY!



Compared to you ken, I am quite impressed with myself.

Apparently!!!