A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Classic Droan was R R R R, should I DOUBLE DARE HIM? ..was... LaVonne



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 17th 04, 07:13 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Classic Droan was R R R R, should I DOUBLE DARE HIM? ..was... LaVonne

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:02:09 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:52:00 -0700, Doan wrote:


On 16 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:10:51 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 15 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:06:31 -0700, Doan

wrote:


LOL! Kane trying hard to distract from his lies!

Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't

shown
I
did.

Another lie!

Post my "lie" again please. I'd like to see if you still have

the
gall
to lie.

"Just another weasel dodge eh? I didn't lie and you haven't shown

I
did."

You LIED! :-)


Nope. YOU lied! You have always lied. It's the sole content of your
posts. Unless you confine yourself to a simple few words, and even
then, you often lie.

Sound like you are describing yourself! :-)


There is no sound in these ngs.

Why don't you just email Alina the study? ;-)

Because she could be you socking up or a friend of yours

angling
for
the study for you because you don't have it.

LOL! Is that what your "formidable" research skill produced?

That is my assumption, given that you slipped and called her by

the
name of a well known personality connected with your location,
"Aline."

LOL! There are also many "Aline" in Colorado
http://ronbrandon.com/lukeminnie/page-x44.htm


You confused Aline with Alina. You were thinking then of someone in
Colorado?

LOL! It's a typo, stupid!


Sure, Droany. Sure.

Like I said, you lie.

Nope! You LIED and got Kaught! :-)


You've posted no evidence that supports your claim that I lied.

And Alina had only a 20 something previous posting history on

USENET
but seemed very comfortable with the particular medium. She

could
be a
sock.

Alina will be happy to hear that! :-)


That's nice.

It's sure is! :-)0


Yep.

You still haven't explained why you wanted a self addressed

envelope
from her, but no postage. Interesting. Or a dodge.

So I can "scam" you! ;-)


Wouldn't surprize me or others here very much. I notice TM hasn't
responded. Another of your friends?

I see that you are the paranoid! ;-) Yes. We are EVERYWHERE! :-)


I see that you are dodging again. Didn't answer the question.

So why did you slip and mention "Aline" when the poster was named
Alina?

The same reason that you typed "Arlina".


Nope. I don't have an "Arlina" associated with me in any way. YOU have
an "Aline" associated with your worksite.

As for typo, I didn't know that "a" on a computer keyboard comes next
to "e."

I see only, "w," "d," "s," and of course R R R R R R

Had I done the same thing you'd be screaming, "you lied."

I'll accept that you slipped, but it wasn't a typo.

You've never proven you do have it.

Actually I have! Here is a quote from the study:

A quote is NOT sufficient. I quoted Embry from a magazine

article.
Are
we to presume NO ONE else has quoted him, like possibly

academics
referring to his work?

LOL! Then prove it! Show me where my quotes come from. You are

grasping
for straws. :-)


No, I don't have to prove a thing. YOU provide me with proof of

your
source. Meeting demands for proof by requiring the other person to
prove you wrong is dodging and frowned on among civil people.

Then people just keep on laughing at you for if the study support

your
agenda and you hide it then YOU ARE STUPID! ;-) I am offering a copy
to anyone that asked.


No you aren't, not unless they are willing to be stalled by having to
come up with a barrier.....such as asking them to send you an
addressed envelope...R R R R R...good one Droaner.

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe

Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used,

number
of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and

Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental

estimates
of how often child went into the street."

R R R R .... I love this. Anyone reading the actual chart you

provided
would see, plainly, that punishment wasn't working....what a

ditz.
Here, let's quote you:

And you've just shown how STUPID you are! It's not "punishment

wasn't
working", it's "problems the parents reported"! Do you have a

problem
with English? ;-)


I see you don't have an answer for this.


Interesting. Do you think then that given the problems with applying
the "punishment" that it was working? And no, I don't have a problem
with English at all. Does the word "problems," expecially when it's
over 50% of the incidences suggest to you it's working?

You are conceding that you
are STUPID! :-0


Nope. That you are.


And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%

So what is the page number of this chart again? In the study.

Look it up! You said you have the study! :-)


As I said, it's not in the report I have. Still dodging the page
question I see. Liar.

