Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

Ron wrote:
"krp" wrote in message
news:uIkth.5161$df3.4726@trnddc04...
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings around.
The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having to answer
direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by others in
support of their claims, and generally to cause as much confusion as he
can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do so honestly.
Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to BE
honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious,
mislead, misdirect, and outright lie.
By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.
BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****. The cite of you and Kane that Ohio
v. Brown SUPPORTS the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT OPPOSITE
you know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out that your
claims are BULL****!


And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on
the net and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!

I have never said anything about your banking accounts kenny. Not one word.
Another lie from you.

Facts are facts kenny, you can ignore them, but they dont go away.

One of the practicums I signed up for in college (we had to do three at
undergrad level) I still hearken back to with considerable distaste.

I hadn't been trained to deal with drunks. It took all the sympathy and
deliberate practice of empathy to even begin to deal with the day to day
idiotic babbling the fried brains produced.

Do you know how hard it is to not just be able to let empathy occur
naturally and have to MAKE it happen?

I'm getting that old feelin' again.

Ron

0:-)

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:TPWdnX2KxPzoEijYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a
corner he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used and
drop them as his PROOF.

Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.

Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your
claims. Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.

Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool ACCEPTED
by courts all over.

I didn't make the claim.

Ron did BUT you argued it.

I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.

The POINT is that the case does NOT support the dolls it does the
OPPOSITE... But Kane your understanding is so **** poor that you don't and
CANNOT understand that.

Again I am faced with trying to teach a Baboon to fly a 747..


In law, depending on what state you are in there are TWO (no hair splitting
here ala Kelly-Frye) standards for the acceptance of scientific evidence.

1. The original FRYE test.

2. The More recent "DAUBERT" test. (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals)

ONE of the standards in BOTH tests is that any given "scientific"
evidence must be "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" within the scientific community. Which
is WHY evidence such as DNA passes and the SAC Dolls do NOT! What you are
UNABLE to understand, INCAPABLE of understanding is what the import of what
you read was. When the court acknowledged that there was "substantial
disagreement' it means they are DOOMED for acceptance. The court in Ohio v.
Boston tap danced around the issue and said we'll pretend it wasn't there,
but IF it was it's BULL****! Your ignorance is showing.

Are there any states where the SAC dolls haven't been struck down?

I found the "generally accepted" test to be particularly interesting
when considering Munchausens By Proxy where apparently it IS
"generally accepted" and most certainly should NOT be.

Just a note for later discussion.

Greegor wrote:
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:TPWdnX2KxPzoEijYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a
corner he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used and
drop them as his PROOF.
Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.
Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your
claims. Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.
Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool ACCEPTED
by courts all over.
I didn't make the claim.
Ron did BUT you argued it.
I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.
The POINT is that the case does NOT support the dolls it does the
OPPOSITE... But Kane your understanding is so **** poor that you don't and
CANNOT understand that.

Again I am faced with trying to teach a Baboon to fly a 747..


In law, depending on what state you are in there are TWO (no hair splitting
here ala Kelly-Frye) standards for the acceptance of scientific evidence.

1. The original FRYE test.

2. The More recent "DAUBERT" test. (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals)

ONE of the standards in BOTH tests is that any given "scientific"
evidence must be "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" within the scientific community. Which
is WHY evidence such as DNA passes and the SAC Dolls do NOT! What you are
UNABLE to understand, INCAPABLE of understanding is what the import of what
you read was. When the court acknowledged that there was "substantial
disagreement' it means they are DOOMED for acceptance. The court in Ohio v.
Boston tap danced around the issue and said we'll pretend it wasn't there,
but IF it was it's BULL****! Your ignorance is showing.

Are there any states where the SAC dolls haven't been struck down?

I can't wait for his bull**** response. Being he is the ancestor of what
will become the Famous Pangborn Variation Using SAC Dolls.

The one where you simply recognize that children with high reactivity to
the dolls are more likely to have not been molested, and those with low
reactivity, more likely to have been molested.

Hell, he provided the explanation for the experimental testing that he
claims proved those outcomes under those circumstances, X leads to Y
given Z.

RR R R HE should get full credit and any revenue deriving from fees.


Just a note for later discussion.

You going to have a "debate" Greg?

With your sucker?

Can we watch?

