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

Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 21st 07, 03:39 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!


I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

Of course not.

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

I DO IT, stupid.

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!


So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.



Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?


Exposing yours.


Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!


Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!


I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!


You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!


The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.

Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!


Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

0:-]
  #12  
Old February 21st 07, 07:12 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!

I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!

I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

Hahaha! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane!

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.

The proven LIAR here is YOU! ;-)



Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?

Exposing yours.


Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!


Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

Hihihi! How many people go over 65 MPH, Kane?

You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.

Hihihi! The proven liar and a coward (hide behind a nym) is YOU!


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!

I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!


You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.

They said the line had been crossed, did they not?


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Hihihi! The proven liar, coward and cheater is YOU, Kane9!

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!


The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, STUPID!


Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!


Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

Hihihi! "Bull****" coming out of your mouth again.

0:-]


  #13  
Old February 22nd 07, 03:14 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

That's why it has to be stopped.


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.



I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

You have NOT answered my question.

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And undefinable.

That is WHY we must stop this practice of spanking.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

Hahaha! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane!


No, I'm exposing you for the stupid liar you are, Doan.

Would you like it if when you went to buy a meal the waiter could tell
you only that the price was going to be, after you finished, what
reasonable people agree on.

Say $500....because chefs are people too, along with waiters, and they
are "reasonable."

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.

The proven LIAR here is YOU! ;-)


Nope. YOU are. And you lie when you make that claim.

You are dodging the truth. And lying to do it.

Hitting children according to what "reasonable people" agree on is
immoral. Because reasonable people DON'T AGREE. The standard is far
too obscure and unknown.



Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?

Exposing yours.

Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!


Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

Hihihi! How many people go over 65 MPH, Kane?


I didn't ask you how fast they go. I asked you if you know anyone that
disagrees on what the sign says, and what the DMV booklet says.

You can't answer straight because you know you were defeated on this
question long ago, Doan.

There IS no clear and precise definition...and we are talking about
hitting children here. That's stupid to continue doing in such
circumstances.


You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.

Hihihi! The proven liar and a coward (hide behind a nym) is YOU!


Then all your buddies that used nyms are cowards, Doan.

And you are because you use on as well. Unless of course you'd care to
discuss some personal information about YOU.


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!

I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!


You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.

They said the line had been crossed, did they not?


I asked you to show where they said it IS, not IF it had been crossed.

The jury was not asked to judge the moral issue.

They had an 'easy' case. Dead child. Battered, broken, and dead.

It's pretty obvious the line was crossed.

I asked you at what POINT was it crossed? When the child was finally
dead, or sometime before.

WHEN, under what circumstances, dodger.

**** you are so immoral it's hard to believe.


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Hihihi! The proven liar, coward and cheater is YOU, Kane9!


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

No, Doan, as long as you refuse to answer reasonable questions YOU are
proving yourself to be a liar.

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!


The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, STUPID!


And where would a reasonable person say the line was, precisely, Doan?

At death, the first mark that lasted more than say 48 hours...WHERE,
Doan.

Stop dodging and lying, you ****ing little coward.

Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!


Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

Hihihi! "Bull****" coming out of your mouth again.


Look at your post, Doan. You have refused to answer a simple question.
You dodge. You lay it off on "the jury."

I asked YOU to say where that line is, Doan, and you won't.

Precisely because you are immoral and a liar.



0:-]


  #14  
Old February 22nd 07, 07:37 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.



I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And undefinable.

That is WHY we must stop this practice of spanking.

So you stopped talking to your kids too? Where is the line, Kane?

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

Hahaha! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane!


No, I'm exposing you for the stupid liar you are, Doan.

The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU, Kane.

Would you like it if when you went to buy a meal the waiter could tell
you only that the price was going to be, after you finished, what
reasonable people agree on.

Hihihi! Are you this STUPID?

Say $500....because chefs are people too, along with waiters, and they
are "reasonable."

Sure! Hihihi!

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.

The proven LIAR here is YOU! ;-)


Nope. YOU are. And you lie when you make that claim.

Hihihi! I proved it!

You are dodging the truth. And lying to do it.

The proven liar here is YOU! You even STUPID enough to claim that
Alina is me! Hihihi!

