R R R R R R R ... too bad, dummies -- TOADJAH IT WAS COMING.

Yah just couldn't stop wallopin' on your kids for moral and intelligent
reasons, of course, you puckering Neatherthals.

Even if she loses, you stupid thugs, it's one more nail in your
puckering brutal assault of children disguised by the a self indulgent
claim of "love" for your children while you assault them. R R R R R

We're gonna getcha stupid.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...htm?source=rss


Posted on Thu, Jan. 18, 2007


No-spank bill on way

By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question
that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank
their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking
children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become
the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking
their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for
some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best
-- but Lieber begs to differ.

``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years
old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a
6-month-old or a newborn?''

The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she
added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment,
smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a
misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000,
although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time
offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.

The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally
introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom
believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face
questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some
legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny
government.''

``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who
said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has
no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we
should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30
minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same
lines.''

One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way
to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban
makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the
supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?

``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going
to whack him. He just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy
Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think
instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of
disciplining and redirecting their children.''

Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal
expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said
that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the
United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden
was the first, in 1979.

Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so
the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.

``Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their
own size?'' asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San
Francisco Law School. ``Everyone in the state is protected from
physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and
spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define
that as physical violence.''

It's unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after
all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3
aren't capable of reporting it.

Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused
are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and
Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or
simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either
case, said Lieber, the law ``would allow people who view a beating to
say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''

Experts in child psychology disagree over whether spanking is a
legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children.
Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30
years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used
sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse.

``If it's used in a limited way,'' the Oklahoma State University
professor said, ``it can be more effective than almost any other type
of punishment.'' He added that children 18 months old or younger
shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's
happening.

As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal
is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a
scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the
idea that this would make things better for children.''

But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to
resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not
slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her
veterinarian told her never to hit.

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''
Contact Mike Zapler at or (916) 441-4603.

The Mercury News is pleased to let readers post comments about a report
at the end of the article. Please increase the credibility of your post
by including your full name and city when commenting.




© 2007 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com







http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...htm?source=rss

On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''

Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF

Doan wrote:

On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''

Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF

Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''

Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF

Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

That's the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, Kane! ;-) So you claimed
that you don't read my post. You also claimed that I am on "do-not-reply"
list. Are both of your claims LIES, Kane?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''
Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF
Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

That's the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, Kane! ;-)

Nope. That's the logic of the sane, little boy.

Anyone that would lie as blatantly in the face of clear proof they ARe
lying is a menace to everyone around him.

You apply that kind of thinking to everyday life and you could kill
someone, easily.

So you claimed
that you don't read my post.

I didn't claim I never would, you lying little ****.

You also claimed that I am on "do-not-reply"
list.

So what. What is that compared to lying about child related spanking and
CP data and conclusions from researchers?

You are ****ign NUTs, Doan. NUTS.

Are both of your claims LIES, Kane?

The dodges are further proof and evidence of your insane ranting,
bull****ter.

You took small parts of full articles, a few words that alone made the
meaning of the whole hidden and different.

Have you any IDEA what that means in terms of lying and self delusion?

YOu don't ****ing BELIEVE that Straus, for instance, actually believed
and claimed he beleived that Baumrinds presentation was good research,
do you?

What the **** would he say in the rest of the paragraph that it ISN'T
for if he believed just he first few words?

Are you ****ing out of your ****ing **** eating mind?

What the hell did your parents really do to you to make you this insane
you stupid ****?

You blatantly and publicly PROVE you are lying KNOWING that anyone can
go and search on the material, find the source and SEE that you just lied.

Get a shrink kid, before you go over the ****ing edge.

You'll never hold another job in your field if you don't do something
before you go too far with this kind of bull****.

It's SICK, stupid. SICK. Like in mentally ILL, dummy.

Don't take my word for it. Got get an evaluation.

You have the classic symptoms of delusional thinking.

Unless you KNOW you are lying. Then it's just a matter of moral lack.

**** what a maniac you are.





Doan

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''
Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF
Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

That's the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, Kane! ;-)

Nope. That's the logic of the sane, little boy.

Anyone that would lie as blatantly in the face of clear proof they ARe
lying is a menace to everyone around him.

