How Children REALLY React To Control

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

Simple answer - Steve is a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

Why in the world would you think that?

Because he said so! :-0

I'm still puzzled as to the reasons for your saying, "Simple answer - Steve
is a 'never-spanked' kid! :-)" How do you view it as an answer at all? Or
was that meant purely as some sort of "inside joke" that I didn't have the
background to get?

You got it!

Doan
--------------
It's SO "inside" that nobody gets it but him.
Steve

Could it be because your brain is fill with "****"? So much that it
oozed out of your mouth! :-)
Doan
----------------------
You're looking in the mirror again, you ****-mouthed peckerhead.
Steve

Nope, I was looking down the toilet, taking a dump, and I see
MYSELF with my mouth wide open. Then, I started thinking,
is that my **** coming out of my mouth? ;-)
Doan
----------------
I wondered how you could look down the toilet while taking a dump
unless your mouth was your asshole.
Steve

Nope! That's my mouth! ;-)
Doan
--------------------------
Uh-huh.
Steve

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

Simple answer - Steve is a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

Why in the world would you think that?

Because he said so! :-0

I'm still puzzled as to the reasons for your saying, "Simple answer - Steve
is a 'never-spanked' kid! :-)" How do you view it as an answer at all? Or
was that meant purely as some sort of "inside joke" that I didn't have the
background to get?

You got it!

Doan
--------------
It's SO "inside" that nobody gets it but him.
Steve

Could it be because your brain is fill with "****"? So much that it
oozed out of your mouth! :-)
Doan
----------------------
I AM looking in the mirror again, you **** in my mouth.
Steve

Nope, I was looking down the toilet, taking a dump, and I see
your face with my mouth wide open. Then, I started thinking,
is that my **** coming into your mouth? ;-)
Doan
----------------
I wondered how you could look down the toilet while taking a dump
unless my mouth was your asshole.
Steve

Nope! That's my mouth! ;-)
Steve
--------------------------
Uh-huh.
Steve

That is why you are a "never-spanked" boy! :-)

Doan

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Your respect for religious freedom is completely underwhelming.
-------------------------
When nearly all of these "religion" things almost invariably try to
subvert freedom and Majority Democratic government, not to mention
individual rights, there simply needs to be NO "freedom" to do THAT!

Neither side has a monopoly on trying to interfere in the other's lives.
For example, consider the Cleveland, Ohio voucher case in which certain
groups argued that parents should be arbitrarily denied tax support for
their children's education if they send their children to schools where
organized religion plays any significant role. The damage to religious
freedom if government offers benefits worth thousands of dollars per year
per child to families who make one choice regarding a religous matter but
refuses to provide similar benefits to those who make a different choice is
enormous.

From my
perspective, it is your belief that God does not exist that is the
"lie."
------------------------
That isn't my belief.

I might well believe in a Divinity of sorts, but just NOT YOURS!
And that galls you.

And that makes it any better? To someone who's studied history, mixtures of
the "My religion is true and yours is a lie" attitude and public policy
appear more than a little dangerous.

In practical terms, you will never convince me that you are right if
the validity of your reasoning hinges on the belief that God does not
exist, nor will I convince you of anything if I use reasoning that
hinges on the existence of God for its validity.
---------------------------------
I don't have any reason to do that, but I have EVERY reason to make
sure that the "Gawd" you believe in isn't telling you to commit
criminal conspriracies against the rest of us, and against our secular
rights and freedoms FROM religion.

Just so long as you don't interpret your right to "freedom from religion" as
a right to suppress other people's religous activities and choices.

I do, however, find your attempts to invoke your own atheistic
beliefs
-----------------------------------
As I told you, I'm NOT an atheist, I just don't believe in YOUR stupid
"Gawd"!

I stand corrected. On the other hand, I'm curious as to how your belief in
a supernatural force of some kind fits together with your certainty that
everything is purely a product of cause and effect. That would make
whatever supernatural being or force exists a puppetmaster that predestines
our lives for us - which sounds a lot like certain elements of old-fashioned
Calvinist Christian theology, now that I think about it.

in your efforts to psychoanalyze me HIGHLY offensive.
---------------------------------------
Tough ****.
You religious crazies always think that psychologists are wrong,
which is why you often have to be court-ordered to obtain treatment
for your mental disorders.

"You religious crazies"? So anyone who is a Christian and doesn't agree
with you regarding the best way of rearing children must be a "religious
crazy"? How open-minded of you.

I know my own reservations about psychologists come from three things.
First, there is my innate desire for privacy. For me to consider going to a
psychologist, the need would have to be great enough to overcome that
desire.

Second, I'm skeptical about how much the profession really knows what it's
doing. Certainly, when Freud and his contemporaries set up shop, they acted
like they knew a lot more than they really did. My impression is that they
were almost like medieval alchemists masquerading as modern chemists, using
the mantle of "science" to pretend that their guesses about human motivation
and behavior were established truth. Human behavior and human motivation
are very complex things, far more complex than any theoretical model could
ever fully account for, and I'm reluctant to trust someone who is likely to
try to classify my attitudes or behavors to fit whatever models he happens
to be using. And I would be even more reluctant to do so for my children,
when and assuming I have children.

And third, if I could not find a psychologist who I trusted to have beliefs
and values fairly close to my own, I would be afraid that differences in
beliefs and values would create a distorting effect. A person with biases
such as yours could not possibly look into my mind objectively because you
would be judging my Christian beliefs through a lens that cosiders them a
lie, and my belief that my parents' use of discipline was generally
reasonable through a lens that says it was abusive. I would not want to put
myself in the hands of such a person without a seriously compelling need,
and I would be even more reluctant to put my children into the hands of such
a person.

On the other hand, I'll agree that there are situations where the need for
help is serious enough to outweigh such reservations, and where refusing to
go to or send a child to a psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor (as the
situation requires) is an overreaction.

That would be true of one simple syllogistic logic, but not of
ALL logical tools employed at once as humans can do. And
that greater logic is NOT axiomatic, but intuitive. Logicians
have numerous examples of this meta-tool logic.

Would you care to give a few?
----------------------------------------
The process of picking axioms is one that brings ready agreement, but
does NOT require syllogism itself. That is the primary principle.
Corollaries are left to the student as homework.

Huh??? The process of picking axioms is, by definition, not a product (or
at least not solely a product) of deductive reasoning, since if it were,
they wouldn't be axioms. But I don't see what that has to do with your
assertions regarding there being other forms of logic. (Then again, I
imagine I follow a much tighter definition of the word "logic" than you do
because without a tight definition, almost anything can be claimed to be
"logical.")

Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning that is independent of
axioms.
However, it is also seriously vulnerable to error.
-------------------
It CAN be, but as I said above, it isn't when we use it together
in good faith.

What does people's using something together in good faith have to do with
its accuracy? Groups working together are quite capable of being wrong.

For example, the
Pythagoreans once believed that all numbers could be expressed as ratios
of integers because every number they could come up with could be
expressed as a ratio of integers (hence the term "rational numbers").
But
in time, people started running into numbers that couldn't be expressed
that way ("irrational numbers") and the belief based on inductive
reasoning
was proved wrong. Even so, inductive reasoning can be a useful source
of
axioms at times, especially when all that is important is that something
be
generally true.
----------------------------
He thought that was "pretty", but any group of people experimenting
in math would have told him that he couldn't count on everything being
rational without exchausting an infinite search or finding a better
reason than he had. Peer review puts the kibosh on such opining as
an excuse for process.

I didn't say Pythagorus. I said the Pythagoreans - who were, in fact, a
group. And, by the way, they could have examined an infinite number of
numbers - very possibly including every number they knew how to come up -
and still not found any irrational ones, because the set of rational numbers
is itself infinite. Indeed, there are an infinite number of rational
numbers between zero and one.

