Ken Pangborn reneges on word

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:30:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:53:15 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Is this from you also, Kane?

You know that's not my style, Doan.

That is your style, Kane, hiding behind a nym.

Would you like a list of your buddies who post under nyms?

Shall we presume then that Fern is Borked Pseudo Mailed?

You do post under a nym, Kane.

I don't post this kind of drivel and you know it.

From someone with low moral character like you, it fit your style.



A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!

He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.

You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!






Go on, check and see.

It's used by anonymous remailers. It is funny that when you just talked
about it, these posting come up.

Got you, Kane! Hihihi!

Doan

And stop with your dodges.

The one who is doing the dodging is YOU!

Yer just a common liar.

The PROVEN LIAR here is YOU!

And I'm not insane and there is no mental illness called, "insanity."

Ok. You are nost insane. YOU ARE JUST STUPID! Happy?

So you are lying again.

The PROVEN STUPID LIAR here is you. Prove that I am Alina. Can you?

Go look at your own posting history and see how many times you've
dodge, unethically, demanded what you won't yourself won't provide.

Lied and lied and lied again.

The PROVEN LIAR, times and times again, IS YOU!

You are a time waster.

And having fun doing it at your expense too, Empty Kane! ;-)

A little twit full himself and empty as a gourd.

Empty as a....Kane! Make more noise for me, Kane. Hihihi!

Any one that has to call in someone like Pangborn for help is
obviously weak and stupid. That's YOU.

Another lie, I have never called Pangborn, whoever he is. All
I know is that he and you had a debate and HE WHUPPED YOUR ASS!

Doan

0:]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:31:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:52:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Non scrivetemi wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Did you send this, Kane?

Those that don't like Ken, for good reasons apparently, only run under
a nym for their safety from his bs.

Like you?

Nope. You know why I use a nym.

Because you are a coward.

You are now lying again, Doan.

The proven liar is you, Kane.


Doan

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:25:20 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:30:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:53:15 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Is this from you also, Kane?

Are you insinuating it is?

Or are you claiming positively that it is me?


You know that's not my style, Doan.

That is your style, Kane, hiding behind a nym.

But not my posting style as to content.

Would you like a list of your buddies who post under nyms?

Shall we presume then that Fern is Borked Pseudo Mailed?

You do post under a nym, Kane.

Fern
bobb
Doan ( don't see your full name, Doan...there's thousands of Doan's
out there, and I even know a few myself...they think you are funny...
)
observer

Did one of those, possibly even yourself, write that post, Doan?

I don't post this kind of drivel and you know it.

From someone with low moral character like you, it fit your style.

No, it doesn't. And you know the opposite is true.

I don't claim you 'concede,' for instance, when you simply agree that
your argument is the argument you made...and that's all I 'conceded.'

Hence, Doan of law moral character, who posts under a nym, you lie by
contextual omission. You also use it to divert and dodge because you
wish to force the opponent to stop, leave off the issue under debate,
and spend time defending themselves.

You are a lying immoral twit.



A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!

He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.

You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!

Nope. I won hands down, Doan. Both against him and you.

Reexamine the issue of your claim of Black children and spanking.

Your claim is they respond differently. The study we looked at and you
continually lied about by NOT addressing the actual statement of the
researchers as two all three groups responding the same shows that you
are a liar.




Go on, check and see.

It's used by anonymous remailers. It is funny that when you just talked
about it, these posting come up.

Funny that the poster would be reading our posts and chosing to then
respond with an anonymous insulting post?

I don't think so. In fact it goes to the low moral character and lower
brain power of Mr. Pangborn, if he posted it. As I suspect.

I believe, as I mentioned to you before, he's been accused of such
things and caught forging posts, or using a nym and then posting in
the thread under his own name...forgetting he was using a nym.


Got you, Kane! Hihihi!

Got me? Then you claim I made those posts? Be clear in your
accusation, Doan.

