Doan chokes yet again.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:25:18 -0700, Doan wrote:

Now where did I said I am unable to go the library, LaVonne? I said
it
takes time and was hoping that you would provide the data so that it
would save me time! Unfortunately, you did everything you can to
impede
that effort.

Like?

Providing the name of the study and the source is imoeding? You are a
liar Droaner.

You see, unlike you,

Nope. YOu just did it before her. She wished to wait to open the
debate until YOU had the study, since you offered to accept her
challenge.

In other words she was being honorable and polite, and you were being
a lying twit, without honor, as usual.

I am willing to give EVERYONE in
this newsgroup the details of this data:
Sample size: 8 boys and 8 girls. Too small of a sample size

Could be. But you'd have to post the methodology to have a reasonable
debate on that point.

She was waiting for you to have it. Now how honorable is it to claim
she was withholding it for some nefarious reason when she invited you
to debate WHEN you had the information in hand?

As I have said befo you are little thug. No honor. A liar and a
cheat.

Age: 14 months of age. Even the evil Dobson wouldn't recommend
spanking children this young!

No, but he comes very close.

James Dobson: "Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more
likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him),
because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting
selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively."2

James Dobson: "A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to
willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!" 4

Kanesee any age limit there, Droaner? He like you advises people to
make up their own minds....and withholds vital information.

James Dobson: "When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked
rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous
purifier." 6 "...It is not necessary to beat the child into
submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child.
However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the
child to cry genuinely." 7

James Dobson: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be
spanked, and their wishes should be granted."9

James Dobson: "Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks
with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must
obey me.' " 11

James Dobson: "You can explain (to your child) why he has been
punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time." 13

James Dobson: "Most (children) need to be spanked now and then." 17

James Dobson: "Minor pain can...provide excellent motivation for the
child... There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the
neck... When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain
saying, 'This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs'." 19

James Dobson: "If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he
has taught the child a valuable lesson..." 24

James Dobson: "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is
a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited." 26

James Dobson: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may
continue for five. After that point, the child is merely
complaining... I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually
by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
28

James Dobson: "When a child has lowered his head and clenched his
fist, he is daring the parent to take him on." 30

James Dobson: "An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a
moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)...he
must steer clear of certain social traps... selfishness, dishonesty,
unprovoked aggression, etc." 32

James Dobson: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." 34

Dobson doesn't recommend CP below age 15 months or so. How sweet of
him, but he does recommend this kind of thing above.

Needs I go on, LaVonne? ;-)

Sure. Go on and on and on. Your claim that sample size is relevant
demands you produce some proof in this instance. We'll wait.

And I'll remind you that some studies are very small indeed and still
relevant.

Embry's was.

It's what's being studied that determines the methodology. Sample size
is part of that.

Frankly I'd probably agee with you about the size in this instance,
but since I don't have the study it would be kind of studid to debate
it.

So in addition to you being a thug, you are also stupid.

You obviously wish to draw LaVonne into debate when YOU can be seen as
being at a disadvantage, so that if you screw up, as you always
eventually do, you can have a convenient weasel bolt hole.

I wasn't buying it on the Embry study discussion between us, and
obviously LaVonne is too smart for you as well.

All that leaves you is the kind of sick little ploy you tried,
spilling a little information and claiming LaVonne was "withholding"
it, as you tried to claim I was withholding Embry as I patiently
waited for you to prove you had that report so we could debate.

Yours games are the mark of a very sick boy, Droany. Very.

Spanked all too much.

Do you think anyone here misses your silly games and the indictation
you are empty of any substance? Even your buddies, themselves among
the sickest, can see that you are without honor. Of course they value
that about you, as they have little or none themselves.

Doan

How does it feel to be the victim of childhood spanking?


Kane


On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals.
How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

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

LOL! That is why I like having you on the anti-spanking zealotS side,
Kane!

Doan


On 14 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:25:18 -0700, Doan wrote:

Now where did I said I am unable to go the library, LaVonne? I said
it
takes time and was hoping that you would provide the data so that it
would save me time! Unfortunately, you did everything you can to
impede
that effort.

Like?

Providing the name of the study and the source is imoeding? You are a
liar Droaner.

You see, unlike you,

Nope. YOu just did it before her. She wished to wait to open the
debate until YOU had the study, since you offered to accept her
challenge.

In other words she was being honorable and polite, and you were being
a lying twit, without honor, as usual.

I am willing to give EVERYONE in
this newsgroup the details of this data:
Sample size: 8 boys and 8 girls. Too small of a sample size

Could be. But you'd have to post the methodology to have a reasonable
debate on that point.

She was waiting for you to have it. Now how honorable is it to claim
she was withholding it for some nefarious reason when she invited you
to debate WHEN you had the information in hand?

As I have said befo you are little thug. No honor. A liar and a
cheat.

Age: 14 months of age. Even the evil Dobson wouldn't recommend
spanking children this young!

No, but he comes very close.

James Dobson: "Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more
likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him),
because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting
selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively."2

James Dobson: "A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to
willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!" 4

Kanesee any age limit there, Droaner? He like you advises people to
make up their own minds....and withholds vital information.

James Dobson: "When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked
rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous
purifier." 6 "...It is not necessary to beat the child into
submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child.
However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the
child to cry genuinely." 7

James Dobson: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be
spanked, and their wishes should be granted."9

James Dobson: "Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks
with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must
obey me.' " 11

James Dobson: "You can explain (to your child) why he has been
punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time." 13

James Dobson: "Most (children) need to be spanked now and then." 17

James Dobson: "Minor pain can...provide excellent motivation for the
child... There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the
neck... When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain
saying, 'This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs'." 19

James Dobson: "If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he
has taught the child a valuable lesson..." 24

James Dobson: "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is
a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited." 26

James Dobson: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may
continue for five. After that point, the child is merely
complaining... I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually
by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
28

James Dobson: "When a child has lowered his head and clenched his
fist, he is daring the parent to take him on." 30

James Dobson: "An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a
moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)...he
must steer clear of certain social traps... selfishness, dishonesty,
unprovoked aggression, etc." 32

James Dobson: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." 34

Dobson doesn't recommend CP below age 15 months or so. How sweet of
him, but he does recommend this kind of thing above.

Needs I go on, LaVonne? ;-)

Sure. Go on and on and on. Your claim that sample size is relevant
demands you produce some proof in this instance. We'll wait.

And I'll remind you that some studies are very small indeed and still
relevant.

Embry's was.

It's what's being studied that determines the methodology. Sample size
is part of that.

Frankly I'd probably agee with you about the size in this instance,
but since I don't have the study it would be kind of studid to debate
it.

So in addition to you being a thug, you are also stupid.

You obviously wish to draw LaVonne into debate when YOU can be seen as
being at a disadvantage, so that if you screw up, as you always
eventually do, you can have a convenient weasel bolt hole.

I wasn't buying it on the Embry study discussion between us, and
obviously LaVonne is too smart for you as well.

All that leaves you is the kind of sick little ploy you tried,
spilling a little information and claiming LaVonne was "withholding"
it, as you tried to claim I was withholding Embry as I patiently
waited for you to prove you had that report so we could debate.

Yours games are the mark of a very sick boy, Droany. Very.

Spanked all too much.

Do you think anyone here misses your silly games and the indictation
you are empty of any substance? Even your buddies, themselves among
the sickest, can see that you are without honor. Of course they value
that about you, as they have little or none themselves.

Doan

How does it feel to be the victim of childhood spanking?


Kane


On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals.
How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:21:02 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! That is why I like having you on the anti-spanking zealotS side,
Kane!

Out of responses I see.


Doan

Kane




On 14 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:25:18 -0700, Doan wrote:

Now where did I said I am unable to go the library, LaVonne? I said
it
takes time and was hoping that you would provide the data so that it
would save me time! Unfortunately, you did everything you can to
impede
that effort.

Like?

Providing the name of the study and the source is imoeding? You are a
liar Droaner.

You see, unlike you,

Nope. YOu just did it before her. She wished to wait to open the
debate until YOU had the study, since you offered to accept her
challenge.

In other words she was being honorable and polite, and you were being
a lying twit, without honor, as usual.

I am willing to give EVERYONE in
this newsgroup the details of this data:
Sample size: 8 boys and 8 girls. Too small of a sample size

Could be. But you'd have to post the methodology to have a reasonable
debate on that point.

She was waiting for you to have it. Now how honorable is it to claim
she was withholding it for some nefarious reason when she invited you
to debate WHEN you had the information in hand?

As I have said befo you are little thug. No honor. A liar and a
cheat.

Age: 14 months of age. Even the evil Dobson wouldn't recommend
spanking children this young!

No, but he comes very close.

James Dobson: "Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more
likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him),
because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting
selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively."2

James Dobson: "A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to
willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!" 4

Kanesee any age limit there, Droaner? He like you advises people to
make up their own minds....and withholds vital information.

James Dobson: "When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked
rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous
purifier." 6 "...It is not necessary to beat the child into
submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child.
However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the
child to cry genuinely." 7

James Dobson: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be
spanked, and their wishes should be granted."9

James Dobson: "Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks
with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must
obey me.' " 11

James Dobson: "You can explain (to your child) why he has been
punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time." 13

James Dobson: "Most (children) need to be spanked now and then." 17

James Dobson: "Minor pain can...provide excellent motivation for the
child... There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the
neck... When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain
saying, 'This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs'." 19

James Dobson: "If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he
has taught the child a valuable lesson..." 24

James Dobson: "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is
a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited." 26

James Dobson: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may
continue for five. After that point, the child is merely
complaining... I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually
by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
28

James Dobson: "When a child has lowered his head and clenched his
fist, he is daring the parent to take him on." 30

James Dobson: "An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a
moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)...he
must steer clear of certain social traps... selfishness, dishonesty,
unprovoked aggression, etc." 32

James Dobson: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." 34

Dobson doesn't recommend CP below age 15 months or so. How sweet of
him, but he does recommend this kind of thing above.

Needs I go on, LaVonne? ;-)

Sure. Go on and on and on. Your claim that sample size is relevant
demands you produce some proof in this instance. We'll wait.

And I'll remind you that some studies are very small indeed and still
relevant.

Embry's was.

It's what's being studied that determines the methodology. Sample size
is part of that.

Frankly I'd probably agee with you about the size in this instance,
but since I don't have the study it would be kind of studid to debate
it.

So in addition to you being a thug, you are also stupid.

You obviously wish to draw LaVonne into debate when YOU can be seen as
being at a disadvantage, so that if you screw up, as you always
eventually do, you can have a convenient weasel bolt hole.

I wasn't buying it on the Embry study discussion between us, and
obviously LaVonne is too smart for you as well.

All that leaves you is the kind of sick little ploy you tried,
spilling a little information and claiming LaVonne was "withholding"
it, as you tried to claim I was withholding Embry as I patiently
waited for you to prove you had that report so we could debate.

Yours games are the mark of a very sick boy, Droany. Very.

Spanked all too much.

Do you think anyone here misses your silly games and the indictation
you are empty of any substance? Even your buddies, themselves among
the sickest, can see that you are without honor. Of course they value
that about you, as they have little or none themselves.

Doan

How does it feel to be the victim of childhood spanking?


Kane


On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals.
How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

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

On 15 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:21:02 -0700, Doan wrote:


LOL! That is why I like having you on the anti-spanking zealotS side,
Kane!

Out of responses I see.

