If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate"
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote:
I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? Who's "stupid?" Who's a "liar?" Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phonyoffer to "debate"
On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! Who's "stupid?" You are! Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. You do! ;-) You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Doan Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
And Doan lies yet again, about lying....was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate"
On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive? "ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate? She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat? Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! "I accepted!" = "I offerred to." Please get a dictionary. Who's "stupid?" You are! At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that means. Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the tables were kind of turned. For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE come up with the report. You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not meet. yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled. You do! ;-) Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused to come up with, there was no way of varifying. Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions. Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate. No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) Nope, just at your posts. You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you had it. See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar? Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you are the liar and cheat. Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!" So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had. You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my question. "Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is crossed, that is, damage is done. Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly? Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all your tricks. You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years. Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have? Okay. Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common response from folks such as you. Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Sorry, "Arline" then? R R R R R R I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the relationship. English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality. Doan See yah, Droany. Kane Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
And Doan lies yet again, about lying....was.. Kane0 lies again
a123sdg321 On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote: On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive? It's you who seem to be having the problem with English! "ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate? Nope. You are being stupid again. I cannot offer something that I DON'T have. Here is an English lesson for you. From dictionary.com: Accept: v. accepted, accepting, accepts v. tr. 1.To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract. P Offer: v. offered, offering, offers v. tr. 1.To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink. She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat? LOL! You are the one that lied and cheated! And stupid too! :-) I am saying that she is afraid the details of the study. Haven't you noticed that she avoid me questioning her on the details of the Power & Chapiesky study! Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! "I accepted!" = "I offerred to." You are being stupid again. Please get a dictionary. Already have. SEE ABOVE! Who's "stupid?" You are! At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that means. Yep! You are just stupid! Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the tables were kind of turned. You are lying again! For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE come up with the report. Another lie! I ASKED her for the report. She refused! You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not meet. You are looking in the mirror again! yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R And you are the same Kane0 - that's 9 less than a Kane9! :-) Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled. I don't! You do! You do! ;-) Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused to come up with, there was no way of varifying. I posted the details of the study. You didn't and can't! ;-) Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions. LOL! Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate. You are lying again. LaVonne challenged me - I accepted! No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are looking in the mirror again. :-) You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) Nope, just at your posts. Which you are too stupid to comprehend! You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you had it. I posted the details. What is your proof? :-) See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar? That would be you! :-) Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you are the liar and cheat. LOL! Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!" LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had. You are lying! You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my question. You are being stupid again! "Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is crossed, that is, damage is done. You are being stupid again! Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly? You are being stupid again! Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all your tricks. You are being stupid again! You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years. You are being stupid again! Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have? Stop lying! Okay. So you are lying! Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common response from folks such as you. You meant unlike "never-spanked" kid like you? :-) Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result. You are being stupid and a bad liar again. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Sorry, "Arline" then? What a "formidable research" skill! ;-) R R R R R R Howling like a dog? :-) I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the relationship. Where is your "formidable research" skill? ;-) English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality. It is for you, I see. :-) Doan See yah, Droany. See yah, Kane0! Doan Kane Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate"