You are avoiding the truth that the subject line states.

Attempting to help Pangborn?

Why?

0:


Doan

And stop with your dodges.

The one who is doing the dodging is YOU!

Yer just a common liar.

The PROVEN LIAR here is YOU!

And I'm not insane and there is no mental illness called, "insanity."

Ok. You are nost insane. YOU ARE JUST STUPID! Happy?

So you are lying again.

The PROVEN STUPID LIAR here is you. Prove that I am Alina. Can you?

Go look at your own posting history and see how many times you've
dodge, unethically, demanded what you won't yourself won't provide.

Lied and lied and lied again.

The PROVEN LIAR, times and times again, IS YOU!

You are a time waster.

And having fun doing it at your expense too, Empty Kane! ;-)

A little twit full himself and empty as a gourd.

Empty as a....Kane! Make more noise for me, Kane. Hihihi!

Any one that has to call in someone like Pangborn for help is
obviously weak and stupid. That's YOU.

Another lie, I have never called Pangborn, whoever he is. All
I know is that he and you had a debate and HE WHUPPED YOUR ASS!

Doan

0:]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:26:13 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:31:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:52:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Non scrivetemi wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Did you send this, Kane?

Those that don't like Ken, for good reasons apparently, only run under
a nym for their safety from his bs.

Like you?

Nope. You know why I use a nym.

Because you are a coward.

Would you use your real name if it put a member of your family in
danger?

You are now lying again, Doan.

The proven liar is you, Kane.

Meaning you aren't a liar?


Doan

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:25:20 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:30:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:53:15 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Is this from you also, Kane?

Are you insinuating it is?

Or are you claiming positively that it is me?

I HAVE NO PROOF THAT IT IS YOU!


You know that's not my style, Doan.

That is your style, Kane, hiding behind a nym.

But not my posting style as to content.

Would you like a list of your buddies who post under nyms?

Shall we presume then that Fern is Borked Pseudo Mailed?

You do post under a nym, Kane.

Fern
bobb
Doan ( don't see your full name, Doan...there's thousands of Doan's
out there, and I even know a few myself...they think you are funny...
)
It's my real name.

observer

Did one of those, possibly even yourself, write that post, Doan?

Why don't you ask them?

I don't post this kind of drivel and you know it.

From someone with low moral character like you, it fit your style.

No, it doesn't. And you know the opposite is true.

Yes, it does!

I don't claim you 'concede,' for instance, when you simply agree that
your argument is the argument you made...and that's all I 'conceded.'

You are LYING again.

Hence, Doan of law moral character, who posts under a nym, you lie by
contextual omission. You also use it to divert and dodge because you
wish to force the opponent to stop, leave off the issue under debate,
and spend time defending themselves.

You are a lying immoral twit.

The proven LIAR is YOU!



A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!

He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.

You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!

Nope. I won hands down, Doan. Both against him and you.

Another lie!

Reexamine the issue of your claim of Black children and spanking.

Your claim is they respond differently. The study we looked at and you
continually lied about by NOT addressing the actual statement of the
researchers as two all three groups responding the same shows that you
are a liar.

The proven liar is YOU! It is well known in the research community that
they respond differently.




Go on, check and see.

It's used by anonymous remailers. It is funny that when you just talked
about it, these posting come up.

Funny that the poster would be reading our posts and chosing to then
respond with an anonymous insulting post?

Yup! And who is it that seem to know so much about anonymoux proxy? YOU!

I don't think so. In fact it goes to the low moral character and lower
brain power of Mr. Pangborn, if he posted it. As I suspect.

He would insult himself to make you look better?

I believe, as I mentioned to you before, he's been accused of such
things and caught forging posts, or using a nym and then posting in
the thread under his own name...forgetting he was using a nym.


Got you, Kane! Hihihi!

Got me? Then you claim I made those posts? Be clear in your
accusation, Doan.

I SAID I HAVE NO PROOF!