Then you are a menace! ;-)

You apply that kind of thinking to everyday life and you could kill
someone, easily.

Who did you killed, Kane? ;-)

So you claimed
that you don't read my post.

I didn't claim I never would, you lying little ****.

Hahaha! That is STUPID, Kane! Hey, why is "****" coming out of
your mouth again? ;-)

You also claimed that I am on "do-not-reply"
list.

So what. What is that compared to lying about child related spanking and
CP data and conclusions from researchers?

So that I can, once again, PROVED that you are a LIAR! ;-)

You are ****ign NUTs, Doan. NUTS.

Hihihi!

Are both of your claims LIES, Kane?

The dodges are further proof and evidence of your insane ranting,
bull****ter.

Hahaha! Are you harassing me, now? Why aren't you answering my question?

You took small parts of full articles, a few words that alone made the
meaning of the whole hidden and different.

Have you any IDEA what that means in terms of lying and self delusion?

You should know, I just PROVED, again, that you are a LIAR!

YOu don't ****ing BELIEVE that Straus, for instance, actually believed
and claimed he beleived that Baumrinds presentation was good research,
do you?

He said it was "excellent", did he not? Or are you just too STUPID to
understand what he said?

What the **** would he say in the rest of the paragraph that it ISN'T
for if he believed just he first few words?

He didn't agree with Baumrind, despite of her "excellent" research. Do
you understand that?

Are you ****ing out of your ****ing **** eating mind?

Hahaha! More "****" coming out of your mouth again!

What the hell did your parents really do to you to make you this insane
you stupid ****?

Hihihi! What did your mom did to you to make you think that it is ok
for you to call other women "smelly-****"?

You blatantly and publicly PROVE you are lying KNOWING that anyone can
go and search on the material, find the source and SEE that you just lied.

Who here believe that I LIED about Straus saying Baumrind's study was
"excellent"?

Get a shrink kid, before you go over the ****ing edge.

Hihihi!

You'll never hold another job in your field if you don't do something
before you go too far with this kind of bull****.

And you are a published researcher with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

It's SICK, stupid. SICK. Like in mentally ILL, dummy.

Don't take my word for it. Got get an evaluation.

You have the classic symptoms of delusional thinking.

Unless you KNOW you are lying. Then it's just a matter of moral lack.

**** what a maniac you are.

Oops! "****" still coming out of your mouth? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''
Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF
Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

That's the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, Kane! ;-)
Nope. That's the logic of the sane, little boy.

Anyone that would lie as blatantly in the face of clear proof they ARe
lying is a menace to everyone around him.

Then you are a menace! ;-)

You apply that kind of thinking to everyday life and you could kill
someone, easily.

Who did you killed, Kane? ;-)

Look at your denial by pointing to others, Doan, when that was NOT what
was said. You can't face the truth, and simple facts in conversation.
Think how dangerous the same thing could be in the real world.


So you claimed
that you don't read my post.
I didn't claim I never would, you lying little ****.

Hahaha! That is STUPID, Kane! Hey, why is "****" coming out of
your mouth again? ;-)

The same old garbage, instead of thinking, just sloganeering, Doan.

Did I claim, in fact, I'd never read our posts again?

I couldn't.

Attributions would put them in context of conversations with another
poster. I could not possibly avoid them.

You know that but here you are babbling to deny your own aberrant
thinking.

You also claimed that I am on "do-not-reply"
list.
So what. What is that compared to lying about child related spanking and
CP data and conclusions from researchers?

So that I can, once again, PROVED that you are a LIAR! ;-)

You proved nothing.

This is unimportant and you are again thinking erred.

What IS important is that you make claims like the Straus - Baumrind
"excellent" claim, and run when confronted with the truth.

You could say "I erred, and did not know about the rest of his
statement," but not doing so suggests strong you DID know, and you
deliberately or hysterically left it out, so you could make a point that
is NOT the truth.

That is sick, Doan. Mentally sick, and I suspect you are excusing it to
yourself, minimizing, on the grounds that it's clever, cute, a
trickster. Not after awhile, Doan. That's how people build themselves a
delusional world.

And the intelligent are more at risk than others of doing just that. You
are better at "rationale" to support your delusions than the run of the
mill, Doan.


You are ****ign NUTs, Doan. NUTS.

Hihihi!

Sounds I used to hear when I visited the ward to bring a patient to my
office.


Are both of your claims LIES, Kane?
The dodges are further proof and evidence of your insane ranting,
bull****ter.

Hahaha! Are you harassing me, now? Why aren't you answering my question?

You don't have any that are base on fact. Mine are. Your's are, and
everyone can see it, dodges.

Do you not see that others can see that?

You took small parts of full articles, a few words that alone made the
meaning of the whole hidden and different.

Have you any IDEA what that means in terms of lying and self delusion?

You should know, I just PROVED, again, that you are a LIAR!

Are you denying that did as I claimed above?

Do you really think you were not deliberately misleading by removing
words of others from context and repeating them as though the meant
something other than the speaker meant?

Trust me, no one ELSE sees that you told the truth, but you, Doan.

Well, and other mentally unbalanced folks that need you as you need them
, for support.

YOu don't ****ing BELIEVE that Straus, for instance, actually believed
and claimed he beleived that Baumrinds presentation was good research,
do you?

He said it was "excellent", did he not? Or are you just too STUPID to
understand what he said?

He said that as part of a sentence. What did he mean?

What did he mean in context, and what does that do to the value of her
"excellent" research, Doan?

It means he said her conclusions were not acceptable because of other
elements in her research, Doan.

That you insist you are "right" because one word of his agreed with your
claim is dishonest or delusional.

Would you claim I said the "the moon is falling," and run for your life,
if I actually said, "the moon is falling gracefully down the velvet
blanket of the night into the reflecting seas?"

Your claim about Straus of is the same kind. He didn't say it was
'excellent.' He said it was excellent and unacceptable.

Good research with bad conclusions drawn from it has almost NO value
whatsoever. Not if the author continues to make the erroneous claims.

Baumrind did, as we all know. That is why that presentation remains to
this day, un-reviewed by peers and unpublished.

You perpetrated and still perpetrate a fraud...possibly a delusion, by
insisting that all there was to it was the word, "excellent."

What the **** would he say in the rest of the paragraph that it ISN'T
for if he believed just he first few words?

He didn't agree with Baumrind, despite of her "excellent" research. Do
you understand that?

No, he did more than disagree. Quote him fully here and show us how
that, other than by your opinion, is simple disagreement.


Are you ****ing out of your ****ing **** eating mind?

Hahaha! More "****" coming out of your mouth again!

Again with the dodge. I'm very serious. Think about what you are
claiming and how it cleverly dodges the truth, Doan.

That's a very dangerous "skill" to cultivate. Especially when you start
falling for it yourself, as you appear to be doing.

As long as you KNOW you are lying, you are okay, but aren't you starting
to believe yourself?


What the hell did your parents really do to you to make you this insane
you stupid ****?

Hihihi! What did your mom did to you to make you think that it is ok
for you to call other women "smelly-****"?

What she did was give me an appreciation for the truth. That a person
protesting for the rights of an admitted and proud of it child abuser
who thought it biblically defensible to beat a child bloody and brag
about it and do the same again to other children, is being treated more
respectfully than deserved by ONLY being called a smelly ****, Doan.

Can you defend what Fern did when she defended the rights of the
preacher and congregation over the rights of the children not to be
beaten bloody?

You blatantly and publicly PROVE you are lying KNOWING that anyone can
go and search on the material, find the source and SEE that you just lied.

Who here believe that I LIED about Straus saying Baumrind's study was
"excellent"?

I do. Because you did. It's a lie by omission. You left out the rest of
what he said, leading any reader that hasn't read the full statement or
who doesn't know where to find it to read, with the assumption that
Straus accepted the premise of her presentation.

You know that is simply not true but would you would, dishonorably and
dishonestly leave them believing that.

In debate, it's simple lie. One that would, were it a tournament
setting, put you OUT of the room. In shame.

Get a shrink kid, before you go over the ****ing edge.

Hihihi!

About as close as you can get to a gibbering sound in writing.

You are a lot closer than you think.

You'll never hold another job in your field if you don't do something
before you go too far with this kind of bull****.

And you are a published researcher

Yes.

with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Yes.

Not all mine.

And it's not shelves. You are lying again. It's file cabinets, which
I'll be cleaning out before spring, as most of it is now in electronic
format.

It's SICK, stupid. SICK. Like in mentally ILL, dummy.

Don't take my word for it. Got get an evaluation.

You have the classic symptoms of delusional thinking.

Unless you KNOW you are lying. Then it's just a matter of moral lack.

**** what a maniac you are.

Oops! "****" still coming out of your mouth? ;-)

You are delusional, as I said.

**** doesn't come out of peoples mouth unless they put it in. You do.

And spewing lies with it by concealing context.

An insult to even the researchers you wish to support you and certainly
to those whose statements you twist and misconstrue by your dishonest
attempts that I've caught you at and revealed.

Have you the guts to write Straus and tell him he said Baumrind's study
was excellent, and stop right there, as you did here, and NOT
acknowledge he said more?

Go ahead, I dare you.

I'll give you his email address. He's on the list server that I'm on for
research questions and inquiries.

He's very easy to reach.

You are way over your head.

Try putting yourself up against Alan Poussaint again, why don't you.


Doan


You think way to much of yourself, Doan.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 18 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a
kid.''
Following that logic, if you never send a cat to school, you should never
send a kid! ;-)

AF
Yer sick, Kid. Don't you realize that yet?

Sick.

Your logic is that of a fool. Silly logic that has no connection to
reality. Your a nutcase. Truly.

If you should never hit a monkey boy then you should never point out
they have lied like the sick little ****s they are.

If you should never bathe a cat you should never bathe a kid.

If you should never put a cat out at night you should never but a child
out at night.

If you should never make a cat do dog tricks you should never make kid
do dog tricks.

And if you are a nut that has sunk deeper into lying and self delusion
your name wouldn't be Doan.

Doan, not a single person here, but other people as lost in insanity as
you are, misses your lies and illogical bull**** ideation. Give it up.

You keep going this direction and we'll be bringing you little gifts to
tide you over at Atascadero.

RE R R R R R RRR RE E E E E E

Kane

That's the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS, Kane! ;-)
Nope. That's the logic of the sane, little boy.

Anyone that would lie as blatantly in the face of clear proof they ARe
lying is a menace to everyone around him.

Then you are a menace! ;-)

You apply that kind of thinking to everyday life and you could kill
someone, easily.

Who did you killed, Kane? ;-)

Look at your denial by pointing to others, Doan, when that was NOT what
was said. You can't face the truth, and simple facts in conversation.
Think how dangerous the same thing could be in the real world.

No, STUPID! I was having fun at your expense!


So you claimed
that you don't read my post.
I didn't claim I never would, you lying little ****.

Hahaha! That is STUPID, Kane! Hey, why is "****" coming out of
your mouth again? ;-)

The same old garbage, instead of thinking, just sloganeering, Doan.

Did I claim, in fact, I'd never read our posts again?

Hahaha!

I couldn't.

Poor Kane! Hihihi!

Attributions would put them in context of conversations with another
poster. I could not possibly avoid them.

So you are just a LIAR! ;-)

You know that but here you are babbling to deny your own aberrant
thinking.

Hihihi! Just having fun at your expense, STUPID!

You also claimed that I am on "do-not-reply"
list.
So what. What is that compared to lying about child related spanking and
CP data and conclusions from researchers?

So that I can, once again, PROVED that you are a LIAR! ;-)

You proved nothing.

I proved that you are a LIAR, STUPID! ;-)

This is unimportant and you are again thinking erred.

Your STUPIDITY is unimportant?

What IS important is that you make claims like the Straus - Baumrind
"excellent" claim, and run when confronted with the truth.

And the truth is Straus did said it was "excellent"!

You could say "I erred, and did not know about the rest of his
statement," but not doing so suggests strong you DID know, and you
deliberately or hysterically left it out, so you could make a point that
is NOT the truth.

I spoke the truth! If you don't see it then YOU ARE STUPID!

