Ken Pangborn reneges on word

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:40:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 4 Mar 2007, Firemonkey wrote:

Sure Doan, but only by other highly disturbed wack jobs like you and
greg the perv.

Hihihi! Looked like Kane has a little monkey riding on his tail.
Let's try your ip address in the proxy checker Kane provided us.

http://www.atomintersoft.com/product...r/default.aspx

Please enter proxy IP address and port

Proxy IP: 12.210.253.65


Anonymous - HTTP Proxy server does not send HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR variable
to host, this improves privacy since your IP address cannot be logged.

High anonymity - HTTP Servers of this type don't send
HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR, HTTP_VIA and HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION variables. Host
doesn't even know you are using proxy server an of course it doesn't know
your IP address.

Damn! Hihihi!

If you don't post the response that is above the entry field, then all
you are doing with that information you did return, is educating,
which is what I was doing.

You can see if it is or isn't anonymous by reading the answer you'll
get ABOVE the IP entry field, little deceptive liar.


Doan


On Mar 4, 10:54 am, Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:

"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.

The same can be said about Kane, Ron.

Doan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:43:26 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:52:04 GMT, "KRP" wrote:


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


FRANTIC PLEA FOR HELP FROM THE STALKER!!

Stalker?

I reply to your bull****, and Doan's, and I'M a stalker?

Well, Kane. You add the other newsgroups in your cross-posting to invite
your friends in. Don't you remember that? Hihihi

Put them back, you mean?

What friends?

I never met Moore until Greg invited Ken here. And he even admitted
when I challenged him on one point of his evidence that it was not
conclusive...thus I even sided with Ken at that point.

You are lying again, Doan.

And it's not stalking to crosspost.

You are, however, defending someone with very questionable character.


Doan

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 accept a bull**** website from a stalker no questions
asked.)

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

Yeah right, before you then said 100% of the bull**** on his page was
accurate about meZ!

Did I? You can produce some citations for that that aren't YOU putting
words in my mouth? Produce my VERY OWN WORDS THAT SAY I ACCEPTED
EVERYTHING MOORE SAID AS ACCURATE?

If so, why would I call him out when I did?

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.

The papar is NOT - repeat NOT as in the word NOT a "study" it was a
"SURVEY" of mothers (HARDLY scientists) on their OPINIONS as to their
children's aggression.

That's how you get a survey done, and how you collect information for
a study. Are you saying the people that did the study called it
something else?

And the study contradicted the claim that spanking
CAUSES children to be aggressive.

It could not "contradict" something that is not being claimed. You
have failed to produce a quote and cite to post where anyone made that
claim, that I have not agreed with you...the title was not precisely
accurate.

You are arguing someone has said that. I am arguing that I did not say
that, and that the title of the article was inaccurate if you think
that's what IT said. Neither the article or the study abstract made a
claim of causality.

Do you remember 78s. Your record is broken. Your needling is skipping,
and you say this over and over again, as though someone is arguing
with you about it. I'm not.

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 on asking yourself for me to PROVE that the lack of spanking causes
sociopathy in kids.

No, I asked you to produce the evidence you claimed existed. I did not
have for proof. If I used that word, I certainly apologize. I don't
believe I did. I just what to see the evidence for what you claimed.

YOUR psychotic straw man.

How can you claim this is now my psychotic strawman?

YOU made the claim. I asked you to back it. Provide PROOF there is
such evidence.

We'll decide, when we see it, you and I, in debate, what it actually
says and if it provides supporting evidence for your claim of
sociopathy in non spanked children. Is that not fair?

And sane?

AND i said I'd document that
subjkect AFTER and not until AFTER

Dodge, plain and simple, based on a foundation of lies...watch me
prove it.

- - - ***YOU*** prove with
scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking makes kids aggressive. Yopu
ain't anywhere near that neighbodhood Kaney boy!

Well that's a great way out.

Ask me to prove (when anyone that's ever read research KNOWS that it
does not "prove,") something I did not make a claim you say I did.

Would you like me to 'prove' the moon landing was faked, too? There's
something else I didn't claim. 0:-]

So, let's start with you showing where I made such a claim, then I'll
provide the 'proof' of the claim you said I made WHEN YOU SHOW THAT I
INDEED MADE IT.

You, on the other hand, have been shown that you said what you said,
and I've asked you to back your claim.

I'm not even asking you to support your claim that non spanking does
what you claim. I'm simply asking you to come up with the evidence you
say exists.

In fact, for you to ask me to produce something YOU claim doesn't
exist amounts to a fraudulent argument on your part, especially when
I've repeatedly stated I made NO SUCH CLAIM, and you have not proven
otherwise. Here is what you said. It has two parts.

You state categorically that no such acceptable evidence exists, but
you ask me for it anyway, and the next sentence after than says what?

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

...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. ...

You are beaten, Ken. You cannot show you are telling the truth when
you say I claimed spanking causes aggression, and cannot produce the
evidence you claim there is for non spanking and sociopathy.