Hitting children according to what "reasonable people" agree on is
immoral. Because reasonable people DON'T AGREE. The standard is far
too obscure and unknown.


Only to a stupid person like you!




Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?

Exposing yours.

Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!

Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

Hihihi! How many people go over 65 MPH, Kane?


I didn't ask you how fast they go. I asked you if you know anyone that
disagrees on what the sign says, and what the DMV booklet says.

Hihihi! But you are it will stop people from going over 65 MPH.

You can't answer straight because you know you were defeated on this
question long ago, Doan.

Hihihi! And you only go 15mph on the freeway right, Kane?

There IS no clear and precise definition...and we are talking about
hitting children here. That's stupid to continue doing in such
circumstances.

Reasonable standard, Kane. Don't be STUPID! Ooops! Too late for you. ;-)


You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.

Hihihi! The proven liar and a coward (hide behind a nym) is YOU!


Then all your buddies that used nyms are cowards, Doan.

So you are now admitting that you are a coward?

And you are because you use on as well. Unless of course you'd care to
discuss some personal information about YOU.

Hihihi! You are STUPID!


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!

I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!

You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.

They said the line had been crossed, did they not?


I asked you to show where they said it IS, not IF it had been crossed.

How do they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

The jury was not asked to judge the moral issue.

They were asked to determine if the line has been crossed.

They had an 'easy' case. Dead child. Battered, broken, and dead.

It's pretty obvious the line was crossed.

What line?

I asked you at what POINT was it crossed? When the child was finally
dead, or sometime before.

Hihihi! Nothing in life is that precise!

WHEN, under what circumstances, dodger.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

**** you are so immoral it's hard to believe.

Oops! "****" comimg out of your mouth again! How did it get there? ;-)


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?

Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Hihihi! The proven liar, coward and cheater is YOU, Kane9!


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Look in the mirror, STUPID!

No, Doan, as long as you refuse to answer reasonable questions YOU are
proving yourself to be a liar.

Hihihi! Define "reasonable", Kane. You seem to have a problem with
that concept! ;-0

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!

The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, STUPID!


And where would a reasonable person say the line was, precisely, Doan?

Where would a reasonable define verbal abuse is, Kane? So, does that
mean you would outlaw talking to you kids too?

At death, the first mark that lasted more than say 48 hours...WHERE,
Doan.

3.141592653945745232321311013239873841919194184978 1949194

Stop dodging and lying, you ****ing little coward.


Hihihi! The "****ing little coward" is you, Kane!


Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!

Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

Hihihi! "Bull****" coming out of your mouth again.


Look at your post, Doan. You have refused to answer a simple question.
You dodge. You lay it off on "the jury."

Hihihi! And you has "Bull****" coming out of your mouth.

I asked YOU to say where that line is, Doan, and you won't.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

Precisely because you are immoral and a liar.

Hihihi! Precisely because YOU ARE STUPID!



0:-]




  #15  
Old February 22nd 07, 07:51 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:-]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

....a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.



I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And undefinable.

That is WHY we must stop this practice of spanking.

So you stopped talking to your kids too? Where is the line, Kane?

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

Hahaha! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane!


No, I'm exposing you for the stupid liar you are, Doan.

The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU, Kane.

Would you like it if when you went to buy a meal the waiter could tell
you only that the price was going to be, after you finished, what
reasonable people agree on.

Hihihi! Are you this STUPID?

Say $500....because chefs are people too, along with waiters, and they
are "reasonable."

Sure! Hihihi!

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.

The proven LIAR here is YOU! ;-)


Nope. YOU are. And you lie when you make that claim.

Hihihi! I proved it!

You are dodging the truth. And lying to do it.

The proven liar here is YOU! You even STUPID enough to claim that
Alina is me! Hihihi!

Hitting children according to what "reasonable people" agree on is
immoral. Because reasonable people DON'T AGREE. The standard is far
too obscure and unknown.


Only to a stupid person like you!




Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?

Exposing yours.

Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!

Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

Hihihi! How many people go over 65 MPH, Kane?


I didn't ask you how fast they go. I asked you if you know anyone that
disagrees on what the sign says, and what the DMV booklet says.