You are avoiding the truth that the subject line states.

So it is proof that it is from Pangboom?

Attempting to help Pangborn?

I don't know him. Why would an insult to him help him?

Why?

Why what?


0:


Doan

And stop with your dodges.

The one who is doing the dodging is YOU!

Yer just a common liar.

The PROVEN LIAR here is YOU!

And I'm not insane and there is no mental illness called, "insanity."

Ok. You are nost insane. YOU ARE JUST STUPID! Happy?

So you are lying again.

The PROVEN STUPID LIAR here is you. Prove that I am Alina. Can you?

Go look at your own posting history and see how many times you've
dodge, unethically, demanded what you won't yourself won't provide.

Lied and lied and lied again.

The PROVEN LIAR, times and times again, IS YOU!

You are a time waster.

And having fun doing it at your expense too, Empty Kane! ;-)

A little twit full himself and empty as a gourd.

Empty as a....Kane! Make more noise for me, Kane. Hihihi!

Any one that has to call in someone like Pangborn for help is
obviously weak and stupid. That's YOU.

Another lie, I have never called Pangborn, whoever he is. All
I know is that he and you had a debate and HE WHUPPED YOUR ASS!

Doan

0:]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:26:13 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:31:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:52:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Non scrivetemi wrote:

This just in, Ken Pangborn has just reneged on excel and powerpoint as
well.

Did you send this, Kane?

Those that don't like Ken, for good reasons apparently, only run under
a nym for their safety from his bs.

Like you?

Nope. You know why I use a nym.

Because you are a coward.

Would you use your real name if it put a member of your family in
danger?

Why would using your real name put your family in danger? Please
elaborate. Did you crossed someone?

You are now lying again, Doan.

The proven liar is you, Kane.

Meaning you aren't a liar?

No. I don't make accusation without proof. You said you have the
proof that Alina is me. Show it! And if you going to denied that
you have never said that, Here is the proof that you did:

QUOTE

And your proof is?

YOU, asking ME, for PROOF.....R RRRR R R R R R

And of course, you have no proof!

Sure I do.

END QUOTE

So where is your proof that I am Alina, Kane? Shall we go back to
Senderbase and look? Hihihi!




Doan

"0:-]" wrote in message
...

A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

(Quick check to acvcept a bull**** website from a stalker no questions
asked.)

I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!

He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.

You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!

Nope. I won hands down, Doan. Both against him and you.

Keep telling yourself that whackjob! Keep congratulating yourself and
bragging like the dullard you are. You made the affirmative claim that
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN." I said that was BULL**** and
demanded you prove it by scientifically acceptable evidence and that there
were some indicators that the lack of spanking has been leading to an
increased incidence of sociopathy in children. Unlike YOU I did NOT assert
there was PROOF POSITIVE. You FAILED and you CONTINUE to abysmally FAIL to
prove that spanking causes aggression in children. The article you cited
that misapplied that to its title, actually within its text PROVES just the
opposite, but you are too much the DIMWIT to understand that.

YOUR source - YOURS KANE- YOURS the one you said "PROVED ABSOLUTELY"
that spanking makes kids aggressive - was a "SURVEY OF MOTHERS" and NOT a
"STUDY" as such. But even it concedes that in societies where spanking is
more common the observed "aggression" was substantially lower. NOW you
STUPID TWIT - YOU MORON - IF "spanking" caused the children to go bonkers as
you want to claim - them the prevalence of aggression in kids would be NO
different where it is common versus where it isn't. Since by the paper's OWN
observations it is LOWER in places where spanking is commonly practiced your
STUPID MORONIC THEORY that SPANKING CAUSES the aggression in the kids is
shot up the ass.

(WILD EMPHASIS MINE to try to get an IDIOT to get the point)

My bet is that your IQ is SO low that you can't possibly understand that
I have tried to SCREAM at you above.

