Doan's phony offer to "debate"

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Doan

On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really up
to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

One thing I will say for him though -- his behavior is consistent
through the years. Anyone who has been on this ng for any length of
time knows exactly what to expect from him. You've described his
behavior perfectly!

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

I read through this post and previous posts in the thread. I smiled,
rolled my eyes, and thought -- with as many years as I have been reading
Doan's posts I could predict his responses in my sleep.

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

Not only is Doan unable to support his claims, he consistently
misinterprets research methodology and comes up with some conclusion
that apparently makes sense to him but is totally in error. When the
error is pointed out by several individuals, he continues to repeat the
error, over and over, for years.

I think there are two problems:

One, Doan truly doesn't know how to read and interpret a research study,
nor does he understand research, so he pulls a sentence or idea out of
context in a single study. He then puts his twist on the idea that fits
what he believes, and thinks he has presented truth or is engaging in
logical debate.

Two, I think there are times when Doan does understand a study and is
disturbed by the results. He then searches desperately for some way to
twist the results to fit his personal beliefs.

Either way, Doan doesn't debate, but he certainly does appear to enjoy
entertaining "himself and his biases."

LaVonne

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

Doan,

How exactly would you like members of the ng to provide you with
studies? Mail them to your home address? Deliver them in person to
your doorstep? Perhaps fax them to you at a publically disclosed fax
number you would like to provide on the ng?

I gave you a reference. Yes, you may have to go to the library yet
again. People who read, discuss, and debate research often visit libraries.

LaVonne


Doan wrote:

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Doan

On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:


I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:44:01 -0700, Doan wrote:


And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study.

Your demand that I produce the Embry study was a ploy by you first to
get out of the trap you dug for yourself over The Question, then to
cover up that you didn't have the study. It wasn't MY challenge to
debate Embry..but yours, and I said I would as soon as you showed
proof you had it. Instead of giving proof you dribblied, and you asked
ME to provide proof I had it.

Same old Droanator. Same ol same ol.

Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Shall I have to go to the archives to prove yet again how unethical
you are?

Funny, I offerred to debate you if you would produce proof you had the
study. You refused to.

That's nice. That's Doan, again and again. A phony.

And try to remember, before you fomet yet another lie.....your posts
are archived and I'll be very very happy indeed to post the relevant
ones that show you used the study to dodge The Question, then refused
to even debate the study by refusing to prove you had it.

I NEVER INSTIGATED THE DEBATE ON THE EMBRY STUDY, so I had zero need
to respond to your demand I produce it. YOU made the challenge. YOU
provide the proof you have it. That was the rule then, and it hasn't
changed.

You didn't produce your proof.

Simple as that.

You also refused to prove it within the time frame, a very long one,
that I offerred you, and you either got a friend to whore for you and
ask for it from me, or you put a sock on your hand and played yet
another of your silly games.

Gosh I wonder where little Alina, whose name is so close to a nun that
works in a building closely affiliated with you, Aline?

She was soooo interested in the study she asked you for it:

"The second case in which Dodson says it's ok to spank, is when you
can't let natural consecuences of his actions teach him, because the
child's physical integrity would be in danger. Example: to prevent him
from running into the street. I would love to disagree with him on
that one too, and that is where my interest on the Embry study
originated.

Alina."

The she said you asked for an envelope to be sent to you to send the
study to her. Very odd of you, Doan. Any particular reason you would
ask her for an envelope?

Then later she said...and not much later at that, all in the same
month .... that she just hadn't gotten around to it yet.

Even more interesting.

And since that last post about not getting around to it...ONE post.
just one to someone posting from England in spanish, which she
answered in english, with a one liner.

Gosh, Droaner, seems either you are not up to spanish or Alina is
terribly polite.

Why not send her the study she asked for without a demand for an
envelope, Droanator?

You are a phony. Not even a good one. You are clumsy boy child still
smarting from the whacks given you as a child.

And you haven't come up with a new argument in three years as far as I
can see. Same old dodging crap.

That spanking stuff damaged you Doan, as is plain to see.

Told you there was a risk. R R R R R

Doan

Yes, go to the library. Find the study LaVonne mentioned. Try to
behave like an honorable man for once.

Tah, dummy.

Kane

On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his
illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through
poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly
making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the
point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to
emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent
disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all
comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise
their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out
of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come
up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch
to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is
to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as
well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit
around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here
to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is
here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:11:13 -0500, Carlson LaVonne
wrote:



Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really
up
to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.

May I say, R R R R R ...

Doan? Debate?

Are you the last of those that think he has any honor at all?

He played with The Question by throwing in the Embry study when he was
stuck and knew I had him. Then when I agreed on the condition he come
up with a copy of the study himself, he immediately descended in to
his usuall weasel ways demanding I produce proof I had it.

In other words, as usual, when challenged he has to play his little
ego games.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

One thing I will say for him though -- his behavior is consistent
through the years.

So was Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Doesn't make them honorable.