Being stupid again, I see. ;-)

Doan


Doan

Kane




On 14 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:25:18 -0700, Doan wrote:

Now where did I said I am unable to go the library, LaVonne? I said
it
takes time and was hoping that you would provide the data so that it
would save me time! Unfortunately, you did everything you can to
impede
that effort.

Like?

Providing the name of the study and the source is imoeding? You are a
liar Droaner.

You see, unlike you,

Nope. YOu just did it before her. She wished to wait to open the
debate until YOU had the study, since you offered to accept her
challenge.

In other words she was being honorable and polite, and you were being
a lying twit, without honor, as usual.

I am willing to give EVERYONE in
this newsgroup the details of this data:
Sample size: 8 boys and 8 girls. Too small of a sample size

Could be. But you'd have to post the methodology to have a reasonable
debate on that point.

She was waiting for you to have it. Now how honorable is it to claim
she was withholding it for some nefarious reason when she invited you
to debate WHEN you had the information in hand?

As I have said befo you are little thug. No honor. A liar and a
cheat.

Age: 14 months of age. Even the evil Dobson wouldn't recommend
spanking children this young!

No, but he comes very close.

James Dobson: "Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more
likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him),
because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting
selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively."2

James Dobson: "A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to
willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!" 4

Kanesee any age limit there, Droaner? He like you advises people to
make up their own minds....and withholds vital information.

James Dobson: "When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked
rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous
purifier." 6 "...It is not necessary to beat the child into
submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child.
However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the
child to cry genuinely." 7

James Dobson: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be
spanked, and their wishes should be granted."9

James Dobson: "Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks
with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must
obey me.' " 11

James Dobson: "You can explain (to your child) why he has been
punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time." 13

James Dobson: "Most (children) need to be spanked now and then." 17

James Dobson: "Minor pain can...provide excellent motivation for the
child... There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the
neck... When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain
saying, 'This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs'." 19

James Dobson: "If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he
has taught the child a valuable lesson..." 24

James Dobson: "Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is
a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited." 26

James Dobson: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may
continue for five. After that point, the child is merely
complaining... I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually
by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."
28

James Dobson: "When a child has lowered his head and clenched his
fist, he is daring the parent to take him on." 30

James Dobson: "An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a
moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)...he
must steer clear of certain social traps... selfishness, dishonesty,
unprovoked aggression, etc." 32

James Dobson: "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." 34

Dobson doesn't recommend CP below age 15 months or so. How sweet of
him, but he does recommend this kind of thing above.

Needs I go on, LaVonne? ;-)

Sure. Go on and on and on. Your claim that sample size is relevant
demands you produce some proof in this instance. We'll wait.

And I'll remind you that some studies are very small indeed and still
relevant.

Embry's was.

It's what's being studied that determines the methodology. Sample size
is part of that.

Frankly I'd probably agee with you about the size in this instance,
but since I don't have the study it would be kind of studid to debate
it.

So in addition to you being a thug, you are also stupid.

You obviously wish to draw LaVonne into debate when YOU can be seen as
being at a disadvantage, so that if you screw up, as you always
eventually do, you can have a convenient weasel bolt hole.

I wasn't buying it on the Embry study discussion between us, and
obviously LaVonne is too smart for you as well.

All that leaves you is the kind of sick little ploy you tried,
spilling a little information and claiming LaVonne was "withholding"
it, as you tried to claim I was withholding Embry as I patiently
waited for you to prove you had that report so we could debate.

Yours games are the mark of a very sick boy, Droany. Very.

Spanked all too much.

Do you think anyone here misses your silly games and the indictation
you are empty of any substance? Even your buddies, themselves among
the sickest, can see that you are without honor. Of course they value
that about you, as they have little or none themselves.

Doan

How does it feel to be the victim of childhood spanking?


Kane


On Fri, 14 May 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Apparently Doan is unable to go to the library, and he doesn't
understand how to acquire studies published in research journals.
How
very convenient.

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

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