Your refusal to debate and demand the impossible (by YOUR OWN CLAIMS)
constitutes a fraudulent debating point. That removes you from the
debate unless you are willing to withdraw the demand.

If you do not, then you have run.

YOU claim no evidence exist, but you require ME to provide it before
you'll answer my request to produce evidence YOU say exists.

Explain the logic, please.

Keep congratulating yourself

Okay. (Kane whupped butt on Ken.)^infinity

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.

Kane you keep beating your chest that you have WON...

Hyperbole, Ken. I don't beat my chest. I merely defend myself with
facts, and your own words. No such evidence exists, so you can't
demand I produce it before you'll produce YOURS.

And yet the ONLY
source you have used argues against your STUPID claims.

The claim that spanking "causes" aggression? That would be stupid, in
an argument using scientific material, research. I've never said there
was research that showed that spanking CAUSES anything.

I have said research shows a connection through correlation.

You agreed with Doan's claim that the study (he called it that too,
are you calling him a liar?) was not a causal study, but rather a
correlation study. He addressed that to LaVonne, and you replied
backing his statement.

Do you wish to debate Doan?

...In regard to the International study...

"Doan"
wrote in message
...
First, the study is a correlation study. "

He used "study" twice. Do you think he didn't mean what he said?

Want to tell him that Larzerele, who does reviews of the research
literature, sometimes, which included research that include surveys,
to support his pro spank arguments is not doing a study?

I call that getting
your ass waxed Keney boy!

RR.R.R.R..R.R.R. interesting little typo, there, "Keney boy!"

And "e" and "a" are too far apart for a fingerslip typo. 0:]

Aren't your hands and chest getting sore yet? 0;]

You can tell yourself it is a GREART GREAT GREAT
victory if that floats yer boat! The rest of us will laugh our collective
asses off at you!

The rest of us? All the socks you created? "Rest of us?" Doan, his
sycophant Greg, and you? Not much of a crowd, given they are all
liars. Especially in THIS debate on this subject on this study.

andbragging 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.

Yeah your being shown 100% WRONG beats me!

"100%?" Hmmmmm....and you have had no success in proving a single
claim I've challenged you on.

Where's proof I ever said that spanking "causes" aggression, for
instance?

GOOD LOGIC KANEY!

Don't you mean.....snicker "Keney boy?"

Yes, my logic is almost perfect. For it's based on facts. Proof I
provide you that you are asking for what even YOU do not believe is
possible. Odd, eh? And would disqualify you in debate if you were
caught at it.

And you were. 0;]

By the by, if you remove the body of the other's post that has the
their arguments in it, it sure looks like you were nervous about those
arguments.

Where's the rest of my post, Ken?

Now provide your claimed evidence for sociopathy and unspanked
children, if you will, or don't.

And evidence I claimed in our debate that spanking "causes" aggression
in children.

You have quite a record of running now. Feeling a little winded, are
you?

Looks like you got caught lying again, Ken.

I'm tempted to run away, just so you have something to live for, a win
you don't deserve.

Naw, I think I'll stay. ..... R R RRRR R R R R

0;-]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:52:04 GMT, "KRP" wrote:

The papar is NOT - repeat NOT as in the word NOT a "study" it was a
"SURVEY" of mothers (HARDLY scientists) on their OPINIONS as to their
children's aggression. And the study contradicted the claim that spanking
CAUSES children to be aggressive.

You still want to tell Doan he was wrong then to call it a study twice
in one sentence?

You now have set a standard that only scientists can be interviewed
about spanking?

Scientist's are also expressing their opinions?

The study also, because it had nothing in it about poached pears,
contradicted any claim I might have made about having had them for
breakfast day before yesterday.

It might help if you based your arguments on things that exist.

As in showing proof I claimed that spanking CAUSES children to be
aggressive.

Which bring us to your deep concern for my honesty, and the insistence
that before you will provide documentation of your claim that there is
evidence that non-spanked children are at risk of developing
"sociopathy," I must admit I have lost the debate.

MMMMmmm..Ken, that doesn't strike you the least as being disingenuous,
and yourself running from the very claim you made?

Especially given that I'd have to lie to meet your demand?

You might, if you wish to be laughed at some more, claim I didn't win,
but you certainly can't claim I lost, or that you won.

All I've lost here, and I PUBLICLY CONCEDE IT, is control over your
lying.

But I never had any real control of that except for...

.... I can't do much about your lying but expose you for it.

You get to go right on doing it if you chose.

And living with the consequences.

Best to you each morning, Ken.

Yours in hope and prayer for a better tomorrow, Kaney boy!

Or am I now officially Keney boy!?

0;-]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:13:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:54 am, Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:

"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.

The same can be said about Kane, Ron.

Doan

Anything can be said, liar. But the question is, or should be, is it
true?

In your case, Kane. It has been PROVEN! You false accusation that
Alina is me is such a proof!

You may stick that right up your monkeyboy butt, child.
hihihi

Hihihi! Resorting to ad hom, Kane? You are just demonstrating your low
moral character, Kane. Keep it up!

Doan

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:40:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 4 Mar 2007, Firemonkey wrote:

Sure Doan, but only by other highly disturbed wack jobs like you and
greg the perv.

Hihihi! Looked like Kane has a little monkey riding on his tail.
Let's try your ip address in the proxy checker Kane provided us.

http://www.atomintersoft.com/product...r/default.aspx

Please enter proxy IP address and port

Proxy IP: 12.210.253.65


Anonymous - HTTP Proxy server does not send HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR variable
to host, this improves privacy since your IP address cannot be logged.

High anonymity - HTTP Servers of this type don't send
HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR, HTTP_VIA and HTTP_PROXY_CONNECTION variables. Host
doesn't even know you are using proxy server an of course it doesn't know
your IP address.

Damn! Hihihi!

If you don't post the response that is above the entry field, then all
you are doing with that information you did return, is educating,
which is what I was doing.

So why don't you post it, Kane?

You can see if it is or isn't anonymous by reading the answer you'll
get ABOVE the IP entry field, little deceptive liar.

Well, it is the same one as would if I have put in Alina's IP address,
Kane. Are you calling yourself a "little deceptive liar" now???

Doan

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:43:26 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:52:04 GMT, "KRP" wrote:


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


FRANTIC PLEA FOR HELP FROM THE STALKER!!

Stalker?

I reply to your bull****, and Doan's, and I'M a stalker?

Well, Kane. You add the other newsgroups in your cross-posting to invite
your friends in. Don't you remember that? Hihihi

Put them back, you mean?

Hihihi!

What friends?

Hihihi!
I never met Moore until Greg invited Ken here. And he even admitted
when I challenged him on one point of his evidence that it was not
conclusive...thus I even sided with Ken at that point.

Hihihi!

You are lying again, Doan.

The proven LIAR here is YOU, Kane.

And it's not stalking to crosspost.

You are, however, defending someone with very questionable character.

Hihihi! Saying the obvious fact that he WHUPPED your ASS and you LOST
the debate is not defending, Kane. He doesn't need me to defend him.
He WHUPPED your ASS without me. Remember you didn't want to debate me,
just him? You are not a good liar, Kane. YOU ARE STUPID!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:13:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:54 am, Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:

"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.
The same can be said about Kane, Ron.

Doan
Anything can be said, liar. But the question is, or should be, is it
true?

In your case, Kane. It has been PROVEN! You false accusation that
Alina is me is such a proof!
You may stick that right up your monkeyboy butt, child.
hihihi

Hihihi! Resorting to ad hom, Kane? You are just demonstrating your low
moral character, Kane.

You don't resort to ad hom?

Keep it up!

Keep demonstrating your tactics when you've lost a debate and are
putting off the inevitable.

Your parents much of done quite a job on you for you to run from truth
this hard.

You spew a stream of lying **** almost constantly.

The study said that there was a relation ship to higher rates of
aggression and anxiety across all cultures, and you cannot stand that
because it shoots down a favorite argument of the spanking advocates,
and YOU.

Too bad for you.

Doan

You are exposed once again, and proven once again, as a cowardly liar.

If you lied to protect your mother, I'd back you.

But to lie to protect your fragile ego....? R R RR R R R R

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* 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.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm
....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* 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.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm
....

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:13:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:54 am, Doan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Ron wrote:

"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.
The same can be said about Kane, Ron.

Doan
Anything can be said, liar. But the question is, or should be, is it
true?

In your case, Kane. It has been PROVEN! You false accusation that
Alina is me is such a proof!
You may stick that right up your monkeyboy butt, child.
hihihi

Hihihi! Resorting to ad hom, Kane? You are just demonstrating your low
moral character, Kane.

You don't resort to ad hom?

Not if my opponents haven't started it. You can ask Ron on this.
Unlike you, you even said "**** you" to Chris Dugan when said your
tactic is STUPID.

Keep it up!

Keep demonstrating your tactics when you've lost a debate and are
putting off the inevitable.

Hihihi! And you are just "pretending to be STUPID" right, Kane?

Your parents much of done quite a job on you for you to run from truth
this hard.

And your mom taught you that calling others "smelly-****" is a moral thing
to do.

You spew a stream of lying **** almost constantly.

Ooops! More "****" coming out of your mouth. Hihihi!

The study said that there was a relation ship to higher rates of
aggression and anxiety across all cultures, and you cannot stand that
because it shoots down a favorite argument of the spanking advocates,
and YOU.

Hihihi! And that "Spanking leads to aggression" right, Kane?
Many studies also showed the same relationship with non-cp alternatives,
Kane.

Too bad for you.

Why is that?


Doan

You are exposed once again, and proven once again, as a cowardly liar.

Hihihi! The coward is the one the hide behinh a my like you. The PROVEN
liar is YOU, who accused me of being Alina, out to con a copy of the
Embry Study from you.

If you lied to protect your mother, I'd back you.

Are you saying that you lied to protect your mother, Kane?

But to lie to protect your fragile ego....? R R RR R R R R

That sounds like you, Kane. BECAUSE YOU ARE STUPID! You lied when
you said Alina is me!

Doan