Then you don't have the study!


Possibly I don't have the study you have. Not a problem. I offerred to
clear that up some time ago, but you held on supplyling the page
number that would havce established we had different studies, or you
had none at all. You choked.

No problem. It wasn't MY diversion from answering The Question, it was
yours.

How's it working so far? R R R R R RR

So, what is the answer to The Question I actually asked?

Since you CLAIMED to know Dr. Embry
so well,


I don't recall saying I knew him well. I have had contact with him. No
big deal. I admire his work, his subject matter. He's an expert and
authority on traffic safety processes, as well as being a major
contributor to NON PUNITIVE and highly effective teaching methods.

He has expanded his discoveries from research into teaching and
training areas of great importance. Look up his website.

why don't you contact him and asked if the data I provided
are authentic or I LIED. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU.


R R R R. No I don't accept dares. He might tell me it was authentic,
as it probably is, but he would no more be able to tell me from the
information you've given that it is from the study report I have
(which of course it isn't) or if you have A study or a page or two
cited by someone else.

I asked you for a simple page number. Instead of responding you again
dodge.

Here is
the contact information you gave me:
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered - "reasonable standard"!


What is a reasonable standard please? And how can it avoid injuring
one's child yet get the job of discipline done?

Over 50% of the time the children wouldn't even participate in

the
"punishment." R R R R R. So much for YOUR nonsense. This was a

KEY
item, I'd wager, in Dr. Embry getting it that teaching what IS

wanted
is far more powerful than punishment for an unwanted behavior.

You don't understand English do you??? Where did you get the 50%?
YOU ARE STUPID!


The first line, dummy. I understand english better than YOU do
apparently.

"1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%"

HA! HA! HA! You are stupid! That is 51.4% of the out of the TOTAL
numbers of parents who reported "problems"; other parents who
reported SUCCESSFUL with the sit ad watch PUNISHMENT are not counted
in that figure. ARE YOU SO STUPID???


Nope. Not at all. You do not KNOW how many reported problems. It could
be 5 or every single one. ARE YOU SO STUPID???

When a child won't sit they are not participating.

But so are 2 & 3!


And?

Stop wasting your time. I'm not going to tell you what is in the
report I have. In fact I'm not here to debate Embry with you. You blew
that some time back.

I'm still here asking The Question you are lying about answering and
playing with your diversions to see just how far you'll go with your
lies.

It's pointless really, because if you ever do come up with proof you
have the study I do all this long time of stalling and fishing and
dodging and weaseling and lying by you shows that you DIDN'T HAVE IT.

Now who is stupid.

YOU ARE!


I'll let the reader decide that.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Alread answered!


Nope. Never answered, not even close. I didn't ask what is the
standard (I wouldn't sense there is no "standard" agreed upon.) I ask
for a definition of the line. I didn't ask you to tell me if OTHERS
had a standard, or even if there was a reasonable standard. Those do
not tell anyone where that line is.

Given that you folks claim you know when to stop and when to keep
going, in other words, how to spank safely, I'm asking you to show
others by definition how to do that.

Feel free to call in your friends to help. Chris C. has frantically
put out the call, knowing you and they are stumped, and I know that
it's to create volume to see if I can be kept busy and leave off
pointing out the obvious stupidity and self delusion that people such
as you and they resort to on the subject of your compusion, spanking.

As I said formerly, on this and other "proof" you provided, a

single
quote, or even a dozen, could be from other sources.

Then it's you who made the claime; cite the sources. CAN YOU?


No, it's not I that made the claim. I have not said that IS were

you
got the quotes, I merely point out the possibility. And your

refusal
to say what page in the study report your quotes come from makes it
abundantly clear you are faking it.

Then you would not be having problem in finding one source where they
actually quotes from the Embry study. Come on, Kane. Show us your
"formidable" research skill! ;-)


Why would I want to quote from the study. The question wasn't whether
or not I had it, but IF YOU HAD IT so we could have a debate. You
choked over providing proof. I waiting patiently, encouraging you,
making it extremely easy to prove it, and all you did was ask ME
questions.

Nope, you've proven you didn't have it or were too wrapped up in your
ego and your stupidity to see what a complete fool you were making of
yourself over The Question.