I laid out what would have been a scientifically acceptable study.
Common scientific method and practice. A double-blind procedure where the
children were subjected to actual testing for aggression and not some STUPID
OPINION POLL! Groups of kids divided into at least 3 categories. One group
known to be aggressive, one group known not to be aggressive, and a group of
unknowns picked at random.

You persist in your "DELUSION" Mr. KANE that you WON............... You
keep beating the walls and doing a jig trying to tell people you WON and you
ran me off. If it makes your coffee taste better little boy keep on. Your
SOLE source was bull****. I don't know how it snuck by at an institution
like Duke University.
But keep trying to claim you WON.... In your best Orwellian voice Kane.
Keep beating your chest and telling yourself that you are a real badass
alpha male....

Nobody else will.

Yea, right, sure, anything you say Piggy



On Mar 4, 6:01 am, "KRP" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...

A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

(Quick check to acvcept a bull**** website from a stalker no questions
asked.)

I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!
He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.
You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!
Nope. I won hands down, Doan. Both against him and you.

Keep telling yourself that whackjob! Keep congratulating yourself and
bragging like the dullard you are. You made the affirmative claim that
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN." I said that was BULL**** and
demanded you prove it by scientifically acceptable evidence and that there
were some indicators that the lack of spanking has been leading to an
increased incidence of sociopathy in children. Unlike YOU I did NOT assert
there was PROOF POSITIVE. You FAILED and you CONTINUE to abysmally FAIL to
prove that spanking causes aggression in children. The article you cited
that misapplied that to its title, actually within its text PROVES just the
opposite, but you are too much the DIMWIT to understand that.

YOUR source - YOURS KANE- YOURS the one you said "PROVED ABSOLUTELY"
that spanking makes kids aggressive - was a "SURVEY OF MOTHERS" and NOT a
"STUDY" as such. But even it concedes that in societies where spanking is
more common the observed "aggression" was substantially lower. NOW you
STUPID TWIT - YOU MORON - IF "spanking" caused the children to go bonkers as
you want to claim - them the prevalence of aggression in kids would be NO
different where it is common versus where it isn't. Since by the paper's OWN
observations it is LOWER in places where spanking is commonly practiced your
STUPID MORONIC THEORY that SPANKING CAUSES the aggression in the kids is
shot up the ass.

(WILD EMPHASIS MINE to try to get an IDIOT to get the point)

My bet is that your IQ is SO low that you can't possibly understand that
I have tried to SCREAM at you above.

I laid out what would have been a scientifically acceptable study.
Common scientific method and practice. A double-blind procedure where the
children were subjected to actual testing for aggression and not some STUPID
OPINION POLL! Groups of kids divided into at least 3 categories. One group
known to be aggressive, one group known not to be aggressive, and a group of
unknowns picked at random.

You persist in your "DELUSION" Mr. KANE that you WON............... You
keep beating the walls and doing a jig trying to tell people you WON and you
ran me off. If it makes your coffee taste better little boy keep on. Your
SOLE source was bull****. I don't know how it snuck by at an institution
like Duke University.
But keep trying to claim you WON.... In your best Orwellian voice Kane.
Keep beating your chest and telling yourself that you are a real badass
alpha male....

Nobody else will.

On Mar 4, 4:01 am, "KRP" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...

A quick check of Pangborn's usenet history shows that there are those
that have been following him for a very long time...long before you
brought the fool here and embarrassed yourself tryhing to defend and
help him.

(Quick check to acvcept a bull**** website from a stalker no questions
asked.)

You, and other readers watched me challenge David Moore right here on
this group, Ken.

Anyone that remembers that, knows you are lying. Not only did I
challenge him but he conceded that his evidence was not conclusive on
an issue you and I were discussing ... REMEMBER, Ken?