Hihihi! But you are it will stop people from going over 65 MPH.

You can't answer straight because you know you were defeated on this
question long ago, Doan.

Hihihi! And you only go 15mph on the freeway right, Kane?

There IS no clear and precise definition...and we are talking about
hitting children here. That's stupid to continue doing in such
circumstances.

Reasonable standard, Kane. Don't be STUPID! Ooops! Too late for you. ;-)


You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.

Hihihi! The proven liar and a coward (hide behind a nym) is YOU!


Then all your buddies that used nyms are cowards, Doan.

So you are now admitting that you are a coward?

And you are because you use on as well. Unless of course you'd care to
discuss some personal information about YOU.

Hihihi! You are STUPID!


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!

I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!

You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.

They said the line had been crossed, did they not?


I asked you to show where they said it IS, not IF it had been crossed.

How do they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

The jury was not asked to judge the moral issue.

They were asked to determine if the line has been crossed.

They had an 'easy' case. Dead child. Battered, broken, and dead.

It's pretty obvious the line was crossed.

What line?

I asked you at what POINT was it crossed? When the child was finally
dead, or sometime before.

Hihihi! Nothing in life is that precise!

WHEN, under what circumstances, dodger.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

**** you are so immoral it's hard to believe.

Oops! "****" comimg out of your mouth again! How did it get there? ;-)


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?

Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Hihihi! The proven liar, coward and cheater is YOU, Kane9!


Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Look in the mirror, STUPID!

No, Doan, as long as you refuse to answer reasonable questions YOU are
proving yourself to be a liar.

Hihihi! Define "reasonable", Kane. You seem to have a problem with
that concept! ;-0

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!

The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, STUPID!


And where would a reasonable person say the line was, precisely, Doan?

Where would a reasonable define verbal abuse is, Kane? So, does that
mean you would outlaw talking to you kids too?

At death, the first mark that lasted more than say 48 hours...WHERE,
Doan.

3.14159265394574523232131101323987384191919418497 81949194

Stop dodging and lying, you ****ing little coward.


Hihihi! The "****ing little coward" is you, Kane!


Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!

Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

Hihihi! "Bull****" coming out of your mouth again.


Look at your post, Doan. You have refused to answer a simple question.
You dodge. You lay it off on "the jury."

Hihihi! And you has "Bull****" coming out of your mouth.

I asked YOU to say where that line is, Doan, and you won't.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

Precisely because you are immoral and a liar.

Hihihi! Precisely because YOU ARE STUPID!


Well, you managed to do a lot of babbling and failed to answer the
question.

I didn't ask if the jury had said the line was crossed. I asked YOU to
show where they showed the line WAS.

At what point in the discipline (what the parent's claimed they were
doing by religious mandate) did it cross over into abuse?

The other point is forever laughable.

You compare talking to a child to spanking a child. As though they
were the same, because yelling and name calling is abusive.

No, Doan. Yelling and name calling is abusive as spanking is abusive.

If you wish to make a comparison to NON-SPANKING and "talking to your
child" as being abusive, you can't use yelling and name calling.

The correct analogy would be "yelling and name calling is to talking
to your child" as "spanking is to waving your hand."

Talking is no more harmful to your child than waving your hand in the
air.

What you say, and how you say it, and what you use that hand to do,
are the critical issues for comparison, stupid.

You have let your own dishonesty color your thinking for so many years
you are buried under a pile of **** you think is thinking when it is
nothing but errors of thinking.

Kane









0:-]




  #16  
Old February 22nd 07, 08:00 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday


Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!

That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.

Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!

Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?

What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

They did in this case, STUPID!

The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!

I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.



I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?

Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?

The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!

You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!

R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?

Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!

Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And undefinable.

That is WHY we must stop this practice of spanking.

So you stopped talking to your kids too? Where is the line, Kane?

There is no such thing as a "reasonable person" when it comes to
spanking, stupid.

Hahaha! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane!

No, I'm exposing you for the stupid liar you are, Doan.

The proven STUPID LIAR is YOU, Kane.

Would you like it if when you went to buy a meal the waiter could tell
you only that the price was going to be, after you finished, what
reasonable people agree on.