The answer, of course, is deadly simple...deadly to you spanking
compulsives. And THAT and the fact you can't face failure, is the only
reason you won't actually answer The Question.

I have given you three or four chances to come up with a page

number
and not once have you responded.

I don't see the relevancy in it!


Of course not. Your little ego is in the way, and you don't and never
did want to debate it....you just thought you had found the best way
out of the shame of your inability to answer The Question.

That's all right Droany. We won't tell anyone. {:-

I suspect you just rush back to the library and look for yet

another
citation of Embry that you think might be from the particular study

I
am discussing.

Or I can write Dr. Embry and ask him for it. I might just tell him
that you said hi! ;-)


Do. I can hardly wait. I suspect he's lurked here, since I mentioned
the claims and your foolishness. Give him a buzz. It's not like his
number or email addy is a secret.

When you provide, as I asked, page numbers, even for those

things
you
asked ME to prove, then I'll assume you have the study, and not
before.

LOL! Do you really I care what you think? ;-)


Nope. That is obvious. Hence you will lie, and dodge, and pretend

it
just doesn't matter. Just so you won't be revealed for the scummy
little liar you have always been. YOU challenge then you won't meet
the challenge YOU made. No problem for me to expose you time and
again.

LOL! That is why I like having you debating for the anti-spanking
zealotS. You are so good! ;-)


I'm not debating. And there is no question but that I am good. I posed
a question you can't answer honestly and maintain your many years of
BS.

I'd say that's fairly skilled. And it was deliberate. Sucker.

Droananation.

Kane0 Kan't!

I asked you for the page number for the beginning of the

description
of the demographic sample. A very simple thing to provide. YOU

HAVE
NOT.

And I have asked you to provide the sample size. YOU HAVE NOT!

:-)

33 total.

Are you sure? That's so small to provide any statistic validity.


No, I am not sure what the number is in your "report."

And the study wasn't about a statistical survey or research, thus
adding yet another obvious nail in the coffin you keep your lies in.

And there are circumstances where 33 would be more than sufficient.

You seem to think five or so, as in Baumrind, was adequate, did you
not?

Now how many were observed and how many simply reported?

In the teens!


R R R R R........

I believe I asked about both group sizes. One could be and the other
not, or both could be in the teens. Which is it, Droany, and what are
the numbers?

Not guesses.

And what page does the description of the demographics of the

subjects
begin on, and who is named the same as one of our posters, and what
page does that name appear on in the report?

What does this have to do with the price of gas?


I don't recall asking you the price of gas. I do recall asking you to
prove you had the study. If you had it you'd admit that I do, given
that our number for the total would have to be the same.

I asked you the page number, and many times now, as proof.

If you aren't going to provide proof then it's pretty obvious you wish
to keep this going as long as possible to avoid The Question, and it's
spanking compulsives embarrassing truth...........YOU DON'T KNOW THE
ANSWER, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ANSWERED, which of course gives the lie
to your claims all these years.

So much for parents being the experts.

So, when you ask me again for the number of subjects in the

study
group, include the page number. THEN I'll know you aren't lying.

And you'd be lying! ;-)


When I ask you for the page number I'd "be lying!"

Yes!


What would I be lying about?

A question, last time I checked, does not qualify as a lie. It isn't a
statement of claimed fact, but just a question.

You really are a stupid little child.

Or if you came up with the correct answer it would be lying of me

to
know you aren't lying?

Or I could be playing with you. ;-)


Yep. Proving that all you have ever done here in this ng is play. We
know that. We just like to let others see it plainly. Any check on
your posting history would show that, just in case anyone might come
here and take you seriously for even a moment.

I notice you have gone missing in the misc.kids ng for some time,
after a flight there to get away from TheQuestion. The caught on to
you rather quickly.

You have a very strange understanding of english.

So do you! ;-)


Nope. I stick to the standard, a reasonable standard.........R R R R R
R

I can look up precisely what is meant to see if I am correct or
mistaken.

So, care to show me the standard enlish reference that shows a
question can be a lie?

And you are still using this study and discussion of it to avoid


admitting you don't know the answer to The Question.

distraction
#4! :-)

Nope. I did NOT challenge you to depate Embry. You used it in the
middle of our discussion of The Question, and you are still using
it...to dodge.