That is sick, Doan. Mentally sick, and I suspect you are excusing it to
yourself, minimizing, on the grounds that it's clever, cute, a
trickster. Not after awhile, Doan. That's how people build themselves a
delusional world.

Hihihi!

And the intelligent are more at risk than others of doing just that. You
are better at "rationale" to support your delusions than the run of the
mill, Doan.

Intelligent? You are not intelligent, Kane!


You are ****ign NUTs, Doan. NUTS.

Hihihi!

Sounds I used to hear when I visited the ward to bring a patient to my
office.

Hihihi! Your office? Come on, Kane! Who else are you going to claim
to be today? How are your shelves full of research studies by the way?
;-)


Are both of your claims LIES, Kane?
The dodges are further proof and evidence of your insane ranting,
bull****ter.

Hahaha! Are you harassing me, now? Why aren't you answering my question?

You don't have any that are base on fact. Mine are. Your's are, and
everyone can see it, dodges.

Who here see what Kane is talking about? Speak up please! ;-)

Do you not see that others can see that?

Who are others, Kane? I kept asking hoping someone would come to your
defense but I got NOTHING!

You took small parts of full articles, a few words that alone made the
meaning of the whole hidden and different.

Have you any IDEA what that means in terms of lying and self delusion?

You should know, I just PROVED, again, that you are a LIAR!

Are you denying that did as I claimed above?

Are you denying that you are a PROVEN LIAR?

Do you really think you were not deliberately misleading by removing
words of others from context and repeating them as though the meant
something other than the speaker meant?

Trust me, no one ELSE sees that you told the truth, but you, Doan.

Who here think that I am lying when I said Straus said the study was
excellent? SPEAK UP, PLEASE!

Well, and other mentally unbalanced folks that need you as you need them
, for support.

YOu don't ****ing BELIEVE that Straus, for instance, actually believed
and claimed he beleived that Baumrinds presentation was good research,
do you?

He said it was "excellent", did he not? Or are you just too STUPID to
understand what he said?

He said that as part of a sentence. What did he mean?

"but despite that". Bring it to an English teacher, Kane. Or just
just anyone her publicly, Kane? Who here agree with Kane's
interpretation? SPEAK UP, PLEASE!

What did he mean in context, and what does that do to the value of her
"excellent" research, Doan?

It means he said her conclusions were not acceptable because of other
elements in her research, Doan.

That you insist you are "right" because one word of his agreed with your
claim is dishonest or delusional.

See if you can get anyone else here that is so stupid as to agree with
you, Kane. Go ahead!

Would you claim I said the "the moon is falling," and run for your life,
if I actually said, "the moon is falling gracefully down the velvet
blanket of the night into the reflecting seas?"

Your claim about Straus of is the same kind. He didn't say it was
'excellent.' He said it was excellent and unacceptable.

Did you read what you wrote, Kane? Excellent and unacceptable are
NOT mutually exclusive, STUPID!

Good research with bad conclusions drawn from it has almost NO value
whatsoever. Not if the author continues to make the erroneous claims.

Hihihi!

Baumrind did, as we all know. That is why that presentation remains to
this day, un-reviewed by peers and unpublished.

You perpetrated and still perpetrate a fraud...possibly a delusion, by
insisting that all there was to it was the word, "excellent."

You are exposing your STUPIDITY, Kane! Just as you did when you don't
understand the concept of correlation and causality, even stupid enough
to claim that using dummies in car crashes make it correlational!

What the **** would he say in the rest of the paragraph that it ISN'T
for if he believed just he first few words?

He didn't agree with Baumrind, despite of her "excellent" research. Do
you understand that?

No, he did more than disagree. Quote him fully here and show us how
that, other than by your opinion, is simple disagreement.

Who here disagree with my assessment, SPEAK UP?

Are you ****ing out of your ****ing **** eating mind?

Hahaha! More "****" coming out of your mouth again!

Again with the dodge. I'm very serious. Think about what you are
claiming and how it cleverly dodges the truth, Doan.

Hihihi! I am having fun at your expense, Kane. ;-)

That's a very dangerous "skill" to cultivate. Especially when you start
falling for it yourself, as you appear to be doing.

As long as you KNOW you are lying, you are okay, but aren't you starting
to believe yourself?

