David Moore, step DOWN ...

"0:-" wrote in message
news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of
an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of
course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the
subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read
the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference
you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not
debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of
SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you
educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or
its speciality subdivisions.

AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.

To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!

You won what I agreed with?

Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. In fact you
have taken sides I never dreamed existed. When you figure out what you
believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to
me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather!

"0:-" wrote in message
news:dZWdnWxaW92EZiHYnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
freedom wrote:

"The character's name was actually Tommy Flanagan, and he would tell
outrageous, unbelievable lies to make himself sound important."

Sound like anyone we know?

It's actually ironic that Ken, of all people, brings this up. A few
years
back I was contacted by the adult daughter of a man who was duped into
using Ken's services. She told me that they met him at the airport, and
that his personality was exactly like this particular character.

Oh yeah BULL**** Moore. More CRAP you make up in that deluded mind of
yours.

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of
an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of
course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the
subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read
the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference
you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not
debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of
SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you
educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or
its speciality subdivisions.
AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.
To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!
You won what I agreed with?

Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now.

No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have
speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification.

Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged.

I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken.

Exploring various possibilities about using the dolls. Instead of
discussing those speculations with me, you have simply taken the stand
that because I don't agree with you in one part (a patent lie, by the
way...I said I don't accept the use of the dolls for investigating if
abuse has taken place) my other speculations are null and void.

And odd thing to do about speculation.

In fact you
have taken sides I never dreamed existed.

My guess is that you are ignorant of a lot, Ken. By careful cultivation
of avoidance of facts and their implications.

When you figure out what you
believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to
me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather!

I posted that to you repeatedly.

You have reduced the argument, your argument now, simply to lying.

Think the subject is so long behind us either by time or volume that I
can't post my prior comments here that prove you are lying about what I
"believe" about the SAC dolls?

And I certainly am not wasting your time. You keep responding.

It time is being wasted, you are choosing to.

I have no power to waste yours, only mine.

And I don't.

Ah ah ah, Ken.

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated

And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the
newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of.

Tsk.

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of
an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of
course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the
subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read
the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference
you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not
debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of
SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you
educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or
its speciality subdivisions.
AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.
To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!
You won what I agreed with?

Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now.

No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have
speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification.

Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged.

I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken.

Exploring various possibilities about using the dolls. Instead of
discussing those speculations with me, you have simply taken the stand
that because I don't agree with you in one part (a patent lie, by the
way...I said I don't accept the use of the dolls for investigating if
abuse has taken place) my other speculations are null and void.

And odd thing to do about speculation.

In fact you
have taken sides I never dreamed existed.

My guess is that you are ignorant of a lot, Ken. By careful cultivation
of avoidance of facts and their implications.

When you figure out what you
believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to
me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather!

I posted that to you repeatedly.

You have reduced the argument, your argument now, simply to lying.

Think the subject is so long behind us either by time or volume that I
can't post my prior comments here that prove you are lying about what I
"believe" about the SAC dolls?

And I certainly am not wasting your time. You keep responding.

It time is being wasted, you are choosing to.

I have no power to waste yours, only mine.

And I don't.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnY34prqO3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that
of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which
is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of
education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you
chose to not read the information I offered and of course without
a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is
why we have not debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use
of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until
you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association
or its speciality subdivisions.
AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.
To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!
You won what I agreed with?

Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now.

No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have
speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification.

Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged.

I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken.

No Kane you have taken the PRO- SAC dolls side, the anti-SAC dolls side and
everything orbiting around it.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Ah ah ah, Ken.

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated

And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the
newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of.


Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to
CALL UP THE RESERVES!

MOORE!!!!!

HELP!!!!

KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT!

MOORE COME HELP KANE!!!

EMERGENCY!!

KANE NEEDS HELP!

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnY34prqO3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of
the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that
of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which
is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of
education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you
chose to not read the information I offered and of course without
a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is
why we have not debated it.
And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use
of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until
you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it.
Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess
sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR
scientifically validated.
The issue isn't in the question you ask.
I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted
in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its
specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association
or its speciality subdivisions.
AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task.
To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually
abused. BONG!!!! I win!
You won what I agreed with?
Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now.
No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have
speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification.

Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged.

I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken.

No Kane you have taken the PRO- SAC dolls side, the anti-SAC dolls side and
everything orbiting around it.


Aborting what I actually said, and in addition not providing proof by
quotation means you have an opinion, or, and more likely, you are lying.

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Ah ah ah, Ken.

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated

And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the
newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of.


Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to
CALL UP THE RESERVES!

Don't tell me you are afraid of Moore?

Hell the last time he was here and I addressed him on the issue of Cuba
I basically aced him out.

Turned what might have been a claim into his admission of an impasse.


MOORE!!!!!

HELP!!!!

KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT!

Then you are afraid of him.


MOORE COME HELP KANE!!!

EMERGENCY!!

KANE NEEDS HELP!


Come on Ken, no one's going to believe that when you don't answer
questions, and in desperation try weasel games like this to dodge.

You have not refuted a single claim I've made, and on those things I'm
not claiming but simply exploring issues with you, you are making
something of an ass of yourself.

If Moore and I are such buddies how come he didn't come 'help' me when
you called him, or when I'm supposed to have by putting back the group
addy that YOU STARTED THE THREAD WITH, eh?

Ken, you are such a transparent phony.

0:-]

freedom wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, "krp" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Ah ah ah, Ken.

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated

And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the
newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of.

Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to
CALL UP THE RESERVES!

MOORE!!!!!

HELP!!!!

KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT!

MOORE COME HELP KANE!!!

EMERGENCY!!

KANE NEEDS HELP!

On the contrary, it looks like he's doing a great job of kicking your fat
ass all by himself.

He's so stupid that when he wins one, he keeps ranting on thus drawing
attention to the possibility his accuser can't irrefutably prove the point.

He's still ranting that I have to 'admit' he was in Cuba.....r r r r r

Of course arguing with something I didn't claim and nullified for him,
to avoid admitting that yes, he could have posted from there.

Get's a freebie, drops it. Shows he was likely lying.

Real smart cookie.

But a winner. Along with Greg...because as you see the stated purpose of
this ng, as google lists it, is not being pursued while Ken and Greg get
all the attention.

Fascinating.

My bet is Ken congratulates himself when a group falls apart because he
intruded on it.

Amazing.




http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBRb5R6Qu6zDezw650EQLGmACeKuh6RRq89ELTpkv+MOA6NS C9qzAAoMex
yS51i+RUSZ8IxJ0MFvmKjZ5M
=rT6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----