Weasel!


You are right I forget, it was your weasel. I'll try to remember to
include it in the future when referring to your weaseling.

You dodged the question with The Embry study segway, and then you
dodged the Embry study debate by refusing to prove you had the study.

No big deal. We all knew you would. I predicted it.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

The answer I gave you long ago!


Nope. Not unless you gave an answer other than The Law, and
"reasonable standard."

You provided NO law that defined the line, nor have you provided any
"standard" that has been set that defines the line.

IN fact you are a real advocate for the law becoming more restrictive
by virtue of becoming more precisely descriptive, for everywhere that
laws against CP have taken hold they do so by............you guessed
it.........becoming very much more precise in defining the line. NO
SPANKING, makes the live very clear, now doesn't it?

Which is the central issue.

According to whom? :-)


According to you. I asked you The Question, you claimed you could
answer it. You attempted to an failed.

I have already answered it but you are to stupid to understand it.
Look it up!


I have. There is no reasonable standard anywhere that defines the
line.

Hence, you have NOT answered my question, The Question.

Your attempt to run now is the central issue, or you can answer The
Question.

And you are lying again!


Nope. There is no lie in that statement. You are running, as you
always run, by these dodges that have become your obvious pattern over
the years. And you have not answered The Question. So take your
pick...run or answer.

Why is it you demand that "Aline" R R R R, provide you with a

self
addressed envelope? Why is it neither "Aline" or you seem

able
to
carry off this transmission of material?

Could it be that Alina is me? ;-)

Yes, it could be. Or a friend willing to play your game for you

with
me. NO, Droany, I'm not giving the study to a stranger. When I

said
anyone I certainly was NOT considering someone NOT in the ng at

that
time and certainly NO ONE that would serve it up to you before

you
prove you have it.

Weasel! :-)


Nope. Just accustomed to years of your lying, and unwilling to
continue serious debate with you as long as you continue lying.

You are describing yourself again! ;--)


Which of our exchanges for the past few months have constituted
serious debate by you? You won't even prove you have the study.
Obviously it wasn't about debate, it was about not answering The
Question.

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!


Liar.

Those I've given it to have agreed NOT to send it to you. I

presume
they are smart enough to see your game and that you are angling

for
some clues and the study itself if you can get it through me.

Only anti-spanking zealotS would believe that! :-)


So. Prove you have the study.

Already have. Now, prove that you have the study!


No you haven't. Not once have you given a single answer or offered a
single bit of information that could not be obtained elsewhere...yet
everytime you have been asked for proof that would be provable, you
dodged.

Why would you not offer up a simple page number and come up with the
name of a poster that appears in the study?

Tough luck, little Droaner....not going to happen.

Weasel! :-)


Just another dodge ad hom.

Throwing the same "****" back at you. You don't like it? ;-)


Nope. I didn't make the original challenge. YOU did, then failed to
follow through.

So tell us, who is mentioned in the study that has the same

last
name
as someone well known to this ng and on what page does that name
appear in the report?

distraction #5! :-)


Oh really? YOU consider it a distraction to ask the name from the
study and the page number?

Yes. Just the fact, please.


Okay, just the fact then. What page and what is the name.

Distraction from what?

From the Embry Study and why you lied about the PUNISHMENT component.


Nope. Didn't lie. Didn't see the piece you referred to until later and
said so. A mistake, unless done with deliberate intent to deceive is
not a lie.

If such were true, then YOU would be the champion liar of this ng, now
wouldn't you weasel?

The answer to The Question?

Already answered.


I must have missed it. I've found no such answer. YOu may claim it all
you wish.
You haven't done it.

And why won't you answer that simple question? Or provide page

numbers
for the questions you ask me?

I don't play your game! :-)


But you expect me to play yours.

Sure! You always have!


Nope, never have. I've lead you everywhere we have gone.

Your public exhibition is a giant laugh. Especially when you claim to
be debating or playing. But lie and lie.

That is your nature!


Nope. You mistake my method. You lack the depth to see it, and the
flagging flacid ego that supports your self delusion.

Don't you know that I am
using you to attack the anti-spanking zealotS!