Do you know that you are lying, Kane?


What the hell did your parents really do to you to make you this insane
you stupid ****?

Hihihi! What did your mom did to you to make you think that it is ok
for you to call other women "smelly-****"?

What she did was give me an appreciation for the truth. That a person
protesting for the rights of an admitted and proud of it child abuser
who thought it biblically defensible to beat a child bloody and brag
about it and do the same again to other children, is being treated more
respectfully than deserved by ONLY being called a smelly ****, Doan.

What a mom! ;-)

Can you defend what Fern did when she defended the rights of the
preacher and congregation over the rights of the children not to be
beaten bloody?

I don't speak for Fern, STUPID!

You blatantly and publicly PROVE you are lying KNOWING that anyone can
go and search on the material, find the source and SEE that you just lied.

Who here believe that I LIED about Straus saying Baumrind's study was
"excellent"?

I do. Because you did. It's a lie by omission. You left out the rest of
what he said, leading any reader that hasn't read the full statement or
who doesn't know where to find it to read, with the assumption that
Straus accepted the premise of her presentation.

Are you this STUPID?

You know that is simply not true but would you would, dishonorably and
dishonestly leave them believing that.

Who here believe that?

In debate, it's simple lie. One that would, were it a tournament
setting, put you OUT of the room. In shame.

Are you calling this a debate, Kane? I don't! Are you this STUPID?

Get a shrink kid, before you go over the ****ing edge.

Hihihi!

About as close as you can get to a gibbering sound in writing.

Hihihi!

You are a lot closer than you think.

Hihihi!

You'll never hold another job in your field if you don't do something
before you go too far with this kind of bull****.

And you are a published researcher

Yes.

Hahaha! Can I have a copy? Or is it another "poor" and the "corrupted"
PDF file? ;-)

with shelves full of research studies
right, Kane? ;-)

Yes.

Not all mine.

And it's not shelves. You are lying again. It's file cabinets, which
I'll be cleaning out before spring, as most of it is now in electronic
format.

Can you send me a copy? Or are you going to give it's a "poor" and then
"corrupted" excuse? Hihihi!

It's SICK, stupid. SICK. Like in mentally ILL, dummy.

Don't take my word for it. Got get an evaluation.

You have the classic symptoms of delusional thinking.

Unless you KNOW you are lying. Then it's just a matter of moral lack.

**** what a maniac you are.

Oops! "****" still coming out of your mouth? ;-)

You are delusional, as I said.

You are STUPID, as I said.

**** doesn't come out of peoples mouth unless they put it in. You do.

I put **** in your mouth, Kane? No, I wouldn't do that. The only way
my **** would get into your mouth is by you sticking your nose into my
ass! ;-)

And spewing lies with it by concealing context.

The proven LIAR is you, Kane! ;-)

An insult to even the researchers you wish to support you and certainly
to those whose statements you twist and misconstrue by your dishonest
attempts that I've caught you at and revealed.

Hihihi! Who here believe you, Kane?

Have you the guts to write Straus and tell him he said Baumrind's study
was excellent, and stop right there, as you did here, and NOT
acknowledge he said more?

I don't have to. It was published!

Go ahead, I dare you.

You are so STUPID! ;-)

I'll give you his email address. He's on the list server that I'm on for
research questions and inquiries.

WOW! I'am impressed! Did you tell him that by using dummies in a car
crash study, it makes it a correlational study? ;-)

He's very easy to reach.

Why don't you email and ask him to drop a line here, Kane. Surely he will
come to the defense of a "published researcher" like you, Kane! Hihihi!

You are way over your head.

I know, Kane! I am having too much fune!.

Try putting yourself up against Alan Poussaint again, why don't you.

Hihihi! I don't have an ego like you, Kane!

Doan


You think way to much of yourself, Doan.

No. I think way to much of you, Kane! Hihihi!

Of COURSE they're lies! All kaners are
habitual liars and feed off other's emotions
because they're so devoid of anything
redeeming; same as you.

kaners are bottom feeding bass turds and
know it. They can bend far enough to be
able to eat their own sh_t without half
trying. It all all like it should just stop
breathing air; they don't deserve it.