Hihihi! Are you this STUPID?

Say $500....because chefs are people too, along with waiters, and they
are "reasonable."

Sure! Hihihi!

I know that. And I know YOU know that. Stop with the lying games.

The proven LIAR here is YOU! ;-)

Nope. YOU are. And you lie when you make that claim.

Hihihi! I proved it!

You are dodging the truth. And lying to do it.

The proven liar here is YOU! You even STUPID enough to claim that
Alina is me! Hihihi!

Hitting children according to what "reasonable people" agree on is
immoral. Because reasonable people DON'T AGREE. The standard is far
too obscure and unknown.


Only to a stupid person like you!




Don't know how to read, STUPID "never-spanked" boy?

Apparently "too-often-spanked screeching hysterical boy" you don't
know how to read or think.

Hihihi! Exposing your STUPIDITY again, Kane?

Exposing yours.

Hihihi! Your STUPIDITY is showing!

Well, how many people do you know that would disagree with a sign
saying 65 mph is the speed limit, and how many can you show me that
agree with something as fallible and foggy as 'reasonable person
standard,' in a debate OR a court case over what is and is not safe
discipline?

Hihihi! How many people go over 65 MPH, Kane?

I didn't ask you how fast they go. I asked you if you know anyone that
disagrees on what the sign says, and what the DMV booklet says.

Hihihi! But you are it will stop people from going over 65 MPH.

You can't answer straight because you know you were defeated on this
question long ago, Doan.

Hihihi! And you only go 15mph on the freeway right, Kane?

There IS no clear and precise definition...and we are talking about
hitting children here. That's stupid to continue doing in such
circumstances.

Reasonable standard, Kane. Don't be STUPID! Ooops! Too late for you. ;-)


You dodged the case I mentioned concerning the city councilman, Doan.
That SHOWS you are a liar. And a coward.

Hihihi! The proven liar and a coward (hide behind a nym) is YOU!

Then all your buddies that used nyms are cowards, Doan.

So you are now admitting that you are a coward?

And you are because you use on as well. Unless of course you'd care to
discuss some personal information about YOU.

Hihihi! You are STUPID!


Show where the jury established the position of "the line," Doan.

By their verdict, STUPID!

I didn't say how, I said "where," Doan.

Hihihi! Ask the jury, STUPID!

You claim the jury supports YOUR position...you ask them and produce
something besides your silly cowardly dancing away from the truth.

They said the line had been crossed, did they not?

I asked you to show where they said it IS, not IF it had been crossed.

How do they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

The jury was not asked to judge the moral issue.

They were asked to determine if the line has been crossed.

They had an 'easy' case. Dead child. Battered, broken, and dead.

It's pretty obvious the line was crossed.

What line?

I asked you at what POINT was it crossed? When the child was finally
dead, or sometime before.

Hihihi! Nothing in life is that precise!

WHEN, under what circumstances, dodger.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

**** you are so immoral it's hard to believe.

Oops! "****" comimg out of your mouth again! How did it get there? ;-)


Still can't read and don't want to learn? R RRRR R R R

Still STUPID and a liar, Kane?

Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Hihihi! The proven liar, coward and cheater is YOU, Kane9!

Still dodging rather than answering the questions asked, Doan? You are
a coward, and a cheat.

Look in the mirror, STUPID!

No, Doan, as long as you refuse to answer reasonable questions YOU are
proving yourself to be a liar.

Hihihi! Define "reasonable", Kane. You seem to have a problem with
that concept! ;-0

No show what the jury said about the positon of "the line," Doan.

It has been crossed, STUPID!

The question pertains to knowing where it is for the next person. Take
the results from this or any other trial and show where there IS a
consistent line as clear and easily defined as the one for speed
limits, Doan.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, STUPID!

And where would a reasonable person say the line was, precisely, Doan?

Where would a reasonable define verbal abuse is, Kane? So, does that
mean you would outlaw talking to you kids too?

At death, the first mark that lasted more than say 48 hours...WHERE,
Doan.

3.14159265394574523232131101323987384191919418497 81949194

Stop dodging and lying, you ****ing little coward.