Sure I know. Problem is you don't know that you are transparent as
glass.

That's how you walked into The Question so stupidly.
You are so busy playing at your superiority, trying to inflate a weak
damaged ego from your childhood of being spanked, that you can't see
where you are going even when YOU think you are leading the way. R R R
R R

You are STUPID!


Gosh, I must be. I've given you so many chances to get out of The
Question, and still you stick to your stupid response, that you
already answered, when it's patently obvious you haven't and the
question I asked.

Well, neither of us is going to play the other's game, but you

tripped
yourself up.

Yup! You are so good! ;-)


Yup! Apparently. But that's a function of how much of a fool you'll
make of yourself over one simple question.

So far you've put months into it.

You tried to answer a question you could not.

I tried to teach an old dog a new trick and I could not! :-)


Must be so, after all, you have "already answered" so obviously I must
be missing something....R R R R R

Care to share what the "new trick" might be?

I always thought lying was a very old trick, no matter how elaborate
or how convoluted the dodging might get.

That isn't something new. I've seen it repeatedly, and I walked you
right into doing it again, with The Question.

How does it feel to be trapped by your own lies?

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!


Nope. Never answered, not even once. Each attempt was a diversion. A
trip away from the answer. The Law doesn't answer it. And the
population lacks a standard. And the definition of "reasonable" is in
question.

Not just from community to community but from household to household
and even from parent to parent in a household.

By the way, the chart you offerred on the responses to the Sit

and
Watch non-compliance by the chidlren to "prove" you had the
study....bogus. Sorry.

Weasel!



Nope. It's not in the study and a few people here that have the

study
know it as well as I.

Then they sure can speak up and attest to it. Why are they so quiet?


I haven't asked why they are quiet. That is their business. I
certainly don't need them in exposing a fool like you, child.

I suspect they are laughing at how obvious you are. And waiting for
more of your self delusion that YOU are running the show here in our
"debate." R R R R R

Who have you given the study to that would be happy to step forward
and back your claim? Certainly Couch Croucher would, but oddly,

seems
to know that asking you for the study isn't going to produce the
study.

They could be asking you instead. Funny thing, is anyone that has
asked you publicly got a big NO from you. If the study really

support
your agenda, don't you that you are being STUPID? ;-)


I foresaw that you might move on to sock puppetry to try and get a
copy of the study. I had no intention of giving the study to anyone I
didn't know and could trust not to pass it on to you.

Nothing even clever in that. Just an understanding of how lacking in
morals you are.

I'm perfectly happy to wait for Aline to send her self addressed
envelope (R R R R R.....good one, Droany) and for you to send the
report back to her.

I have this funny suspicion though that "she" will suddenly develop
and aversion to answering any of the questions I've asked you, like
the name listed on a page, and where parts of the study begin, or even
the page number of that chart on the problems parents encountered.

Now why would I be sooooo suspicious....R R R R R

It does NOT exist in the street entry study report.

It is in the FINAL report!


Which number is that? All reports are numbered.

There is only one FINAL one. Why don't you ask Dr. Embry? ;-)


R R R R

Because I don't NEED to. The Embry study is something YOU have
invested in as a diversion. I take it seriously. And I have the report
so I don't NEED to ask Dr. Embry.

Why don't you ask him how many reports there are?

In fact though I never said which I have and whether or not it's

the
final one. I simply said that I had a report from the Embry study

and
that I'd debate you happily in this ng if you could get the SAME
REPORT.

I see the Kane9 weasel dance coming! ;-)


Since I already told you I no longer will debate the study with you
what would I be weaseling about, and what for?

I have no obligation to engage with you at all, other than to watch
you dance some more.

I find it charming. And childish. And a perfect example of what bad
comes out of spanking children.

Dance, child.

If you have it, fine. But then you have two other steps, and you

have
to convince me that it's worth my time to rescind the deadline.

I
So far you have demonstrated how I can expect you to "debate."

Like I say, I wil debate with ANYONE on this. The choice is yours!


Oh, I made my choice some time back, even risked....R R R R....giving
you second chance, that you once again blew.

I'm not here to debate the Embry study with you. And you know it. I
didn't challenge you to a debate, only to proving you had the study.
So far, no luck, but then you don't have to prove a thing if you don't
want to.