On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:13:48 -0700, Doan wrote:
a123sdg321 On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote: On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive? It's you who seem to be having the problem with English! "ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate? Nope. You are being stupid again. I cannot offer something that I DON'T have. Here is an English lesson for you. From dictionary.com: You don't have "debate?" Of course you do and you offered to THREE different ways. You agreed to. You asked for the study (she did not "offer the study" as you claim above...you asked for it). You asked for information from the study. That is offering to debate. Accept: v. accepted, accepting, accepts v. tr. 1.To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract. P Offer: v. offered, offering, offers v. tr. 1.To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink. You didn't have "debate" to offer? You are still lying, as usual, Droany. Read your contributions carefully, and though I know it pains you, think. Here's a sample on "offer." To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered to debate. You "offered" to debate, by acceptance, get it yet, stupid little often spanked boy? Notice the word "acceptance" used to describe "offer?" When you accepted you offered. Simple as that. And that is exactly what I said that you claim I'm lying about. You offered to debate her, did you not? She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat? LOL! You are the one that lied and cheated! And stupid too! :-) Show exactly where I lied and cheated, and where I was stupid. You can't even see you just screwed yourself, yet again, with your stupidity. I am saying that she is afraid the details of the study. Of course you are. You always do that. Then when the details are offered you pretend they say something they do not. I've seen you tease out months of posted exchanges by that method. You are a fraud, a phony, a moral creep. Nothing more. Haven't you noticed that she avoid me questioning her on the details of the Power & Chapiesky study! Again you want details of a study you do not have in hand. Just as the Embry report. No one wishes to debate dishonest people and no one wishes to debate someone that isn't informed on the subject....as you are not if you do not have the Power & Chapiesky study. She can wait. You'll call on Aline or Alina eventually to help you, no matter the name of the sock you create. Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! "I accepted!" = "I offerred to." You are being stupid again. Please get a dictionary. Already have. SEE ABOVE! R R R R R ..... I did. Offer = Accept, is what it said. Showing you to be a stupid little too often spanked child. What did you offer to do when you "accepted," Droaner? And I'll ask it until you answer, trust me on this one. Who's "stupid?" You are! At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that means. Yep! You are just stupid! You haven't shown a single instance to prove that, ever. Not in the past and not now. As I said, your own dictionary example proves you to be stupid. Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the tables were kind of turned. You are lying again! Really? I asked you The Question. Suddenly, when you couldn't answer it, you came up with a challenge to debate Embry. I asked you to produce the study so we could debate. You refused to prove you had it. No big deal. Just more of your games and lying. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...sc.edu&rnum=19 Here is just ONE of the posts where you were deep into refusal to answer the question I actually asked...and I didn't ask for the legal definition..in fact I pointed out it was NOT the answer to the question...how does one know were to stop in the use of CP on a child. YOUR answer strongly suggests one has to break the law, that is do injury to the child, to find out where the line is....and of course it's never going to be in exactly the same place with the same child over time and circumstances. In other words, you are a liar. And the post above shows that you were trying desperately to focus on anything but The Question, and YOU challenged me on Embry. Just as I said, liar. Why are you so afraid of me and The Question, Droany? And why are you so afraid of Embry that you would weasel for months on a chance to debate his report? All I asked for was proof you had it before I'd accept your challenge, and you refused to prove it. You are a phony. Always have been. For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE come up with the report. Another lie! I ASKED her for the report. She refused! Giving you a full citation of source is a refusal? She refused to do your work for you. That's all. Just as I did when YOU challenged me on Embry. Hence, I'm not lying. YOU are. Your behavior since is clear evidence you are "demanding" the report. Otherwise you'd just shut your piehole and go and get it and heave too on the debate. But you just play here instead. Coward. Liar. Creep. You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not meet. You are looking in the mirror again! Nope. this post and thousands before it from you. yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R And you are the same Kane0 - that's 9 less than a Kane9! :-) Small child, babbling his lies to weasel out of a debate. First with me, now with LaVonne. Droany, the tiny baby weasel that's been spanked into being a moral cripple. Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled. I don't! You have lied continuously in this post and in many before. That you answered The Question I asked is a bald face lie that anyone can see that followed our exchange. All you answered was some OTHER question you made up, like what is the "legal definition" of abuse. You do! Prove it. You do! ;-) Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused to come up with, there was no way of varifying. I posted the details of the study. You didn't and can't! ;-) I compared them. In the first place you posted the baseline, that is the evaluation BEFORE THE STUDY, to set the normal response range to ONE parental action. And for another, it was from a different study or report. It is not from the report I have. The numbers do not coincide. I suspect you have one of the New Zealand later studies. I have the original. And your claim to have MY copy of a particular study rests on MY varification that you do. You refused to give me enough information to prove it, and in fact gave me information not from the study I have. You lie when you claim to have something I have when you don't KNOW what I have. But then lying is your game. Always has been. Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions. LOL! Foolish laughter akin to whistling past the graveyard. You are completely discredited, Droany, and you did it yourself. Now you are keeping it going. Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate. You are lying again. LaVonne challenged me - I accepted! What has LaVonne challenging you to debate have to do with my statement being a lie. I said You challenged me and refused to follow up on the debate when I insisted you produce the same study I had. Now you think that what YOU wouldn't do, LaVonne must. You are a liar. No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are looking in the mirror again. :-) Just your posts. You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) Nope, just at your posts. Which you are too stupid to comprehend! What would I have to comprehend to know that you have run another lie? It's not rocket science to read your nonsense and see it. Just like your claim to having answered The Question I asked. You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you had it. I posted the details. What is your proof? :-) You posted incorrect information. You refused to answer any question on content I asked. I'd say that's proof enough you lied by omission. You claimed to have the study. I asked to see a bit of information that confirmed it and you provided information that did NOT confirm it. One can find citations of other's work in research and scholarly articles and even the media. The only way to prove you had it would be to answer MY questions, since they would be items I'd pick at random. You are a liar and cheat. And a coward that would not follow up on your own challenge. In addition you are a menace to families that come here looking for answers to the spanking issue by your encouragement for them to take chances with their children and risk of harm and loss of those children. See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar? That would be you! :-) What a brilliant comeback, when you have nothing else. Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you are the liar and cheat. LOL! Yep. As I said, just a coward, liar and cheat. Challenge then run. Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!" LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! More of the same silliness? What is it about folks who haven't been spanked that you would call "typical?" That they wish you to be truthful? So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had. You are lying! Nope. I asked for a line so parents could determine the safe levels of CP they could use without risk of injury. You answered, "Already answered - "reasonable standard"!" You answered, "All it takes is a call to your local DA to find out what the law is in your community!" You answered, "Yup, a call to the local DA or CPS agency is all it takes. Have you called your local DA or CPS and ask? :-)" In other words, since I asked for a way for parents to determine where the line is, exactly, so they won't cross it inadvertantly, they are to stick to the law...in other words, and the law makes it clear, INJURY is where the line is, not just before injury, which is what I asked. You are a liar. You never answered the question I asked. Here's another of your charming lies...this time about homeschooling: Droany: Another lie from the "never-spanked" Kane9. I have never said anything against homeschooling. Perhaps you've mistaken me for Dorothy, stupid dog! :-) Kane: Okay, puppy: From: Doan Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Obsessive behavior in 4 year old Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:59:23 -0800 " I heard the same argument from home-schoolers - some called "unschooling". The problem is every kid is an individual. What worked for one may not be working for another. For me, my parents taught me that learning is not only doing what I like in school but also sometimes doing what I don't like. This philosophy has helped me alot in life! Doan" I thought you said: " I have never said anything against homeschooling." Is this statement of yours not against homeschooling? You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my question. You are being stupid again! Nope. I asked a question. You didn't answer THAT question. Or do you think it stupid of me to ask you to prove what you claim parents know, and parents themselves have come here claiming they know: when to stop using CP before the line is crossed and injury done? Given the stats I'd say you were a damned fool to even respond to my challenge of The Quesiton. But then we've known you to be a damn fool for years now. "Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is crossed, that is, damage is done. You are being stupid again! Not if I want to know the answer to my question, where is the line so one can be careful not to cross it but still us CP for discipline. I presume you are defending the right of the parent to choose for themself. You have said so many times. Now either you don't care if they injure their child, or you are a liar. Which is it? Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly? You are being stupid again! You have no way out again. Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all your tricks. You are being stupid again! Yep. Yet another dodge, as I predicted. You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years. You are being stupid again! And you are further and further away from having to face that you cannot answer the question and choked on it. Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have? Stop lying! Your answer to the question was not an answer to my question, The Question. I didn't ask what the law says is child abuse. I asked where the line is to stop before crossing when using CP. The law does NOT answer that question. Neither do "reasonable people." I know, as I've asked before. Very nice reasonable people have NOT been able to tell me exactly where to stop. No, "I hit only with the force it would take to close the lid of the trash can," or "I never hit more than three times in a spanking session." Nothing, Droany. The same thing you came up with. I've heard many try your dodges though. Everyone doesn't agree on what is reasonable force, what is a reasonable place to strike a child, what is reasonable to strike them with, what is reasonable to strike them for, and outside of Canada, and a few other countries, what the age range should be...in fact I don't think all countries agree. Do you? So, Droany. What is the correct answer to, The Question? Okay. So you are lying! Nope. You are. By claiming to have answered The Question when your answers aren't to the question I asked. Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common response from folks such as you. You meant unlike "never-spanked" kid like you? :-) You don't know if I am or was or not. And even if I were not that does not let you off the hook for your brazen lies. Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result. You are being stupid and a bad liar again. You don't have a conscience. You encourage parents to chose to spank. You do so knowing that they cannot make the best of decisions about it..and the proof is in both your failure to answer the question, and the record of child injuries from CP. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Sorry, "Arline" then? What a "formidable research" skill! ;-) Yes. I found out about Arline, someone you would know. Puppet masters are known to use familiar names...so they won't forget them while socking away. R R R R R R Howling like a dog? :-) Chortling like an old man wiser than the young boy suffering from the abuse he received at the hands of his parents. Poor Droany. I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the relationship. Where is your "formidable research" skill? ;-) Why would I research LaVonne? English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality. It is for you, I see. :-) Well, given the dictionary "proof" you "offered" and I "accepted" it's rather plain to see who is language challenged....R R R R R Doan See yah, Droany. See yah, Kane0! Doan Yes, you just might. I've seen you a couple of times on visits. Next time I'll wink. Kane Kane Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phonyoffer to "debate"
On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:13:48 -0700, Doan wrote: a123sdg321 On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote: On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive? It's you who seem to be having the problem with English! "ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate? Nope. You are being stupid again. I cannot offer something that I DON'T have. Here is an English lesson for you. From dictionary.com: You don't have "debate?" Of course you do and you offered to THREE different ways. You agreed to. You asked for the study (she did not "offer the study" as you claim above...you asked for it). You asked for information from the study. Don't be stupid! That is offering to debate. Nope! LaVonne made the offer. I can either accept or reject. I accepted! Accept: v. accepted, accepting, accepts v. tr. 1.To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract. P Offer: v. offered, offering, offers v. tr. 1.To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink. You didn't have "debate" to offer? Nope. I can't debate since I don't have the study! You are still lying, as usual, Droany. You are stupid as usuall. Read your contributions carefully, and though I know it pains you, think. Here's a sample on "offer." To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered to debate. That was LaVonne, stupid! ;-) You "offered" to debate, by acceptance, get it yet, stupid little often spanked boy? Read your ENGLISH again. "To present for acceptance..." I ACCEPTED the offer by LaVonne, STUPID! ;-) Notice the word "acceptance" used to describe "offer?" Are you so STUPID? Noticed that "rejection" used to describe "offer"? ;-) When you accepted you offered. Simple as that. When you reject you offered??? STUPID as you are! :-) Doan And that is exactly what I said that you claim I'm lying about. You offered to debate her, did you not? She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat? LOL! You are the one that lied and cheated! And stupid too! :-) Show exactly where I lied and cheated, and where I was stupid. You can't even see you just screwed yourself, yet again, with your stupidity. I am saying that she is afraid the details of the study. Of course you are. You always do that. Then when the details are offered you pretend they say something they do not. I've seen you tease out months of posted exchanges by that method. You are a fraud, a phony, a moral creep. Nothing more. Haven't you noticed that she avoid me questioning her on the details of the Power & Chapiesky study! Again you want details of a study you do not have in hand. Just as the Embry report. No one wishes to debate dishonest people and no one wishes to debate someone that isn't informed on the subject....as you are not if you do not have the Power & Chapiesky study. She can wait. You'll call on Aline or Alina eventually to help you, no matter the name of the sock you create. Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! "I accepted!" = "I offerred to." You are being stupid again. Please get a dictionary. Already have. SEE ABOVE! R R R R R ..... I did. Offer = Accept, is what it said. Showing you to be a stupid little too often spanked child. What did you offer to do when you "accepted," Droaner? And I'll ask it until you answer, trust me on this one. Who's "stupid?" You are! At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that means. Yep! You are just stupid! You haven't shown a single instance to prove that, ever. Not in the past and not now. As I said, your own dictionary example proves you to be stupid. Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the tables were kind of turned. You are lying again! Really? I asked you The Question. Suddenly, when you couldn't answer it, you came up with a challenge to debate Embry. I asked you to produce the study so we could debate. You refused to prove you had it. No big deal. Just more of your games and lying. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...sc.edu&rnum=19 Here is just ONE of the posts where you were deep into refusal to answer the question I actually asked...and I didn't ask for the legal definition..in fact I pointed out it was NOT the answer to the question...how does one know were to stop in the use of CP on a child. YOUR answer strongly suggests one has to break the law, that is do injury to the child, to find out where the line is....and of course it's never going to be in exactly the same place with the same child over time and circumstances. In other words, you are a liar. And the post above shows that you were trying desperately to focus on anything but The Question, and YOU challenged me on Embry. Just as I said, liar. Why are you so afraid of me and The Question, Droany? And why are you so afraid of Embry that you would weasel for months on a chance to debate his report? All I asked for was proof you had it before I'd accept your challenge, and you refused to prove it. You are a phony. Always have been. For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE come up with the report. Another lie! I ASKED her for the report. She refused! Giving you a full citation of source is a refusal? She refused to do your work for you. That's all. Just as I did when YOU challenged me on Embry. Hence, I'm not lying. YOU are. Your behavior since is clear evidence you are "demanding" the report. Otherwise you'd just shut your piehole and go and get it and heave too on the debate. But you just play here instead. Coward. Liar. Creep. You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not meet. You are looking in the mirror again! Nope. this post and thousands before it from you. yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R And you are the same Kane0 - that's 9 less than a Kane9! :-) Small child, babbling his lies to weasel out of a debate. First with me, now with LaVonne. Droany, the tiny baby weasel that's been spanked into being a moral cripple. Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled. I don't! You have lied continuously in this post and in many before. That you answered The Question I asked is a bald face lie that anyone can see that followed our exchange. All you answered was some OTHER question you made up, like what is the "legal definition" of abuse. You do! Prove it. You do! ;-) Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused to come up with, there was no way of varifying. I posted the details of the study. You didn't and can't! ;-) I compared them. In the first place you posted the baseline, that is the evaluation BEFORE THE STUDY, to set the normal response range to ONE parental action. And for another, it was from a different study or report. It is not from the report I have. The numbers do not coincide. I suspect you have one of the New Zealand later studies. I have the original. And your claim to have MY copy of a particular study rests on MY varification that you do. You refused to give me enough information to prove it, and in fact gave me information not from the study I have. You lie when you claim to have something I have when you don't KNOW what I have. But then lying is your game. Always has been. Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions. LOL! Foolish laughter akin to whistling past the graveyard. You are completely discredited, Droany, and you did it yourself. Now you are keeping it going. Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate. You are lying again. LaVonne challenged me - I accepted! What has LaVonne challenging you to debate have to do with my statement being a lie. I said You challenged me and refused to follow up on the debate when I insisted you produce the same study I had. Now you think that what YOU wouldn't do, LaVonne must. You are a liar. No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are looking in the mirror again. :-) Just your posts. You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) Nope, just at your posts. Which you are too stupid to comprehend! What would I have to comprehend to know that you have run another lie? It's not rocket science to read your nonsense and see it. Just like your claim to having answered The Question I asked. You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you had it. I posted the details. What is your proof? :-) You posted incorrect information. You refused to answer any question on content I asked. I'd say that's proof enough you lied by omission. You claimed to have the study. I asked to see a bit of information that confirmed it and you provided information that did NOT confirm it. One can find citations of other's work in research and scholarly articles and even the media. The only way to prove you had it would be to answer MY questions, since they would be items I'd pick at random. You are a liar and cheat. And a coward that would not follow up on your own challenge. In addition you are a menace to families that come here looking for answers to the spanking issue by your encouragement for them to take chances with their children and risk of harm and loss of those children. See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar? That would be you! :-) What a brilliant comeback, when you have nothing else. Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you are the liar and cheat. LOL! Yep. As I said, just a coward, liar and cheat. Challenge then run. Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!" LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! More of the same silliness? What is it about folks who haven't been spanked that you would call "typical?" That they wish you to be truthful? So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had. You are lying! Nope. I asked for a line so parents could determine the safe levels of CP they could use without risk of injury. You answered, "Already answered - "reasonable standard"!" You answered, "All it takes is a call to your local DA to find out what the law is in your community!" You answered, "Yup, a call to the local DA or CPS agency is all it takes. Have you called your local DA or CPS and ask? :-)" In other words, since I asked for a way for parents to determine where the line is, exactly, so they won't cross it inadvertantly, they are to stick to the law...in other words, and the law makes it clear, INJURY is where the line is, not just before injury, which is what I asked. You are a liar. You never answered the question I asked. Here's another of your charming lies...this time about homeschooling: Droany: Another lie from the "never-spanked" Kane9. I have never said anything against homeschooling. Perhaps you've mistaken me for Dorothy, stupid dog! :-) Kane: Okay, puppy: From: Doan Newsgroups: misc.kids Subject: Obsessive behavior in 4 year old Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:59:23 -0800 " I heard the same argument from home-schoolers - some called "unschooling". The problem is every kid is an individual. What worked for one may not be working for another. For me, my parents taught me that learning is not only doing what I like in school but also sometimes doing what I don't like. This philosophy has helped me alot in life! Doan" I thought you said: " I have never said anything against homeschooling." Is this statement of yours not against homeschooling? You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my question. You are being stupid again! Nope. I asked a question. You didn't answer THAT question. Or do you think it stupid of me to ask you to prove what you claim parents know, and parents themselves have come here claiming they know: when to stop using CP before the line is crossed and injury done? Given the stats I'd say you were a damned fool to even respond to my challenge of The Quesiton. But then we've known you to be a damn fool for years now. "Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is crossed, that is, damage is done. You are being stupid again! Not if I want to know the answer to my question, where is the line so one can be careful not to cross it but still us CP for discipline. I presume you are defending the right of the parent to choose for themself. You have said so many times. Now either you don't care if they injure their child, or you are a liar. Which is it? Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly? You are being stupid again! You have no way out again. Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all your tricks. You are being stupid again! Yep. Yet another dodge, as I predicted. You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years. You are being stupid again! And you are further and further away from having to face that you cannot answer the question and choked on it. Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have? Stop lying! Your answer to the question was not an answer to my question, The Question. I didn't ask what the law says is child abuse. I asked where the line is to stop before crossing when using CP. The law does NOT answer that question. Neither do "reasonable people." I know, as I've asked before. Very nice reasonable people have NOT been able to tell me exactly where to stop. No, "I hit only with the force it would take to close the lid of the trash can," or "I never hit more than three times in a spanking session." Nothing, Droany. The same thing you came up with. I've heard many try your dodges though. Everyone doesn't agree on what is reasonable force, what is a reasonable place to strike a child, what is reasonable to strike them with, what is reasonable to strike them for, and outside of Canada, and a few other countries, what the age range should be...in fact I don't think all countries agree. Do you? So, Droany. What is the correct answer to, The Question? Okay. So you are lying! Nope. You are. By claiming to have answered The Question when your answers aren't to the question I asked. Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common response from folks such as you. You meant unlike "never-spanked" kid like you? :-) You don't know if I am or was or not. And even if I were not that does not let you off the hook for your brazen lies. Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result. You are being stupid and a bad liar again. You don't have a conscience. You encourage parents to chose to spank. You do so knowing that they cannot make the best of decisions about it..and the proof is in both your failure to answer the question, and the record of child injuries from CP. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Sorry, "Arline" then? What a "formidable research" skill! ;-) Yes. I found out about Arline, someone you would know. Puppet masters are known to use familiar names...so they won't forget them while socking away. R R R R R R Howling like a dog? :-) Chortling like an old man wiser than the young boy suffering from the abuse he received at the hands of his parents. Poor Droany. I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the relationship. Where is your "formidable research" skill? ;-) Why would I research LaVonne? English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality. It is for you, I see. :-) Well, given the dictionary "proof" you "offered" and I "accepted" it's rather plain to see who is language challenged....R R R R R Doan See yah, Droany. See yah, Kane0! Doan Yes, you just might. I've seen you a couple of times on visits. Next time I'll wink. Kane Kane Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
And Doan lies yet again, about lying....was.. Kane0 lies again
Let's clear this up once and for all. My exact words on May 7th were
"Hey doan, Read Power and Chapieski yet, or are you still dealing with smoke screens? Read the study and let's debate." No, I am not going to provide you with "pieces of the study." I invited you to read the study and then debate the study. You responded with "I have not read Power and Chapieski. Can I get a copy from you? What's the sample size? Is it much larger than the Baumrind & Owens study? As you said, let's debate." And then you said: "So I have to go to the library? Sound like a delaying tactic. Oh, well. Are you going to answer the questions I asked about this study. WHAT IS THE SAMPLE SIZE? Doan" No, I am not going to answer your question. I'm still trying to figure out how I'm supposed to give you a copy of the study that you requested. You haven't figured that out yet, and you can't seem to find a library with research journals. You also appear to think that actually going to a library and reading what you try to discuss is an imposition. How ridiculous is this, Doan? LaVonne Doan Doan LaVonne a123sdg321 On 13 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:10:53 -0700, Doan wrote: On 12 May 2004, Kane wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:12:57 -0700, Doan wrote: I didn't offer LaVonne to "debate". Excuse me? Did you ask her to provide you the study to use for toilet paper then? You are STUPID again. She MADE the offer. I ACCEPTED! As usual, problems with language. How is it you survive? It's you who seem to be having the problem with English! "ACCEPTED!" in english means you offered to debate. And you asked for content from the study. Was that not an offer to debate? Nope. You are being stupid again. I cannot offer something that I DON'T have. Here is an English lesson for you. From dictionary.com: Accept: v. accepted, accepting, accepts v. tr. 1.To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract. P Offer: v. offered, offering, offers v. tr. 1.To present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: offered me a drink. She was the one that made the challenge. Yep, and you not only asked for the study from her but you asked her for various pieces of information from the study. Which she could seem to provide yet! :-) Are you suggesting she doesn't have it, or could it be that she is as reluctant as I to debate a liar and cheat? LOL! You are the one that lied and cheated! And stupid too! :-) I am saying that she is afraid the details of the study. Haven't you noticed that she avoid me questioning her on the details of the Power & Chapiesky study! Once again, you are proven STUPID and a very bad LIAR! ;-) Really? Then you just lied when you said you didn't offer to debate LaVonne when she challenged you, right? She made the offer. I accepted! "I accepted!" = "I offerred to." You are being stupid again. Please get a dictionary. Already have. SEE ABOVE! Who's "stupid?" You are! At least I'm not confused about who offers to do what and what that means. Yep! You are just stupid! Who's a "liar?" You are! ;-) Interesting that when you challenged ME to debate the Embry report the tables were kind of turned. You are lying again! For instance. You challenged me, but of course would NOT come up with the report yourself. Now LaVonne challenges you but you insist SHE come up with the report. Another lie! I ASKED her for the report. She refused! You are a cheat, holding others to standards you cannot and will not meet. You are looking in the mirror again! yawn Like what's new with Droananator? R R R R R And you are the same Kane0 - that's 9 less than a Kane9! :-) Doan Why yes, it is Doan, and you even spelled it right, proving that from time to time you don't lie. I don't have to lie. Why would you do it so much then? You seem compelled. I don't! You do! You do! ;-) Nope. Don't need to and haven't. You, on the other hand, claimed to have the Embry report I had, which of course without proof you refused to come up with, there was no way of varifying. I posted the details of the study. You didn't and can't! ;-) Interesting that you'd do that. Claim you had a particular report but refuse to prove it with simple answers to extremely simple questions. LOL! Especially, just like LaVonne, YOU challenged ME to the debate. You are lying again. LaVonne challenged me - I accepted! No, Droany, you are a liar, plain and simple. You are looking in the mirror again. :-) You are so lost in your mental confusion from basing your entire posting history on trickery that you trick even yourself. Looking in the mirror again? :-) Nope, just at your posts. Which you are too stupid to comprehend! You seemed to have forgotten that you asked for the study and asked for information from it. That wasn't an offer to debate her? Nope! She made the offer. I accepted. Since I don't the study, I asked her for it Yes, but then I asked you to prove you had the study when you challenged me and you did NOT come up with it...at least no proof you had it. I posted the details. What is your proof? :-) See what I mean about dishonesty and being a liar? That would be you! :-) Unless you prove you have it then you are a liar by default. You refused to prove you had the report you wished to debate. Hence, you are the liar and cheat. LOL! Charming, as usual. And yet another of your public masturbation exhibitions. Don't you ever tire of them? LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! LOL! Typical response for a "spanked child!" LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! So tell me, how yah comin' on The Question? R R R R R Already answer. No you didn't. You offerred a dodge, including jumping to a challenge to debate a study you wouldn't prove you had. You are lying! You are still too stupid to understand it? :-) I understand "reasonable standard" just fine. It means, "I'm dodging agian with a non-answer," since "reasonable standard" and the legal use of that term, and the casual use of it misses the point of my question. You are being stupid again! "Reasonable standard" applies only to what happens after the line is crossed, that is, damage is done. You are being stupid again! Are you really going to pretend my question didn't include that little bit? Where is the line so one can NOT cross it inadvertantly? You are being stupid again! Naw, you are going to dodge again. We know you, Droananator, and all your tricks. You are being stupid again! You are becoming a bore. Nothing new for years. You are being stupid again! Say, why don't YOU put the question out on some of the possibly related NGs and see if someone else is smarter than you and will tell the truth about The Question? Because I still having fun at your expense! :-) You have fun not answering the question but pretending you have? Stop lying! Okay. So you are lying! Personally I consider this issue to serious for this particular kind of fun, but then that, and similar dodges and ploys, is a common response from folks such as you. You meant unlike "never-spanked" kid like you? :-) Chicken**** to do it, aren't you. Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Folks such as you being those that were spanked as children and haven't been able to develop a conscience and ethics as a result. You are being stupid and a bad liar again. I notice also that you didn't bother to respond to a single one of my other challenges in this post. Now why is that I wonder, "Aline?" I am busy talking to your master, LaVonne. "Arlina"? :-) Sorry, "Arline" then? What a "formidable research" skill! ;-) R R R R R R Howling like a dog? :-) I don't even know LaVonne except here in this ng, and presuming she is honest about her gender, she wouldn't be "my master" if that were the relationship. Where is your "formidable research" skill? ;-) English is a real challenge for you isn't it now, along with morality. It is for you, I see. :-) Doan See yah, Droany. See yah, Kane0! Doan Kane Kane On 11 May 2004, Kane wrote: I note that recently Doan challenged LaVonne to "debate" on the Power's study and asked her if she could provide a copy. Given Doan's past record of "debate" and claims he would no, and probably could not, follow through on I suggest that this is simply one more of his openings to perform a public exhibition. A public exhibition of obfuscation and avoidance. Exactly as he has done here for years in this newsgroup. He will NOT stick to the point. He will NOT "debate," in that the instant he is called on his illogic and factual inabilities and shortcomings he will begin his usual dodge. He even opened a recent post to LaVonne with a suggesting she was snipping her own posted words because she might be "ashame" (sic) Given this very serious issue of risk of harm to children through poor choices of both method and application we find Doan constantly making claims he is unable to support. He could not actually define what he claims "parents" know: the point at which safe discipline using CP crosses over into harmful abuse. Nor has anyone else been able to define this. He has racked up dozens of sins of debate such as, appeals to emotions (a constant) by claiming parents know things they do not. He left a trail of Red Herring diversions in this ng that stretches back many stinking years. He's used many false analogies such as comparing the "right" the police have to use physical force to that of the parent disciplining with CP. And his capacity with building strawmen is unequaled. In other words, he lost the "debate" long ago, and so have all comers, but he goes on and on pretending to himself he is a "neutral" and neither encourages or discourages parents from using CP to raise their children. In other words, he's a phony. We have a couple of thousand years or more of violence growing out of childhood treatment to show the results of using CP on children. Children that grew up to be violent who were consistently treated gently in their early years is such a rarity no one has EVER come up with an example. Yet examples of violent adults that were physically punished as children abound in history. All Doan can do when confronted with such simple truths is switch to another tack and refuse to respond to the point made. His usual is to demand "anti-spanking zealots" prove that non CP methods work as well and have been as rigorously studied as CP. Like we have to prove birds have feathers. That's the same as asking someone to prove the moon is in orbit around the earth. A totally ridiculous demand not meant to get to any fundamental point but to play at diverson. Any review of his posting over time makes it clear he is not here to "debate" the subjects of spanking or non-spanking at all. He is here to entertain himself and his biases. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
Doan's phony offer to "debate" | Kane | Spanking | 35 | May 19th 04 08:18 AM |
Another child killed in kincare | Kane | Spanking | 26 | February 17th 04 05:30 PM |
Another child killed in kincare | Kane | General | 39 | February 12th 04 06:55 PM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |