Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate"

On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote:



I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate".

Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet
paper then?

She was the one that made
the challenge.

Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her
for various pieces of information from the study.

Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very
bad LIAR! ;-)

Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate
LaVonne when she challenged you, right?

Who's "stupid?"

Who's a "liar?"

Doan

Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from
time to time you don't lie.

You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire
posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself.

You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked
for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her?

Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation
exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them?

So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R

Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly
related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell
the truth about The Question?

Chicken**** to do it, aren't you.

I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my
other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?"

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