0:-

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:TPWdnX2KxPzoEijYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a
corner he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used and
drop them as his PROOF.
Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.
Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your
claims. Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.
Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool ACCEPTED
by courts all over.
I didn't make the claim.
Ron did BUT you argued it.
I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.
The POINT is that the case does NOT support the dolls it does the
OPPOSITE... But Kane your understanding is so **** poor that you don't and
CANNOT understand that.

Again I am faced with trying to teach a Baboon to fly a 747..


In law, depending on what state you are in there are TWO (no hair splitting
here ala Kelly-Frye) standards for the acceptance of scientific evidence.

1. The original FRYE test.

2. The More recent "DAUBERT" test. (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals)

ONE of the standards in BOTH tests is that any given "scientific"
evidence must be "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" within the scientific community. Which
is WHY evidence such as DNA passes and the SAC Dolls do NOT! What you are
UNABLE to understand, INCAPABLE of understanding is what the import of what
you read was. When the court acknowledged that there was "substantial
disagreement' it means they are DOOMED for acceptance. The court in Ohio v.
Boston tap danced around the issue and said we'll pretend it wasn't there,
but IF it was it's BULL****! Your ignorance is showing.

Are there any states where the SAC dolls haven't been struck down?

I can't wait for his bull**** response. Being he is the ancestor of what
will become the Famous Pangborn Variation Using SAC Dolls.

The one where you simply recognize that children with high reactivity to
the dolls are more likely to have not been molested, and those with low
reactivity, more likely to have been molested.

Hell, he provided the explanation for the experimental testing that he
claims proved those outcomes under those circumstances, X leads to Y
given Z.

RR R R HE should get full credit and any revenue deriving from fees.


Just a note for later discussion.

You going to have a "debate" Greg?

With your sucker?

Can we watch?

0:-

What are SAC dolls, Greg? I know nothing about these issues but Kane
is professing his expertise so I just have to ask.

Doan

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Ron wrote:
"krp" wrote in message
news:uIkth.5161$df3.4726@trnddc04...
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings
around. The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having
to answer direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by
others in support of their claims, and generally to cause as much
confusion as he can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do
so honestly.
Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to
BE honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious,
mislead, misdirect, and outright lie.
By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.
BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****. The cite of you and Kane that
Ohio v. Brown SUPPORTS the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT
OPPOSITE you know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out
that your claims are BULL****!


And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on
the net and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!

I have never said anything about your banking accounts kenny. Not one
word. Another lie from you.

Facts are facts kenny, you can ignore them, but they dont go away.

One of the practicums I signed up for in college (we had to do three at
undergrad level) I still hearken back to with considerable distaste.

I hadn't been trained to deal with drunks. It took all the sympathy and
deliberate practice of empathy to even begin to deal with the day to day
idiotic babbling the fried brains produced.

Do you know how hard it is to not just be able to let empathy occur
naturally and have to MAKE it happen?

I'm getting that old feelin' again.

Ron

0:-)

In my technical training I WAS trained how to deal with drunks. Empathy has
nothing to do with it.

Is kenny drunk? Would not surprise me a bit, except that he spells to well
for someone who is drunk.

Ron

Ron wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
...
Ron wrote:
"krp" wrote in message
news:uIkth.5161$df3.4726@trnddc04...
"Ron" wrote in message
...

Kenny has spent nearly all his "debate" time tossing red herrings
around. The news group stinks of them. He uses these to avoid having
to answer direct questions, avoid replying logically to data offered by
others in support of their claims, and generally to cause as much
confusion as he can to "appear" as if he is debating when he cannot do
so honestly.
Yeah, "red herrings" like The definition of CAUSATION...

And HONESTY is the point I am making here. Kenny Pangborn refuses to
BE honest. He would much rather toss red herrings fast and furious,
mislead, misdirect, and outright lie.
By being honest you mean SUBMITTING to your bull****, right Ronny?

I don't think I want to believe anything this idiot has to say anymore.
BYE don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Simple - the SAC dolls are bull****. The cite of you and Kane that
Ohio v. Brown SUPPORTS the use of the dolls while it does the EXACT
OPPOSITE you know RED HERRINGS LIKE THAT. MISDIRECTION like pointing out
that your claims are BULL****!


And while you get Moore's support as he puts my bank account info on
the net and you two CRETINS blame me for it. AMAZING!
I have never said anything about your banking accounts kenny. Not one
word. Another lie from you.

Facts are facts kenny, you can ignore them, but they dont go away.
One of the practicums I signed up for in college (we had to do three at
undergrad level) I still hearken back to with considerable distaste.

I hadn't been trained to deal with drunks. It took all the sympathy and
deliberate practice of empathy to even begin to deal with the day to day
idiotic babbling the fried brains produced.

Do you know how hard it is to not just be able to let empathy occur
naturally and have to MAKE it happen?

I'm getting that old feelin' again.
Ron

0:-)

In my technical training I WAS trained how to deal with drunks. Empathy has
nothing to do with it.

I wasn't arresting. I was treating. Different job, different tools. We
had folks with "technical training" to deal with drunks.

Is kenny drunk?

Now Ron, shame on you. Did I say that? Did I? Huh?

Would not surprise me a bit, except that he spells to well
for someone who is drunk.

Oh, then I couldn't have been referring to him, just some of his behavior.

Just a similarity, as I pointed out, not an accusation.

Ron


Kane

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...

Haven't you seen Kane's method of debate? When he is backed into a
corner he will find a dozen cites where the word he wants is used
and
drop them as his PROOF.

Nope. I provide the argument and the link to the citation for anyone
to
also see if my quote is contextually compatible.

Kane EVERY one of your cites - EVERY ONE fails to support your
claims. Not most of them - ALL of them on this subject.

Please show you work.

And move it to the Spanking Leads to Aggression in Children thread
where
we started this discussion.

I'll be happy to take your claims up there.

Like the Ohio v. Boston case. He was pounding the table that it
PROVED that the SAC Dolls were THE scientific assessment tool
ACCEPTED
by courts all over.

I didn't make the claim.

Ron did BUT you argued it.

I contributed what I fully acknowledged as an opinion. That the issue
is
far from resolution. You seem to now want to respond to that but
instead
insist I was arguing in favor. I was not.

The POINT is that the case does NOT support the dolls it does the
OPPOSITE... But Kane your understanding is so **** poor that you don't
and
CANNOT understand that.

Again I am faced with trying to teach a Baboon to fly a 747..


In law, depending on what state you are in there are TWO (no hair
splitting
here ala Kelly-Frye) standards for the acceptance of scientific evidence.

1. The original FRYE test.

2. The More recent "DAUBERT" test. (Daubert v. Merrill Dow
Pharmaceuticals)

ONE of the standards in BOTH tests is that any given "scientific"
evidence must be "GENERALLY ACCEPTED" within the scientific community.
Which
is WHY evidence such as DNA passes and the SAC Dolls do NOT! What you are
UNABLE to understand, INCAPABLE of understanding is what the import of
what
you read was. When the court acknowledged that there was "substantial
disagreement' it means they are DOOMED for acceptance. The court in Ohio
v.
Boston tap danced around the issue and said we'll pretend it wasn't
there,
but IF it was it's BULL****! Your ignorance is showing.

Are there any states where the SAC dolls haven't been struck down?

Up until I read the Ohio v. Boston decision I had thought Ohio had
allowed them. I think they are allowed in Alabama, Arkansas and West
Virginia.

I found the "generally accepted" test to be particularly interesting
when considering Munchausens By Proxy where apparently it IS
"generally accepted" and most certainly should NOT be.

Just a note for later discussion.

Actually MSBP has been under considerable attack and has now fallen into
GREAT disfavor in the courts in the U.K. and Australia.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:P7adnQ0UPbXnEivYnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Greegor wrote:

Are there any states where the SAC dolls haven't been struck down?

I can't wait for his bull**** response. Being he is the ancestor of what
will become the Famous Pangborn Variation Using SAC Dolls.


You created that variant in your own mind Kane. I never stated it. Just
stated that research had shown the SAC dolls protocols invalid. Can you
name a state where the dolls are CURRENTLY allowed in as evidence of sexual
abuse?

"0:-" wrote in message
news:w_Kdna8uP4E6sCvYnZ2dnUVZ_sGqnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

He'll be here long after you've run out your string here as you have
elsewhere, Kan. Laughing in retrospect at yet another ****ant that came
through loud and stupidly to and out of this newsgroup, and is just an
object of comic relief.

Look fella I have been on usenet for over a decade, not long after
Usenet was created.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:ZbednTqwXaaA9SvYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@scnresearch. com...

Too bad. You had our chance, and blew it. Now let the lady monkey go and
wipe yourself off.

Did I use enough K-Y Jelly? How's your BUM feel? Did I hurt you?