How is it you aren't debating the study with anyone else, or even
discussing it with anyone else? Surely, Aline would be happy to
discuss it with you?

But then "she" has this problem with being too busy to get that
envelope off to you. Why not be kind and go ahead and take on the
extraordinary expense ...R R R R R R .... of supplying the envelope
yourself?


Nothing but dodges and weasels.

Yep! That's you! :-)


Not only haven't I dodged, I've given you every chance to follow up on
your challenges (and you've turned each one down).

I'm still here just watching you. And occasionally responding to your
silliness and your arrogant displays with a little play of my own.

Nice try, Droany but it's becoming patently obvious you are

running
a
giant bluff...scam really, and you have nothing as regards

the
report.
You desperately want a report though, don't you little boy?


OOps! He caught us, Alina. ;-) I guess I have to contact Dr.

Embry
like Kane told me to when I ASKED him for the study.

Yep, sure did. And you certainly can. What has stopped you?

Because I have already got one from the library! You told me to,
remembered? :-)


That's nice. But you apparently don't have the one I do. Hence we
wouldn't have debated even IF you had met the deadline. I would

only
work for duplicates. You lost your chance to get a copy of mine by
being such a smartass and gameplayer.

I am disappointed. So now, the whole newsgroup will not get a chance
to see the great work of Dr. Embry. All because of me.


Apparently. But then that's your choice.

I've considered Dr. Embry's opinion from his work as interesting and
telling but I haven't been particularly interested in the study, until
YOU brought it up.

You've never seen me quote the study. Never cited the study. Never
pointed to the study. You have seen me quote from the magazine
article. When you demanded, little boy stomping foot, that I come up
with study (and you got to turn away from the question yet again) I
offered to discuss or debatet the study with you when you proved you
had it, when you answered TQ, and when you resolved your DARE.

YOU choked.

I stopped waiting for you to finish you bluff some time ago.

Now we are just watching you.

I think folks are being very kind not laughing out loud at you. Guess
they figure it's my play. R R R R R

All yOU had to do was admit you cannot answer The Question

correctly,
and that your silly dare was a piece of distraction and nonsense to
avoid facing the fact you blew it when you offered to take up the
challenge of The Question.

So you won't debate with me?


I'm sorry. YOu seem to have forgotten. I was more than willing, if you
could come up with the report, if you answered the question I actually
asked (or admitted you couldn't), and left off the I DARE you dodge by
resolving it.

Not an unreasonable request in the lot, is there?

Simple criteria...but of course I KNEW you couldn't meet them. Your
self delusion, instilled in you from your childhood, along with your
extremely fragile ego you must guard at all costs (yet another gift
from spanking parents to their son) would stop you.

You are incapable of being honest.

When you think you are using me to prove that "the spanking Zealots"
are stupid or illogical, you kind of miss the mark, given my handling
of you, as an example of our stupidity.

It's a pleasure doing business with you.

Please give us your answers again. I want the current posters to

see
what a whimp and fool you are.

They are laughing at you!


If you say so.....but the laughter of a couch crouching gigolo, a
Plant that posts drivelish nonsense, and YOU isn't of much consequence
to me.

I hope the laughter of serious debaters that gave up on reforming you
long ago will continue to be subdued and concealed. There are few
things more dangerous than a weak egoed neurotic protecting their
fragility, Droaner...and you, child, are it.

"I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is

available
at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822
"

R R R R R

Doan

Show us the lie, by the way. And Answer The Question....for

THAT
is
the sole reason The Embry report was brought up by you, to

avoid
admitting you don't have the answer to the question I asked.

Just
another childish and transparent dodge, little weasel.

Distraction #1.

It is YOUR distraction number one, not mine.

It's yours!


Odd. I'm perfectly willing to take on the challenge I gave you. I

CAN
ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU cannot because you know that your entire
posting history here would be seen for the lie it is.

I have proved that you are liar. The google archive still has your

lies!
:-)


I read what you provided. It isn't a lie to ask a question. It isn't a
lie to be mistaken.

Were you lying the last time you made a mistake? As in a "typo?"

And you DO ask rather a lot of "questions."

The original opening of the entire thread of diversion started

when
I
asked you to answer The Question. Instead of answering it

successfuly
you went on this and other directions as a diversion from how
miserably you failed.

Question has been aswered. You are just too stupid to

comprehended
it!
:-)


Nope. I asked for a limit as clearly definable as a stop sign or

speed
control sign. YOU gave us, "The law" and no law says were that line
is, only defines what the appearance of the victim is AFTER the

line
is crossed.

So there is a line!


Apparently. But I don't know where it is. That's why I asked those
that claim they know. So far no one has given me the definition,
exactly or even a close enough approximation to ensure the safety of a
child whose parent would rely on that answer.

And "reasonable standard" by "reasonable people" fails for lack of

a
universal agreement on what "reasonable" and "standard" are in the
matter of CP.

Tell that to the courts!


They do not know either, before the fact. I have TOLD IT TO THE
COURTS. I've asked officers of the court to point me to the definition
of the line. They are unable to. I've searched statutes. Nothing so
far.

But you and the compulsives seem to know...at least you say you do.

In some states it's a switching that cuts the skin, in others, a

mark
can't last over 24 hours...many other definitions of what NOT TO DO
are listed, but nowhere does it say anything like "no more than 12
seconds of force X applied to section Y of the body of a child no
older than or younger than ages a through b."

Exactly, every states set up their own laws. This can pertain to
many other aspects as well.


That wasn't my question. The laws will not protect the child until
after the fact. There are NO laws in the US that outlaw spanking, so a
parent must decide for themselves. So.......where is the line.

Or will you do some more immature processing?

The reason of course for this reticence to be exact, is the real
answer to The Question.

All it takes is a call to your local DA to find out what the law is
in your community!


Please point out where I asked what the law was concerning the line. I
already KNOW the law. I've been involved with law making around child
abuse since 1976.

That's why I KNOW the question is not answerable as I asked it.

And I only asked it to let you lie some more. And you bit.

And I could NOT have asked it if you compusives weren't busy claiming
you KNOW the line and where it is.

All I asked for is proof that you know where the line is. And that
comes from being able to define the line with no more precision than
OTHER safety limits...like speed limit signs on the highway.

So, how many strikes of hand, object, whatever, per hour is the limit?

The line please. Where is the line?

I'm quite happy to discuss The Question with you. It's YOU that

is
runing from you failure by using these distractions.

distraction #6! :-)


We aren't going to debate the Embry study. It was just a diversion

by
you to avoid having to discuss The Question and admit you can't

answer
it as it was asked.

Avoiding the Embry study again! :-0


Nope. Doing exactly what I said I'd do. I gave you the criteria for
meeting your challenge to ME to debate Embry. If YOU chose not to meet
them that is YOUR choice, not mine.

Or are the criteria too much for you? {:-

Admit it coward. You don't have the answer to the question

and
no
spanking parent has the answer, though they all claim, as you

have,
that they and you do.

Distraction #2.

Yes, you haven't answered The Question, nor admitted to failing

to
do
so.

distraction #7! :-)


You certainly do have a string of them.

It's you!


Nope. I asked a question. You dodged the question by asking about
something unrelated...The Embry study. I decided to play with you by
your rules for a time setting my own rules for play.

You apparently then didn't want to play anymore. That's perfectly
okay. You have that right.

A reasonable standard for debate would be you set your rules and I
counter with my rules. YOU get to refuse or accept. YOU couldn't
refuse....r r r r...little boy, and obviously you couldn't accept. So
you choked.

You also have the right to be seen for the hapless ego damaged child
you are.

You choked, then gagged, now you are retching, and that is

ALL
you
are
doing with your challenges and bull****, instead of simply
answering
or admitting you cannot answer The Question.

Distraction #3.

Which is an admission you haven't and cannot answer The Question

and
won't admit it.

distraction #8!


Oh, then you CAN answer the question but won't. Okay. Just like to
clarify.

Already answered.


Nope. Never answered as asked, not even once.

I still do not see that speed limit on CP. Please how a reasonable
standard can be used, when there is NO reasonable standard....if so,
define it please.

We await breathlessly for this secret of the millenia.

Have a wonderful life.

Thanks, Kane0!

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan

You are welcome, Droananator. {:-

And you 9 less than a Kane9. Kane9 - 9 = Kane0! :-)

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan


You appear very very confused little boy.
We are not. We have see clearly for years what you are. It just was
left up to me to expose you for it.

You are delusional too! :-)


I'll let the reader decide if you have been exposed...well, allowed to
expose yourself with just a tad bit of help from me.

You are a liar, and a cheat, and are not here to debate. Nor do you
actually believe that people should make up their own mind from an
informed decision.

You are describing yourself!


I am not a liar, nor do I cheat. And I am here to debate, but not to
do so with someone that won't abide by the rules of debate.

And I do happen to believe that people should make up their own mind,
from a position of being as fully informed as possible.

I challenge you to prove you believe in and follow through on them
being as fully informed as possible.

Have a good time. Google gonna getcha!


I've proven it again and again.

Delusional!


Again, it's up to the reader. Not only have I proven it, I've let YOU
prove it yourself.

EVen now you could proceed with the content of the Embry study,
without me at all, if you really have it, but you withhold

information
you claim parents make their decisions from.

what parents? :-)


Those that have come to this ng. Or are you sharing the Embry study
here and I've missed your posts?

Unless of course you believe you can refute the Embry study.

Already have!


I know you already "believe" you have, but I've not seen any evidence,
nor even discussion sufficient to refute the study. You'll point me to
the refutation you have already done please?

What is the correct answer to The Question?

Already answered!


Already not answered.

R R R R R R

LOL!


Pleased to bring some happiness to your day.

What a child you are.

What a Kane0 you are! :-)


Never heard of a "Kane0."

I have heard of an seen, and read the posts of, neurotic childlike
adults though. While not all spanked are neurotic and very fragile
behind various facades you are some example.

Kane0 Kan't!


Doan


I didn't ask you what the "standard" was. I asked you for the line
between non injurious CP and abusive injury.

Your logic would have us trying to figure out roadside traffic control
signs that directed us to "Travel at a Reasonable Standard."

Or teaching hospitals in surgery telling interns to make a cut to the
depth of a "Reasonable Standard."

You and your spanking parent buddies all claim they KNOW what a
reasonable standard is, so I'm asking you, for the last time: What
precisely is a reasonable standard beyond which one cannot go because
of the certain result of injury?

And while you are at it, since we have the evidence that many folks
believe and defend that THEIR standard is reasonable, why is it they
DO injure their children?

What is that "standard?"

There is none of course and the sooner you admit it the sooner your
exhibition of stupidity and ego protection will end.

When you, or anyone else can define the "standard" you will have a
defensible argument. Until then you are babbling as you have for
years.

How hard can one hit for a standard spank? What must be the standard
condition of the child? How many standard strokes or hits? What
standard instruments can and cannot be used? What age limits are
standard?

And what, in each case, is reasonable?

And how will you reconcile the immense differences that people have?
What source is currently available to determine these standards of
what is reasonable in CP?

Show us where the authority you appealled to, the law, has a standard
from region to region, and what they define as a standard of
reasonableness.

It's a simple question really. I know it is because simple folks like
you and your spanking buddies claim it is....or at least that they can
answer it.

So, Droaner, after all these months of avoidance, are you or are you
not going to answer The Question?

Another attempt at avoidance, diversion, or a non answer such as
"reasonable" or "standard" which does NOT answer THE question will be
taken as a failure to answer, regardless of your bogus claim, "already
answered."

And feel free to call me a liar, to change the subject, to babble on
about the Embry study or whatever comes to mind.

It's all grist for the mill of truth.

The truth being that you haven't got any.

But it IS fun watching you try to hide from it.

Kane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 Beth Weiss Info and FAQ's 1 December 31st 03 01:29 AM
REASONABLE STANDARD - I DOUBLE DARE YOU Kane General 7 December 10th 03 08:58 AM
REASONABLE STANDARD - I DOUBLE DARE YOU Kane Spanking 7 December 10th 03 08:58 AM
| REASONABLE STANDARD - I DOUBLE DARE YOU Kane General 1 December 9th 03 07:33 PM
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 Beth Weiss Info and FAQ's 1 November 27th 03 11:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.