Now write it again, so we can see you lie again: "acvcept a bull****
website from a stalker no questions asked.)" [sic]

It's the "acvcept" and "no questions asked" bull**** you need to
retract to maintain your good name. 0;]


I don't know him any more than the debate between you and him, which
I am privy to. I saw him WHUPPED YOUR ASS and you CONCEDED!
He did not, nor did I concede anything that I hadn't already argued.
My concession was to my own argument. You are a liar.
You lost the debate, Kane. The proven liar is YOU!
Nope. I won hands down, Doan. Both against him and you.

Keep telling yourself that whackjob!

Since the truth is that I conceded that the title did not accurately
reflect the body of neither the article or the abstract of the study,
yes I'll have to keep telling myself that particular truth.

YOU can feel free to make all the claims you wish, and we will wait
for your proof. Will it be long now?

I've lost count of the times I've asked you for it.

Keep congratulating yourself

Well, I haven't. I've simply rubutted someone that claims I lost and
had my butt whupped by you, which of course is laughable. The poster,
Doan, a liar and deceiver not unlike you, Ken, claims I ran...when
obviously it was you that ran.

and
bragging like the dullard you are.

Actually I posted recently my embarrassment at how very easily you
were beaten. That's hardly something to brag about.

And it's happening again, even as you read this.

As for "dullard," Ken, you are demonstrating that yourself with this
pointless claims you won our debate. You simply refused, in many
instances, to even discuss the issues under consideration and argued,
by deception, that I was making a claim I was not...just as you are
about to do now.

You made the affirmative claim that
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN."

I have asked you for proof I did so. To date, you have not provided
it. All it takes is finding my post, and copying the link to it, and
providing that here, now.

You may feel free to even quote me if you wish, by copy and paste, but
without a link, I'll assume you've found, as Duplicitous Doan Does, a
few words that out of context appear to mean something that I my
entire statement and explanation clearly did not mean.

You are liars, both of you. And together you couldn't out debate me on
the two studies, the international one, and the three ethnic groups.

You simply lied about what each said, or didn't say.

Is it not true, in fact that the statement you ascribe to me above,
"SPANKING CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN," actually was the title of an
article that was about the three ethnic group study on the use of CP?
And did it not say, actually, "Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And
Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm:"?

And did YOU not create yourself, out of that, by arguing that "Leads
To" means, "Caused by?"

Did you not then start claiming that I, not you, were saying "SPANKING
CAUSES AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN?"

And did Ron not immediately catch you at that, saying, when you
accused me of saying that, that no, YOU had said it?

You need to look at the thread. You lied continually.

I said that was BULL****

If you mean that it was not accurate, you seem to have forgotten that
I agreed with you. It was not accurate in relation to the content of
the article, or the abstract.

And I pointed out it was, just as DOAN said, and you expanded on, that
it was correlation.

And then did not both YOU and Doan attack my use of "correlation"
going so far, after having used it, as claim there is no such thing as
correlation in a causal study? A rare and unique way of creating a
new LIE, Ken and Doan?

I said 'correlation' myself, and later, when I grew tired of you not
hearing me, pretending I had not agreed with you and continuing that
same argument, when I was asking you to go on to the abstract itself
and debate it's merits or lack, I used the word 'concede' in relation
to the title to move you on to the actual issue...what the study said
or didn't say?

Are you going to lie now and deny that is what happened?

I conceded the title did not reflect the content. That is not having
my ass whupped as Doan claims.

and
demanded you prove it by scientifically acceptable evidence

Why would you ask me to prove something that I did not actually claim,
but that you said I did, putting words in my mouth? ... because you
were afraid to go to the actual issue under argument....the study
itself?

and
that there
were some indicators that the lack of spanking has been leading to an
increased incidence of sociopathy in children.

"Some indicators?" Do you really think I don't have your posted words,
a link to the actual post itself, and know that you are now lying?

I've seen you pull this dodge (It's long in the tooth in Doan's
repertoire too...liars like this one) of putting time between them and
their actually statements, claims, and words, and presuming those are
now lost in too much verbiage for the opponent to find easily...so
they will give up?

