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 |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Greegor wrote:
Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? No. I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Good, research it. Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? Sure. What is your evidence to support that statement? I've posted it. Respectfully, Hardly. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa You are intruding and I won't, until I decide Ken Pangborn and I are no longer debating, discuss this in this thread with you or anyone else. Just Ken. I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. Won't be long now. With great respect and admiration. Pohaku Kane, planet Earth |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Why so evasive Kane? Does Roberts rules of Order
supercede basic newsgroup netequette? You could of course start a new thread IF YOU MUST so as not to break your BM thought process. Just please answer my simple questions. If you posted the answers, they must've got lost among all of the bickering. 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? No. I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Good, research it. Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? Sure. What is your evidence to support that statement? I've posted it. Respectfully, Hardly. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa You are intruding and I won't, until I decide Ken Pangborn and I are no longer debating, discuss this in this thread with you or anyone else. Just Ken. I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. Won't be long now. With great respect and admiration. Pohaku Kane, planet Earth |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote: Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? No. Hihihi! I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Good, research it. Hahaha! Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? Sure. Hohoho! What is your evidence to support that statement? I've posted it. Yup! Your STUPIDITY is exposed, Kane. Respectfully, Hardly. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa You are intruding and I won't, until I decide Ken Pangborn and I are no longer debating, discuss this in this thread with you or anyone else. Just Ken. Hahaha! Sound like a dodge! I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. That would exclude you, Kane! ;-) Won't be long now. Yup! You are winning, Kane! ;-) With great respect and admiration. Hihihi! Pohaku Kane, planet Earth Doa, Google Earth |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message newsPOdnfW1sOhYlijYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@scnresearch. com... You mean I refuse to play in YOUR sandbox by YOUR rules. I said "ROBERTS RULES" RIGHT HERE RIGHT now and you ****ed all over yourself RUNNING like scared little GYRL! Coward? The onee that NEEDS all sorts of SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Nowjere near anythign recognized as standard debate. You refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion. I see, Roberts rules are not level. You've been using Robert's have you. That makes me want to say .... Nope you won't agree to them. WHy should I bother when you demand to make up your own rules? And DO make them up as suits you. Because you claimed you were ready to use them and debate under them. Changed your mind. I did not claim that Robert's aren't leveling. I claim you are not debating by it. You REFUSE to and demand your opwn special rules and your own definitions. No, I just made it plain I've accepted your conditions. Robert's rules it is. That would include not responding to others that attempt to interrupt. That would include taking turns. I'm not sure that RRO in it's entirety applies to our exchange here, but those portions that do will suffice. Would you like to have a "chair" that is a moderator? Who would you like? It would need to be a neutral party or as close as we can come in this setting. Or will you presume to turn to the text of RRO if a conflict on procedure should arise? Here are sources for RRO on line. http://www.rulesonline.com/ is one. I took this extract from the other at: http://www.robertsrules.org/ The Rules * Point of Privilege: Pertains to noise, personal comfort, etc. - may interrupt only if necessary! * Parliamentary Inquiry: Inquire as to the correct motion - to accomplish a desired result, or raise a point of order * Point of Information: Generally applies to information desired from the speaker: "I should like to ask the (speaker) a question." * Orders of the Day (Agenda): A call to adhere to the agenda (a deviation from the agenda requires Suspending the Rules) * Point of Order: Infraction of the rules, or improper decorum in speaking. Must be raised immediately after the error is made * Main Motion: Brings new business (the next item on the agenda) before the assembly * Divide the Question: Divides a motion into two or more separate motions (must be able to stand on their own) * Consider by Paragraph: Adoption of paper is held until all paragraphs are debated and amended and entire paper is satisfactory; after all paragraphs are considered, the entire paper is then open to amendment, and paragraphs may be further amended. Any Preamble can not be considered until debate on the body of the paper has ceased. * Amend: Inserting or striking out words or paragraphs, or substituting whole paragraphs or resolutions * Withdraw/Modify Motion: Applies only after question is stated; mover can accept an amendment without obtaining the floor * Commit /Refer/Recommit to Committee: State the committee to receive the question or resolution; if no committee exists include size of committee desired and method of selecting the members (election or appointment). * Extend Debate: Applies only to the immediately pending question; extends until a certain time or for a certain period of time * Limit Debate: Closing debate at a certain time, or limiting to a certain period of time * Postpone to a Certain Time: State the time the motion or agenda item will be resumed * Object to Consideration: Objection must be stated before discussion or another motion is stated * Lay on the Table: Temporarily suspends further consideration/action on pending question; may be made after motion to close debate has carried or is pending * Take from the Table: Resumes consideration of item previously "laid on the table" - state the motion to take from the table * Reconsider: Can be made only by one on the prevailing side who has changed position or view * Postpone Indefinitely: Kills the question/resolution for this session - exception: the motion to reconsider can be made this session * Previous Question: Closes debate if successful - may be moved to "Close Debate" if preferred * Informal Consideration: Move that the assembly go into "Committee of the Whole" - informal debate as if in committee; this committee may limit number or length of speeches or close debate by other means by a 2/3 vote. All votes, however, are formal. * Appeal Decision of the Chair: Appeal for the assembly to decide - must be made before other business is resumed; NOT debatable if relates to decorum, violation of rules or order of business * Suspend the Rules: Allows a violation of the assembly's own rules (except Constitution); the object of the suspension must be specified © 1997 Beverly Kennedy We can dispense with some, of course, since we aren't making motions, or voting. And unless we appoint a chair or moderator we won't be using others. If this doesn't suit you, we could look at the standard rules for debate and in the best tradition of fairness and sportsmanship we are known for in this country, work out a simple set based on our needs. How would you like to proceed? I can hardly wait for the scientific evidence you told us exists in multiple sources for non-spanking putting children at risk of developing "sociopathy" behaviors. In fact, I am so anxious I will be more than generous in coming to your rules and boundaries, as I've shown, by posting to multiple groups. The one I will insist on though, is no interruptions from any quarter, that which would appear to be mine, and that which would appear to be yours. Absolute fairness. I look forward to hearing from you. Kane 0;] |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? No. Hihihi! I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Good, research it. Hahaha! Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? Sure. Hohoho! What is your evidence to support that statement? I've posted it. Yup! Your STUPIDITY is exposed, Kane. Respectfully, Hardly. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa You are intruding and I won't, until I decide Ken Pangborn and I are no longer debating, discuss this in this thread with you or anyone else. Just Ken. Hahaha! Sound like a dodge! I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. That would exclude you, Kane! ;-) Won't be long now. Yup! You are winning, Kane! ;-) With great respect and admiration. Hihihi! Pohaku Kane, planet Earth Doa, Google Earth |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Kane wrote
Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. Roberts prohibits NO SUCH THING. Clearly you don't know SQUAT about Roberts Rules of Order! Greegor wrote: Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? What is your evidence to support that statement? Respectfully, Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Greegor wrote: Kane wrote Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. Roberts prohibits NO SUCH THING. Kane didn't claim that lying and the introduction of false data was prohibited by Roberts Rules of Order, did he, dingleberry? |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
K Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data.