I would also point out that peer review processes are inherently incestuous
in nature. The peers doing the reviewing are in the same field as those who
are doing the original research and writing. Therefore, reviewers have a
strong incentive to avoid applying stricter standards of review to the
research of others than they want to see applied to their own research.
Further, if a few reviewers here and there do try to apply significantly
stricter standards, journals are under no obligation to continue useing
those people as reviewers. (Keep in mind that journals need to have
articles.) In effect, there is an implicit agreement, "We'll accept these
standards because if we got much stricter, it would be too hard for any of
us to publish much of anything."

For the purposes of supporting future research, such a system works well
(aside, perhaps, from the possibility that reviewers will apply different
standards to research that violates their preconceptions from what they do
to research that fits their preconceptions). When one researcher notices an
interesting pattern using valid methods, it is useful to get the findings
into the hands of other researchers quickly so they can start digging into
the issue more deeply. That way, more research can be done more quickly
than if researchers were forced to dig into issues more deeply themselves
before being allowed to publish.

The problem comes when the words "peer-reviewed research" start being used
as a magical incantation to imbue researchers' personal opinions (or the
opinions of others who hold views that are similar to those of the
researchers but stronger and more militant) with an aura of special
authority. From what I'm aware of (and Chris has certainly tried to make me
aware of the research he considered strongest when I've debated him in the
past), research into corporal punishment has only scratched the surface of
the full complexity of the issue. But a lot of people try to use that
research as if provided vastly stronger evidence and a much more complete
picture than it really does.

What concerns me about your claims of relying on "meta-tool logic" is
that
it may, in practice, merely be a smokescreen by which to claim a mantle
of
logic for whatever you happen to want to believe.
------------------------
We can always discuss it, and that puts it to task.
But the superstitious don't WANT to discuss THEIR presumptions
and the possibility of them being wrong!

I don't want to get into a big theological debate because I don't have time
for one. But I'm willing enough to discuss the practical reasons behind my
"presumptions."

If a method of so-called
logic has no rigor to it, there is no way of testing a person's claim
that what he says is logical to determine whether it is in fact logical.
--------------------
Rigor is fine INSIDE the province of any one tool, or if we developed
a persuasive unified theory. But absenting that, there is no such
requirement, except that we continue the process and all decide pro
tempore if we must do so at all at any point.

I'm wondering whether the point you're making here is really all that
different from the point I was making about the role of axioms. In the
areas where rigor cannot be applied, we believe we are correct, and we can
try to persuade each other regarding why we think we are, but we have no way
of proving our correctness objectively.

So if
you want me to accept this so-called "meta-tool logic" as logic, you'll
have to explain how it functions and how claims that something is
logical under it can be tested. (By the way, I could find no trace of
the
term "meta-tool logic" or "metatool logic" in a Google web search.)
------------------------------------
My term, there are others. Peer review mostly functions to question
assumptions that cannot be easily defended reasonably, and to suggest
better limits to the process, or what meets more people's criteria
of reasonableness.

More precisely, peer review is supposed to do two things. First, it is
supposed to verify that people's methodology is sound. And second, it is
supposed to verify whether conclusions that people claim are supported by
their research actually are supported by the research. (Researchers may
also express opinions regarding what they consider likely while making it
clear that those opinions go beyond what the research supports.)

A large part of your problem of trying to tell me how I felt as a
child
has to do with the fact that your axioms are so different from those
that I held as a child.
--------------
No problem, for someone perceptive they are eminently discussable.
That is called psychology.

It is called malpractice, if you were a psychologist and I were your
patient.
-------------------------------------
No. You're merely posturing disingenuously.

If a Christian went to a professional psychologist, and the psychologist
tried to tell him that he was delusional because God does not exist and his
parents lied to him when they told him that God does exist, would that not
be a violation of professional standards? That is the basis for my arguing
that your efforts to psychoanalyze my reactions to my parents were, in
essence, malpractice.

If parents adopt a "because I said so" parenting style and refuse to
listen to their children, the lines of communication go down. In my
family, the lines of communication stayed generally strong because
my parents explained the reasons for the rules they made and were
willing to listen - and, at times, to change their minds.
--------------------
Such one-sided authority and high-handedness is illegitimate, and
inherently abusive. However compelled a dictator might feel he is
to explain his abuse, it is still abuse.

So you say, but you keep treating the issue as something self-evident rather
than as something that you have to provide evidence or supporting arguments
for. I will readily agree that such one-sided authority can easily be
misused. But is the problem inherent in the authority itself, or is the
problem in the misuse of it?

Even when I didn't agree with my parents, I
trusted that they were doing what they believed was best for me in the
long
term. Why? Because my parents acted in a way that earned that trust.
-----------------------------------
Brainwashed. Stockholm Syndrome.

Do you have any idea how unscientific you are being here? What you've done
is find a way to pretend that any evidence that conflicts with your view
cannot possibly be valid. That makes it impossible for you to consider the
issue from anything even halfway resembling a genuinely scientific
perspective.

I've considered the Stockholm Syndrome possibility, but it simply does not
fit. I have no more of a personal stake in believing that my parents made
good choices than you do in believing that your parents made good choices.
My parents taught me what they believe but never forced me to profess belief
in something I did not believe, and I imagine yours did much the same with
you. If the way I was taught religion constitutes brainwashing, then the
way I was taught English, Science, and Math constitutes essentially the same
form of brainwashing. Whatever fear or resentment I might have felt in
connection with my parents' making and enforcing rules, I never regarded my
parents' rules as being as arbitrary as the 55 MPH speed limit was (at least
once it made the transition from emergency fuel conservation measure to
safety measure), and any fear and resentment I felt were of much the same
nature as with the speed limit. So I see no basis for believing that I am
suffering from anything resembling Stockholm Syndrome.

That doesn't mean there weren't conflicts. Nor does it mean that my
general trust in them invariably outweighed my desire to do something
I enjoyed. But it was a major reason why I maintained a generally
strong
relationship with my parents both through my childhood and ever since,
and why I take their opinions seriously today.
-----------------------------------
And Cognitive Dissonance.

You have provided no evidence to support that view beyond your own
assumptions and prejudices.

Trust must still be evalauated by
one indulging in it, it still cannot be blind trust. Parental
assertion that they "know better" than he does when there
is no logical reason to believe that registers as a deception
in the child's mind, and poisons the adult-child relationship.

No logical reason? How about the fact that the parents have lived so
much longer and have so much more experience?
------------------------------
Experience is conveyed as requested advice, or at most, offered without
being asked, but NOT coercion.

Certainly, coercion cannot convey experience. Coercion can, however, limit
children's opportunities to act in ways that parents' knowledge and
experience indicates are likely to harm them. Explanation and persuasion
are much better tools if they work, but that does not invalidate the idea
that coercion can be beneficial if explanation and persuasion fail.

Certainly, parents can throw away their status as people who "know
better" in a number of different ways. They can behave hypocritically,
thereby undermining their moral authority. They can refuse to provide
explanations, so their children have no way of establishing that yes,
what the parents suggest or decide generally does make sense. They
can use their power in ways that appear selfish. And so on.
-------------------------------
Or they can attempt foolishly and destructively to try to live a life
that is NOT THEIRS TO LIVE!

You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between
parents' not enforcing any limits except where criminal matters are
concerned and parents' trying to live their children's entire lives for
them.

The one area where children clearly do know more than their parents (and in
which children know beyond a doubt that they know more) is the children's
own interests and desires. So certainly, parents cannot try to take over
their children's entire lives without seriously undermining their
credibility.

But making and enforcing a few rules about what a child has to do or cannot
do in situations where more than just the child's current desires is at
stake is not the same thing as trying to take over a child's entire life.
You refuse to acknowledge that difference, and instead make it sound as if
any interference in the child's life were an attempt to take over the
child's entire life.

But if parents develop a track record of making decisions that have good
reasons behind them (even if the children are not always happy with the
decisions),
----------------
If not, then they are NOT "good" decisions, by definition!

Only by your definition. Trying to prove something by defining it as true
is about the weakest form of argument possible.

and of not using their power selfishly (and most children can
recognize that expecting them to do a fair share of the household chores
is not selfish in any unreasonable sense of the term, even if they might
be reluctant to admit it), then they can retain their status as people
who
at least generally know better. And the trust in such situations is
most
definitely not blind.
------------------------------------
Garbage, you're blathering around to try to sound reasonable, but
everything you're saying could be used to defend ANY petty venal
tyranny!! it is NOT compelling!

Oh? Try using my argument to defend a mother who stays home full time, yet
expects her children to do all of the work around the house.

Except that looking back, what looked like stealing often turns out not
to have been. It's more like a roommate who takes money that would
have been spent on beer an holds onto it to make sure it will be
available
to pay the rent, or like taking someone's keys so he won't drive while
intoxicated.
-------------------
People living their own lives are not "intoxicated", and one's own
opinion for their own life is no "drug". People who take their friend's
keys will lose that person as a friend if they don't appreciate it
in the morning. That person will toss them out of their life if it
is not so, and their usefulness to the other person's life will be
forever damaged beyond repair.

You're oversimplifying slightly. There are actually three basic
possibilities, with all sorts of shades in between. The person whose keys
were taken might, looking back, agree that taking his keys was the right
thing to do. He might not actally agree that it was the right thing to do,
but still recognize that the other person meant well and not hold it against
him. Or he might be offended, which would harm or possibly destroy the
relationship.

Those same basic possibilities also exist with the use of parental authority
to control certain aspects of children's lives. If parents exercise such
control, the parents' long-term relationship with their children will be
determined by how the children react to that control. But you refuse to
acknowledge that the result could be anything other than the third
possibility, except maybe as a result of Stockholm Syndrome.

The initial action, in and of itself, appears negative and might be
resented at the time. But looking back, a smart person will recognize
that it was for the best after all.
----------------------------
No, we''re not having a bit of it. This high0handedness has mostly
caused children to move as far as they can get from their parents
and to never speak to them or let them anywhere NEAR their own
grandchildren! This has become such an issue that the Supreme Court
of the US has said that grandparents have NO right to see their
grandchildren as minors.

I think you're grossly exaggerating. Yes, there are children who react as
you describe, especially in cases of abuse or borderline abuse or when
children grow up to adopt values radically different from those of their
parents. But my impression is that cases where children are alienated from
their parents just because the parents made them do a few things here and
prohibited them from doing a few things there are very rare, especially if
the parents spent a lot of positive time with their children.

That is why a lot of us who were spanked and otherwise punished do
have strong relationships with our parents.
--------------------
No, that is the psychological phenomenon called the Stockholm Syndrome.
People abused by their captors come to defend them and their causes
to avoid admitting to themselves the humilation of their own abuse at
their hands, the more vicious and humilating and prolonged the abuse,
the harder it is to deprogram them and dispel their neurosis.

To make that claim stick, you would have to define "Stockholm Syndrome" so
loosely as to make the term almost meaningless. Employees who empathize
with bosses who exercise more authority than would be ideal would be
suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, for example.

From doing some poking around on the web, a major element of Stockholm
Syndrome is that the victims feel like their lives (or at least their
safety) hinges on their identifying with their captors. If children are
afraid that they will be punished if they do not act like they approve of
their parents' beliefs and parenting techniques, I can certainly see how a
Stockholm Syndrome type problem could exist. Questioning is dangerous, and
appearing to agree is safe.

But that's not how things were in my family. I was free to question my
parents' choices, and even to argue with them (although they were willing to
invoke cloture when my filibusters became excessive). From what I've read,
that is NOT the kind of situation in which Stockholm Syndrome, at least as
it is normally defined, takes place. Nor did I regard myself as being held
in my family against my will - another key element in the Stockholm
Syndrome.

I think you're also confusing Stockholm Syndrome with normal human empathy.
Human beings do not have to be held captive by a person or threatened by the
person to empathize with that person. On the other hand, understanding
another person's background and motives is a major element in building
empathy, and the time children have to develop that kind of understanding of
their parents is enormous. So if children accept the fact that their
parents were generally trying about as well as they knew how, what is your
basis for viewing the children's acceptance as a mental disorder rather than
as normal human empathy even when parents make quite a few mistakes?

Even though we sometimes disagreed
with our parents' decisions at the time, and still do disagree with some
of them, we feel like they did a generally good job of looking after our
interests.
-----------------------------
And those for which this isn't true aren't alive, but that doesn't
speak at all to the crimes done to the damaged people who are now
wandering around hurt and confused and the criminals harming others
that these parents produced.

Huh??? Where does the "aren't alive" bit come from?

You are forgetting a critical element of the "ice floe" test: time.
When
a child decides whether or not to let a parent freeze to death, he will
be doing so with the maturity of an adult, and will be able to judge in
hindsight how good the parent's decisions were. For example, suppose,
as
a young boy, a child is spanked for wandering off from camp (to follow
your primitive tribal analogy) and the spanking causes him to stop doing
so, or at least to wander off a lot less often. A few years later,
another
child wanders off from camp and is killed. The boy, now a young man,
reevaluates how dangerous wandering off was and realizes that the
spanking might have saved his life. So even though the child originally
resented the punishment, it later becomes a reason to view the parent as
wise and someone who looked after his best interests.
--------------------------------------
No, the abuse is still abuse, a crime, and the effect is still
revenge formation. You just don't really seem to GET IT, that
abuse TRUMPS even good sense in producing a desire to kill, to
hurt and to wreak revenge on people that get in the way of this
adult child as whose emotional development has been halted by
abuse.

If you want to convince me, you need to supply evidence, not just ranting
based on your own personal opinions. And the evidence needs to be based on
more than just broad statistical averages, because there are a lot of
spanking parents whose parenting methods I agree are disproportionately
likely to produce the kind of results you're talking about who drive the
overall average for parents who spank down.

So Nathan, you admit that you did some of the things on the list of
childhood responses to punitive control. Note the confidence with which I
predicted that you did some of them. So did I. So did everyone subjected
to punitive control as children. These are not normal inevitable
childhood behaviors. They are understandable responses of humans of any
age to coercion and needn't be a part of anyone's childhood.

I fail to see how you can blithely assert that punitive control "by
and large works well" when every single child subjected to it exhibits at
least several of the undesirable side effects on the list. If win/win
cooperative methods of discipline resulted in such a list of side effects,
with at least some of them manifesting in every single child raised in
this manner, surely you would never accept the assertion that "by and
large" win/win methods work well, nor should you.

My response to your recent posts boils down to two main points. The
first is the above point that punitive control carries a host of
undesirable side effects and hence does not "by and large work well."
The second is that you fail to acknowledge that the disruption of the
harmony of the parent/child relationship which is a natural consequence of
a child failing to live up to agreements they have made, constitutes a
"consequence" in its own right. By ignoring this fact you then leave the
way open to arguing that there has to be a "consequence" and that only
punishment will suffice. Your reasoning is sound, but follows from a
faulty assumption.


Chris

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

This sort of language is completely uncalled for, Steve.

Are you *trying* to embarrass the rest of the antispank side with
your rude, obscene messages?

If not, then please leave the obscene flame posts to those who have
nothing else to offer. Antispankers have the momentum of history on our
side and virtually all of the available science on our side. We don't
need to fling abuse at those who disagree with us, because we have the
stronger position in this debate. Mudslinging is the last resort of those
who have run out of arguments. We haven't, so let's not.

Chris

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

LOL!

Doan

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

This sort of language is completely uncalled for, Steve.

Are you *trying* to embarrass the rest of the antispank side with
your rude, obscene messages?

If not, then please leave the obscene flame posts to those who have
nothing else to offer. Antispankers have the momentum of history on our
side and virtually all of the available science on our side. We don't
need to fling abuse at those who disagree with us, because we have the
stronger position in this debate. Mudslinging is the last resort of those
who have run out of arguments. We haven't, so let's not.

Chris

Good move, Chris. Now, let's see how the "never-spanked" Steven response.
Is he smarter than Kan0 or will he be just as stupid and response with
a "**** you, Chris"? Only time will tell. ;-)

Doan