Ken, I'm not a lazy slob such as you. I'm lazy enough that I use my
brain and start personally archiving in a smaller more easily
searchable cache the words of the liar I'm debating.

I will now click on my NsGrps/Pangborn Favorites link...and be right
back with you. We'll see what you said about "sociopathy."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...4d74d63?hl=en&

krp
View profile
More options Jan 12, 7:07 am
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.child-protective-services
From: " krp"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:07:01 GMT
Local: Fri, Jan 12 2007 7:07 am
Subject: Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety,
Regardless Of Cultural Norm
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Doan" wrote in message

...
.....snipping Doan's challenge to LaVonne.....

There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "

That is YOUR statement, Ken. Not what you lie now about it.

Try comparing your former "considerable evidence" to your current
minimizing attempt with "Some indicators."

That is lying, Ken. 'Considerable evidence,' is an affirmative
statement of there actually BEING such evidence. "Some indicators,"
appears to be an attempt to build up to a dodge.

YOU said the former..."considerable evidence," and I have asked you
for it, and you have then run like the coward you are instead of
admitting you made an error.

Unlike YOU I did NOT assert
there was PROOF POSITIVE.

"There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can produce
sociopathy in children."

You are right, now quote ME where I asserted there was "PROOF
POSITIVE."

I provide evidence for what I claim YOU say, but you dodge when I ask
you to provide proof of what you claim I said.

Get crackin' kid.

And, Ken, I would not assert "proof positive," because there is no
such thing, not in argument or science, Ken. Ask a scientist.

You FAILED and you CONTINUE to abysmally FAIL to
prove that spanking causes aggression in children.

No, I cannot have failed because I did not make that assertion.

I would not use "causes," and would refer only to terms related to
correlations -- Statistically supported findings of mathematical
relationships between to compared points. A correlation. Used commonly
in causal studies, and in studies that are only showing correlation.
Used by both sides in this CP argument, for decades, Ken.

Correlation: A statistical connection between two variables ... what
'correlation' means. And all that it means in scientific research.

You would be correct if I tried to claim cause. I didn't, and
wouldn't. I agreed with what Doan admitted to, from what I snipped
above, and you agreed to in that same post...""Doan"
wrote in message
...
First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be implied.
"

See what Doan said above? About the International study? He agrees
with ME, not with what you lie and claim I have said that I did not.

The article you cited
that misapplied that to its title, actually within its text PROVES just the
opposite, but you are too much the DIMWIT to understand that.

You have not supported that claim about the article in the past, and
you fail to do so now. It's just your empty misleading blather.

Let me see if I understand this. No proof was offered, and in fact the
researchers confined themselves, as good ones do, to the language of
correlation. Yet you say they provided proof that the title of an
article written about their study proved something?

I suggest you look up "cause," "correlation." and "proof," Ken and
give this all a bit more thought.

Doan and you, and I, agreed, apparent from the quotes above, that the
study was a study on correlation...which of course it would have to
be. Causal conclusions are the greatest of rarities in social science
research.

Yet you claim I said 'causes,' but will not directly quote me with
source access provided. You keep putting words in quotes that I did
not say, and claiming I did.

You are a liar.

Now yell a little to convince yourself I said something I didn't.

YOUR source - YOURS KANE- YOURS the one you said "PROVED ABSOLUTELY"

Quotes again? And you can show my post where I said the above?

Liar.

that spanking makes kids aggressive - was a "SURVEY OF MOTHERS" and NOT a
"STUDY" as such.

A survey, as I pointed out just recently to you, is a tool used in
studies.

How does a survey turn into being not a study? Do you know what a
study is? Do you know that surveys are a common and accepted method?

Do you know that studies are done often not by doing surveys
themselves, but by review of the literature, much of which derives
from SURVEY studies, and used by those that are on YOUR side of this
argument.

Now if surveys aren't part of studies, routinely, you and they are in
deep trouble.

But even it concedes that in societies where spanking is
more common the observed "aggression" was substantially lower.

That is not what it said. Your claim is so incomplete as to be
meaningless. And very incorrect.

What the international study said was that in all societies studied,
accepting or more rejecting of the use of CP, where children did
experience it, all showed more anxiety and aggression outcomes than
among those children FROM ALL SOCIETIES -- who were NOT spanked.

Very simple to understand stuff. Go back and read the abstract again.

What you have done, is what you and Doan have a pernicious habit of.
You have referred ONLY to that portion of something where that portion
agrees with you, and you have avoided citing that portion that does
not.

From the abstract:
....
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were
less aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ...

You have read portions that agree with you, and ignored those that do
not. You read paragraph two above, and ignore paragraphs one and
three....each of which makes the point I make by saying: "... but
physical discipline was also associated with more aggression and
anxiety regardless of the perception of cultural acceptance. ...," and
"... In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ..."

Now Ken, look at your claim about what it said, and what it actually
does say. How can you support your argument it says ONLY that small
portion that might support your claim, and ignore the rest, that
supports MY claim?

You will find a complete copy of the abstract for the international
study, including a link to the abstract publication itself, at my
first post to the thread on the subject of "Spanking Leads To Child
Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm:"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...64a564a?hl=en&

Enjoy.

Back now to you compounding your lies by arguing as though I had made
the claim YOU lyingly attribute to me.

NOW you
STUPID TWIT - YOU MORON - IF "spanking" caused the children to go bonkers as
you want to claim -

You are lying when you say I want to claim something I do not. I
believe it to be true that there is a connection. I have not put
forward evidence in support of my belief, but only in support of
sciences conclusions...that there is a CORRELATION.

them the prevalence of aggression in kids would be NO
different where it is common versus where it isn't. Since by the paper's OWN
observations it is LOWER in places where spanking is commonly practiced your
STUPID MORONIC THEORY that SPANKING CAUSES the aggression in the kids is
shot up the ass.

You have two holes in your ass then, Ken. And only one is bleeding,
though the other might be when you pull your head out of it.

One: I made no claim of cause; Two, your conclusion about the paper
and it's "observations" is incorrect. Children in Thailand, for
instance, are not showing more aggression than children from Africa.
The opposite is true. The former is a low acceptance country and the
African nation surveyed is a high acceptance of CP, in fact, harsher
CP, country.

In both areas, high and low acceptance, there is some increase in
anxiety and aggressive behavior in spanked children. BOTH places.

The study would have had no meaning were that not true, nor would I
have bothered to quote it, were that not so.

I would not have posted it.


(WILD EMPHASIS MINE to try to get an IDIOT to get the point)

If you mean me, oh yes, I get the point quite well. You don't know
what you are talking about.

You made claims you cannot support, both about me, and about what
evidence there is or isn't concerning children developing sociopathy.

And you are making a thorough ass of yourself by compounding your lies
in this posted drivel.

My bet is that your IQ is SO low that you can't possibly understand that
I have tried to SCREAM at you above.

Actually it's well above the average, but not in the Mensa range.

Often intellectual measures, such as IQ, are irrelevant. That is so in
this case. Especially when it comes to morals. I know people of quite
low IQ, most likely that would never resort to the unethical lying you
and Doan use constantly in debate.

I value those folks and would trust them where I would not trust, nor
value you.

And I'm sure they would see you have lied, and you have been mistaken,
and you have lied about being mistaken. And you have lied about me.

I laid out what would have been a scientifically acceptable study.

You attempted. You departed from reality.

Common scientific method and practice. A double-blind procedure where the
children were subjected to actual testing for aggression and not some STUPID
OPINION POLL!

And you can provide us with a study that uses your model above to
support your claim that ""There is considerable evidence that a lack
of spanking can produce sociopathy in children," can you not?