G Roberts prohibits NO SUCH THING. Dan Sullivan wrote Kane didn't claim that lying and the introduction of false data was prohibited by Roberts Rules of Order, did he, dingleberry? Yes he did! http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...b80f3c0354a8d0 I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Greegor wrote:
Why so evasive Kane? Why provide the answer you want in a question? Does Roberts rules of Order supercede basic newsgroup netequette? I don't believe you asked that. Not only can you not spell, but you can't formulate a cogent question. There is no answer to your question. Unless of course you know of a source where that information is given. I don't. Do you mean do I apply RRO in conversation here? No. Why would I? You could of course start a new thread IF YOU MUST so as not to break your BM thought process. Just please answer my simple questions. Actually me boy, if you bothered to check not only do YOU start new threads in the middle of a long series of posts to the thread, you do it by complete replacement...which is fraudulent against the original poster. A pretense the thread is about YOUR subject not her's or his. When I change the subject line I leave the original even if I'm having fun with the poster. If you posted the answers, they must've got lost among all of the bickering. To the questions below? No, I can find the almost too easily. I refer to them in argument so as to have my quotes of myself correct, something other posts, Ken in particular, you very often, fail to do...you misquote YOURSELF, I suspect to wiggle out from defending your original claim and try to force your correspondent down a new path you feel less heat on your feet and so you retreat. YOu just accused me of not answering. I did answer. There for QED you are a liar. Let me show you. 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: In this post, Greegor wrote: " Why so evasive Kane?" Kane: Could you please explain correlation vs. causality to me? No. You asked a question I answered a question. You did not define the kind of answer you wanted. You asked if I COULD. I'm disinclined to because it's all been done before, and I don't need more exercise. I chopped half a cord of wood before breakfast, but thanks for your interest in my health and attempting to keep me occupied, now that your on leash puppy has gotten his little tail burned. You are too kind to us both. I was not evasive. So that is lie one. I want to make sure I understand those ideas correctly. Good, research it. You made a statement of fact. I answered you. I do think it's good you want to know. I don't BELIEVE you but I always have hopes. I am so invested in you learning that I suggested the most powerful means of gaining and retaining the ideas you wish to understand, doing your own reseach, reading, and cogitating. I can hope that one day when I say, as I have in the past to you, "Greg I'll debate that with you," you will actually be prepared and bravely step right and say something on the order of, "Yes you old a-hole, let's have at'r." So far it's been cute escapes, and sometimes just dead silence. Recently I had occasion to look at some two and three year old threads. Trust me, or do your own research R R R R, you did indeed continually do as I just said. So by accusing me of evasion by asking why I was doing it, and I once More answered your challenge you have lied again, Greg. You need to read the thread you mention below, and other threads that Ken and Doan drug the discussion away to. Doan, by the way, was the one that posted in a reply to aps, and in his next adjacent post posted quickly again and added ascps to the thread. I have to presume the possibility (shades of pretend to claim) that he did so to join you in welcoming your vicious attack puppy, all 3 pounds of mutt, to the fray. You guys are as subtle as bricks. And half as smart. I ask you again, will you pick a subject with me and enter into formal debate. Liars get one chance. Doan has had many so he's going to miss my company for just as long as I decide...which he pretends is not keeping my word when I decide to come back and visit his lying monkeyboy nonsense. His chances are up. No debate, just fun, with Doan from now on. You, however, since you have a couple of times actually tried hard to have a reasonable ad hom free, and fact based (even though you were in error, you tried) discussion have earned the honor of another chance. And yes, I do notice, and put those rare moments of Greg lucidness and respectable behavior aside to remind me it is possible. One day you will do it and might even win. Certainly my respect even if you lose the debate. You did good today, though I doubt your intent was well thought out, in recommending the lady get an attorney in the Day care situation. I believe you did it to run interference for the day care, your style, and pretend you were a parent's rights advocate. Greg, advocating to not report a crime against children and families is not advocating. But I gave you credit and withdrew my comments that could be construed as being against a lawyer. She needs one. She's contemplated breaking the law, I'd wager, and that means finding out the laws for her state. Good Boy. Can you succinctly explain the two concepts and how they relate to your assertion that "Spanking Leads to Child Aggression"? Sure. What is your evidence to support that statement? I've posted it. Respectfully, Hardly. Greg Hanson, Cedar Rapids Iowa You are intruding and I won't, until I decide Ken Pangborn and I are no longer debating, discuss this in this thread with you or anyone else. Just Ken. I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. Won't be long now. With great respect and admiration. Pohaku Kane, planet Earth |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking Leads To Child Aggression
Greegor wrote:
K Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. G Roberts prohibits NO SUCH THING. Dan Sullivan wrote Kane didn't claim that lying and the introduction of false data was prohibited by Roberts Rules of Order, did he, dingleberry? Yes he did! Quote me. Is that below your proof? It doesn't discuss prohibitions. I have asked of certain behaviors ARE in RRO. I have asked you if you were allowed in public meetings to interrupt and to hog the floor, and to attack the others with ad hom. You refused to answer, as usual. Good day. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...b80f3c0354a8d0 I promised him you see. He wants Robert's rules for debate, he's got it. Stick around though. I doubt he'll hold up his end and actually debate. Lying is not allowed nor the introduction of false data. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |