|,,,| | Read the Studies Yet

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:00:18 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:51:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:45:34 -0800, Doan wrote:

snip.................

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe
Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used,
number
of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental
estimates
of how often child went into the street."

You need to read the study again, Kane! :-)

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%


Now that I have this study, I am willing to provide it to any
one
who
asked. Just send me an email. Or you could try asking Kane!
;-)

Doan


"This is my last post to you until you do the three things
required
for debate on the Embry study.

1- answer The Question
2- prove I said I was "never spanked" by anyone
3- prove you actually have the real Embry study...not the
prelim.

The only responses you'll get from here out until you do is the
above.

Kane"

It's the smaller prior study, not the later larger. When you
have
the
real study let us know.

Kane

LOL! You are not fooling anyone, Kane.

Nor am I interested in doing so, devious one. If you have the only
study done by Embry then you have met ONE of the criteria for me to
engage in discussion or debate. You have two to go.

So you are the one that is running away from the debate, not I! :-)

Another Doananism. I offered to debate based on two remaining
criteria...in fact all three, considering you have proven you have the
Embry study yet.

All three are easy challenges, but Doananism* requires you to lie and
jackoff publically as you just did above.

You know the drill by now. Prove your 2 claims, answer The Question,
and we'll begin discussing the E Study.

Doan

Until then, keep a tight hold of your dick. You might faint if you let
go.

Kane

* Doananism: The proclivity to lie and avoid the question or issue at
hand by diversion, misdirection, subject change, reinterpretation of
prior posts, and general childishness.

On 3 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:00:18 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:51:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:45:34 -0800, Doan wrote:

snip.................

"The post-survey for parents addressed such other issues as:
helpfulness
of the Program, suggestions for improvement, number of "Safe
Play"
stickers used by parent, number of time Safety Chart was used,
number
of
times child broke safety rules, how many times the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT was applied for rule infractions, and parental
estimates
of how often child went into the street."

You need to read the study again, Kane! :-)

And here is the problems the parents reported with the Sit and
Watch
PUNISHMENT:

1) child wouldn't sit - 51.4%
2) child talked back - 8.6%
3) child cried - 8.6%
4) parent didn't like it 5.7%
5) other children around 5.7%
6) No excuse 5.7%
7) child stubborn 2.9%
8) hard to use it 2.9%
9) parent's lack self-discipline - 2.9%
10) Answer left blank 5.7%


Now that I have this study, I am willing to provide it to any
one
who
asked. Just send me an email. Or you could try asking Kane!
;-)

Doan


"This is my last post to you until you do the three things
required
for debate on the Embry study.

1- answer The Question
2- prove I said I was "never spanked" by anyone
3- prove you actually have the real Embry study...not the
prelim.

The only responses you'll get from here out until you do is the
above.

Kane"

It's the smaller prior study, not the later larger. When you
have
the
real study let us know.

Kane

LOL! You are not fooling anyone, Kane.

Nor am I interested in doing so, devious one. If you have the only
study done by Embry then you have met ONE of the criteria for me to
engage in discussion or debate. You have two to go.

So you are the one that is running away from the debate, not I! :-)

Another Doananism. I offered to debate based on two remaining
criteria...in fact all three, considering you have proven you have the
Embry study yet.

You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

All three are easy challenges, but Doananism* requires you to lie and
jackoff publically as you just did above.

A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

You know the drill by now. Prove your 2 claims, answer The Question,
and we'll begin discussing the E Study.

Doan

Until then, keep a tight hold of your dick. You might faint if you let
go.

And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

Kane

* Doananism: The proclivity to lie and avoid the question or issue at
hand by diversion, misdirection, subject change, reinterpretation of
prior posts, and general childishness.

Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:

On 3 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Another Doananism. I offered to debate based on two remaining
criteria...in fact all three, considering you have proven you have the
Embry study yet.
-------------
To Kane's criticism and query whether he even KNOWS the material in
the Embry study Doan spews:


You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Doan
-----------------
Four vapid useless responses that evidence profound ignorance and
moronic avoidance of any real issue.
Steve

1.
You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

2.
A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

3.
And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

4.
Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Four vapid useless responses that evidence profound ignorance and
moronic avoidance of any real issue.

Steve:
Are you pretending you're on the MORAL high road,
or pretending you're on the intellectual high road?

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 3 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Another Doananism. I offered to debate based on two remaining
criteria...in fact all three, considering you have proven you have the
Embry study yet.
-------------
To Kane's criticism and query whether he even KNOWS the material in
the Embry study Doan spews:

Kane can't even cite the sample size!

You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Doan
-----------------
Four vapid useless responses that evidence profound ignorance and
moronic avoidance of any real issue.
Steve


Steve defending Kane! ;-)

Doan

Greg Hanson wrote:

1.
You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

2.
A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

3.
And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

4.
Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Four vapid useless responses that evidence profound ignorance and
moronic avoidance of any real issue.

Steve:
Are you pretending you're on the MORAL high road,
or pretending you're on the intellectual high road?
------------------
I'm not pretending, I AM morally and intellectually superior to Doan!
And you, like it or not.
Steve

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Greg Hanson wrote:

1.
You are in no position to debate with me, Kane. Just as I thought, you
don't have the study and can just dodge and dance! ;-)

2.
A perfect response from a "never-spanked" boy! ;-)

3.
And your mom must be proud to have a "never-spanked" boy turned out the
way you do! :-)

4.
Look at yourself in the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

Four vapid useless responses that evidence profound ignorance and
moronic avoidance of any real issue.

Steve:
Are you pretending you're on the MORAL high road,
or pretending you're on the intellectual high road?
------------------
I'm not pretending, I AM morally and intellectually superior to Doan!
And you, like it or not.
Steve

LOL! And the newsgroups have seen Steve's 'superiority'! I rest my case.
:-)

Doan