Hihihi! The "****ing little coward" is you, Kane!


Your games just show your willingness to lie.

The proven LIAR is YOU! Hihihi!

Bull****, little hysterical cowardly lying cheat.

Hihihi! "Bull****" coming out of your mouth again.

Look at your post, Doan. You have refused to answer a simple question.
You dodge. You lay it off on "the jury."

Hihihi! And you has "Bull****" coming out of your mouth.

I asked YOU to say where that line is, Doan, and you won't.

Reasonable standard, STUPID!

Precisely because you are immoral and a liar.

Hihihi! Precisely because YOU ARE STUPID!


Well, you managed to do a lot of babbling and failed to answer the
question.

I didn't ask if the jury had said the line was crossed. I asked YOU to
show where they showed the line WAS.

At what point in the discipline (what the parent's claimed they were
doing by religious mandate) did it cross over into abuse?

The other point is forever laughable.

You compare talking to a child to spanking a child. As though they
were the same, because yelling and name calling is abusive.

No, Doan. Yelling and name calling is abusive as spanking is abusive.

If you wish to make a comparison to NON-SPANKING and "talking to your
child" as being abusive, you can't use yelling and name calling.

The correct analogy would be "yelling and name calling is to talking
to your child" as "spanking is to waving your hand."

Talking is no more harmful to your child than waving your hand in the
air.

What you say, and how you say it, and what you use that hand to do,
are the critical issues for comparison, stupid.

You have let your own dishonesty color your thinking for so many years
you are buried under a pile of **** you think is thinking when it is
nothing but errors of thinking.

Kane









0:-]






  #17  
Old February 23rd 07, 04:22 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Doan shows his stupidity yet again....was ... Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....


Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

....California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

*





Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:


...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:


On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:


When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.


An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.


Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.


Yup! The jury had spoken!


And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.


The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is


Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?


"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."


Learn to read, STUPID!


I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?


What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.


They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.


Yup! And it has been crossed!


Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?


Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!


In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.


The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.


Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.


The proven liar here is YOU!


And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.


Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?


It's what counted, STUPID!


That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.


Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!


The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.


How did they established it has been crossed?


You haven't shown it because you can't.


Neither did they.


If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.


Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?


The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.


Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.


So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?


That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!


YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.


The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?


That's why it has to be stopped.


Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.


The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.


Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?


Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???


R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.


Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.


I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?


They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?


How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!


Of course not.


If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.


Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?


Each case is different, each draws the line differently.


Reasonable standard!


Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.


Only to a STUPID person like you.


You have NOT answered my question.


You are TOO STUPID!


Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?


How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?


I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.


So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.


Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.


I DO IT, stupid.


YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.


But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)


and
it has been crossed.


Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R


That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!


So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?


"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.


Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.


In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?


"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.


Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And



  #18  
Old February 23rd 07, 05:04 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Firemonkey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Doan shows his stupidity yet again....was ... Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday




Sorry Kane but can you provide proof that Doan ever attended school in
the first place?


On Feb 23, 9:22 am, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....

Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1070395.story?...

...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

* Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:


...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:


On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:


When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.


An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.


Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.


Yup! The jury had spoken!


And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.


The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is


Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?


"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."


Learn to read, STUPID!


I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?


What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.


They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.


Yup! And it has been crossed!


Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?


Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!


In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.


The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.


Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.


The proven liar here is YOU!


And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.


Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?


It's what counted, STUPID!


That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.


Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!


The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.


How did they established it has been crossed?


You haven't shown it because you can't.


Neither did they.


If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.


Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?


The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.


Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.


So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?


That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!


YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.


The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?


That's why it has to be stopped.


Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.


The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.


Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?


Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???


R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.


Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.


I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?


They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?


How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!


Of course not.


If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.


Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?


Each case is different, each draws the line differently.


Reasonable standard!


Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.


Only to a STUPID person like you.


You have NOT answered my question.


You are TOO STUPID!


Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?


How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?


I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.


So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.


Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.


I DO IT, stupid.


YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.


But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)


and
it has been crossed.


Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R


That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!


So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?


"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.


Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.


In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?


"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.


Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And



  #19  
Old February 23rd 07, 07:09 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Kane shows his stupidity yet again....was ... Parents Convictedon Dead Son's Birthday


Hihihi! REASONABLE PERSON standard, STUPID! So tell me, Kane, how
did the juries know the line has been crossed without knowing where
the line is?

Doan


On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....


Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

*





Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:


...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:


On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:


When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.


An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.


Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.


Yup! The jury had spoken!


And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.


The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is


Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?


"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."


Learn to read, STUPID!


I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?


What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.


They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.


Yup! And it has been crossed!


Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?


Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!


In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.


The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.


Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.


The proven liar here is YOU!


And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.


Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?


It's what counted, STUPID!


That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.


Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!


The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.


How did they established it has been crossed?


You haven't shown it because you can't.


Neither did they.


If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.


Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?


The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.


Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.


So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?


That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!


YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.


The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?


That's why it has to be stopped.


Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?


In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.


The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!


It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.


Non sequitor!


I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?


Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???


R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.


Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.


I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?


They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?


Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?


How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!


Of course not.


If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?


The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.


Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?


Each case is different, each draws the line differently.


Reasonable standard!


Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.


Only to a STUPID person like you.


You have NOT answered my question.


You are TOO STUPID!


Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?


How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?


I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.


So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.


Hahaha! You are funny!


You are stupid.


I DO IT, stupid.


YOU ARE STUPID!


R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.


But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)


and
it has been crossed.


Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R


That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!


So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?


"Reasonable person" standard!


So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.


Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?


Depends on the kind of case, Doan.


In this case?


Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?


"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!


Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.


Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!


Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And





  #20  
Old February 23rd 07, 10:39 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Kane shows his stupidity yet again....was ... Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On Feb 23, 10:09 am, Doan wrote:
Hihihi! REASONABLE PERSON standard, STUPID!


In other words, you can't answer the question, and neither could a
"reasonable person," because there are no "standards" among people on
this issue...there ARE no reasonable persons on the issue of spanking,
Doan and you know it, being one of the unreasonable ones yourself.

Give us another "Hihihi!" stupid.

So tell me,


I asked YOU to tell US, Doan. Don't ask me to answer the question I
asked YOU.

Kane, how
did the juries know the line has been crossed without knowing where
the line is?


They don't, stupid. That is the point.

A claim does not make a fact. No matter how loud you yell or stomp
your little foot, child.


Doan


You can keep up the unethical circular argument, Doan....it had to be
there because they said it was by saying "it" had been crossed, but
you have not and cannot PROVE where that line is any more than they
can.

When you scream "stupid," be sure you are looking in that mirror you
are so fond of.

08-)

Do you decide a fact by jury poll, Doan?

What happened to science?

A jury gives a verdict, not a "truth," Stupid.

Now were IS that line, Doan? YOU SHOW US WHERE IT IS. Not try to
slough off responsibility.

YOU claimed parents know where it is. Well if they do, then YOU should
be able to describe it, by your own "jury claim" logic, little boy.

Kane

On 23 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote


Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....


Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....


Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1070395.story?...


...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.


The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.


Other lawyers aren't so sure.


John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.


At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."


Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.


"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.


"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."


No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.


Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.


She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."


"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."


Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.


Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.


But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.


"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."


*


Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)


On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:


...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:


On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:


On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:


When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.


An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.


Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.


Yup! The jury had spoken!


And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.


The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is


Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?


"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."


Learn to read, STUPID!


I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?


What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!


The line, stupid.


They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!


That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.


Yup! And it has been crossed!


Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?


Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!


In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.


The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.


Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.


Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.


Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.


The proven liar here is YOU!


And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.


Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?


Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.


Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!


Yep. So what, Doan?


It's what counted, STUPID!


That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.


Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!


The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.


How did they established it has been crossed?


You haven't shown it because you can't.


Neither did they.


If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.


Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?


The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.


Reasonable standard, Kane!


I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.


So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?


What are you trying to say, stupid?


That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!


YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.


They did in this case, STUPID!


The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.


The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?


That's why it has to be stopped.


Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people


...

read more »



 




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
For those who claim I always give references for Dan... Daycare lying to parents Greegor Foster Parents 1 January 25th 07 01:06 AM
Teenagers faced with spankings fistoffury Spanking 165 December 20th 06 07:11 PM
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.