Anyone who has been on this ng for any length of
time knows exactly what to expect from him. You've described his
behavior perfectly!

Yep. If you actually make a point he can't refute he'll go to "show
that non spanking has been a rigorously studied as spanking" or quote
yet again the Cargo Cult article not noticing it's a perfect
description of spanking compulsives...who think that because children
obey that they are learning anything other than to obey....and all the
little games that come with fear of pain.

In fact, he is a spanking poster child himself.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his
illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

I read through this post and previous posts in the thread. I smiled,
rolled my eyes, and thought -- with as many years as I have been
reading
Doan's posts I could predict his responses in my sleep.

Unless I see a major change in his behavior, fat chance, he's of
little interest to me. He's been disproven so many times, and refused
to accept it, that he IS that poster child I mentioned. In denial.

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through
poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly
making
claims he is unable to support.

Not only is Doan unable to support his claims, he consistently
misinterprets research methodology and comes up with some conclusion
that apparently makes sense to him but is totally in error. When the
error is pointed out by several individuals, he continues to repeat
the
error, over and over, for years.

Yes. Makes for nearly as much entertainment as visiting the nocturnal
exhibit at the zoo, in the daytime, high noon.

I think there are two problems:

One, Doan truly doesn't know how to read and interpret a research
study,
nor does he understand research, so he pulls a sentence or idea out
of
context in a single study. He then puts his twist on the idea that
fits
what he believes, and thinks he has presented truth or is engaging in
logical debate.

It's supposed to wear us down you know. Like a moody child on the play
ground that won't let anyone else have the bat until he has finally
hit the ball...of course...with NO skill at baseball whatsoever.

We, like the other children in the example, have to go off and have
our own game without him. He hates that.

Two, I think there are times when Doan does understand a study and is
disturbed by the results. He then searches desperately for some way
to
twist the results to fit his personal beliefs.

Look at the simple question I asked. How does one find the line of
demarkation between safe CP and injurious CP.

Had he the least sense of honor he would have admitted it cannot be
answered, hence my claim that parents being encouraged to "make up
their own mind" are being told, by him, that they know something that
is unknowable.

Either way, Doan doesn't debate, but he certainly does appear to
enjoy
entertaining "himself and his biases."

I think he's a fake in that area just as much if not more than in his
"debate." At some level he knows perfectly well he has been defeated
again and again here, but cannot face it. Cannot let himself face it.

It's the spanked child symptom of overcontrolling. Compulsive and
stupid, and gets people killed. I hope he isn't accident prone.

LaVonne

Kane



He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the
point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to
emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent
disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all
comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise
their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out
of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come
up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch
to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is
to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as
well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit
around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here
to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is
here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

Doan,

How exactly would you like members of the ng to provide you with
studies?

A good and quick way is to point to a URL. Didn't I just do that
with the latest study? :-)

Mail them to your home address?

This is a good alternative. I am even willing to pay the postage! ;-)

Deliver them in person to
your doorstep?

Impratical! ;-)

Perhaps fax them to you at a publically disclosed fax
number you would like to provide on the ng?

You can also use email. That is what your little friend, Kane0, claimed
he did with the Embry study. :-)

I gave you a reference. Yes, you may have to go to the library yet
again. People who read, discuss, and debate research often visit libraries.

LOL! More hoops to jump! Can you at least tell me what the sample size
is?

Doan

LaVonne


Doan wrote:

And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Doan

On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:


I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". She was the one that made
the challenge. Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very
bad LIAR! ;-)

Doan

On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Yes he did ask me if I could provide him a copy of the Power and
Chapieski study. I have no way of providing him with a copy of this
study. I posted a reference my original response and I posted the
reference again when he asked for a copy of the study. It's really up
to Doan to locate the study through the reference I provided -- if he
truly wants to debate, that is.

So was it YOU who offered to debate?

Doan

Doan wrote in message ...
And my bet is, just like you with the Embry Study, she will not dare
to produce the Power & Chapiesky study. Shall I have to go to
the library again? ;-)

Well, seeing as you were unable to aquire the Embry report I have and
had and you proved you lacked by referring to information not included
in the report, I'd say no, you don't need to go to the library. Just
continue to shuffle and dodge and lie.

We're accustomed to it in all your postings over the years.


Doan

Kane



On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote:

I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the
Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy.

Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and
probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply
one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition.

A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has
done here for years in this newsgroup.

He will NOT stick to the point.

He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic
and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual
dodge.

He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was
snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic)

Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor
choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making
claims he is unable to support.

He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point
at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse.

Nor has anyone else been able to define this.

He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions
(a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a
trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many
stinking years.

He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the
police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining
with CP.

And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled.

In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers,
but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and
neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their
children.

In other words, he's a phony.

We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of
childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children.

Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated
gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up
with an example.

Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as
children abound in history.

All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to
another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to
demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well
and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove
birds have feathers.

That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around
the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any
fundamental point but to play at diverson.

Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to
"debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here
to entertain himself and his biases.

Kane