I'm anxiously awaiting this study, this "Common scientific method and
practice. A double-blind procedure where the children were subjected
to actual testing for aggression and not some STUPID
OPINION POLL! "

Groups of kids divided into at least 3 categories. One group
known to be aggressive, one group known not to be aggressive,
and a group of unknowns picked at random.

Then you will apply spanking to randomized children from the target
demographic. I see.

You persist in your "DELUSION" Mr. KANE that you
WON...............

I did. You gave up and ran, and now you are coming up with nonsense
like the above.

Such "experiments" are no longer ethical. One can no longer use pain
on unwilling subjects, and you could not produce a clean group....with
spanked and unspanked children. You would have to have observed the
subjects from birth, and collected data on such a wide range of
variables there is not enough money in the world to fund such a study.

You
keep beating the walls and doing a jig trying to tell people you WON and you
ran me off.

Actually I am simply defending myself against someone that keeps
claiming I lost and I ran, when it's patently obvious the opposite is
true.

I have not used lying to debate. You and Doan both have. I have
pointed directly to, by quote and link, source information the
confounds your claim about that very source itself....and you have
simply dodged...usually by lying, both often just by changing the
subject and NOT answering.

If it makes your coffee taste better little boy keep on. Your
SOLE source was bull****. I don't know how it snuck by at an institution
like Duke University.

Well, possibly because it was peer reviewed and deemed worthy
research. It did get published, apparently.

But keep trying to claim you WON.... In your best Orwellian voice Kane.

What is an "Orwellian voice?"

Keep beating your chest and telling yourself that you are a real
badass
alpha male....

Actual alpha males don't have to do that.

You do seem to be making a lot of noise though. Do you consider
yourself one? I believe you made that claim in a recent post, or am I
mistaken?

Nobody else will.

Nobody else will beat their chests and claim they are an alpha male?

Well, I doubt our female participants and readers will, but I've a
hunch both you and Doan consider yourselves such.

And all based on your pride in your ability to lie, dodge, mislead,
and otherwise behave unethically in argument.

Tsk.

"KRP" wrote in message
news:nyyGh.219$iD4.89@trnddc06...

"0:-]" wrote in message
...
(Snip the stupid stuff)

You persist in your "DELUSION" Mr. KANE that you WON............... You
keep beating the walls and doing a jig trying to tell people you WON and
you ran me off. If it makes your coffee taste better little boy keep on.
Your SOLE source was bull****. I don't know how it snuck by at an
institution like Duke University.
But keep trying to claim you WON.... In your best Orwellian voice Kane.
Keep beating your chest and telling yourself that you are a real badass
alpha male....

Nobody else will.

Kenny, you have been proven to be both a liar and a fraud, here. You have
zero credibility, not just here but in EVERY news group you have ever
touched. No one trusts your word on anything, except total idiots like
gregg. Personally, if you told me the world was round I'd start looking for
the edges, because I know that being truthful is a concept totally beyond
your comprehension.

What I don't get is why you continue. Do you LIKE being known as some kind
of internet kook? Do you think that your business will thrive because of
your writings here and in other news groups? Don't you know that the
someone needing help with their problems will take one look at what you
write here and run in the opposite direction, just as fast as they possibly
can?

Mr Moore seems to have dedicated a significant portion of his time and
resources to letting people know what you are about and that they should
avoid you like the plague. When you first came to this news group I thought
HE was the kook! You took the time and a great deal of effort to prove that
he is not the kook, but that you are. Hence the reason I apologized to him.
I am more than willing to admit when I have made a mistake, and I did
concerning his position about you. But with every passing day, every post,
you prove to me and the rest of the internet community that you are exactly
what he says you are. YOU prove it, not him. Personally, I wouldn't be
willing to prove someone else's bad press about me, but you seem to relish
in it.

IOW kenny, your a ****ing nut job, so go away. Go away mad, go away sad, go
away with a pickle in your ear, I don't care, just go away!

Ron