Ken's checking accounts KANE'S HERO speaks

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:Y7WdncaJCZmXOyrYnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

One of the practicums I signed up for in college (we had to do three at
undergrad level) I still hearken back to with considerable distaste.
I hadn't been trained to deal with drunks. It took all the sympathy and
deliberate practice of empathy to even begin to deal with the day to day
idiotic babbling the fried brains produced.

You see, funny, I never got to do a "practicum" as such as an undergrad.
We didn't get those till later in grad school. I feel cheated.

Well, now you've done it, stupid.

snore self aggrandizing bull**** to flow

Well, you could just stop posting it.

If I had ANY doubt, and I did, that Moore might have fabricated that claim
that you had a bogus degree this clarifies it for me.

What did you say your degree was in? Doctorate of Lies?

In my field, I'll identify generally as mental health, and you might want
to guess what professional field of study is required, graduates students
work at internships, Ken.

General field?

Yep.

Afraid to be specific are you? Well I don't know Kane,
maybe SOCIAL WORKERS do that.

Nope. Just no one's business. It's not relevant to the discussion.

In psychology one does an Internship POST DOC,

Not everywhere sir. Not everywhere.

not as one IN Grad School before a Master's is granted.

I'm very aware that different practices that require on site field work
are not the same everywhere. Are you ignorant of this?

You are dancing away from your claim that one can't have done a
"practicum" because of your experience of not having done so at
undergrad level.

Sorry. YOUR experience is not the experience of all. I posted a long
list of proof to the contrary.

You forgot to snip them. 0:-]

Here's the last one, and it addresses your claim that one can't do an
undergrad "practicum," or did you not mean to convey that?

Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology
Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology ... The Practicum program will
contact students using their GSU email address only with information to
complete the ...
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwpsy/undergrad...eneralInfo.htm - 30k - Cached -

See? While your original statement is too open ended to accuse you of
the hubris you are so burdened by, this later argument proves that you
were in fact trying to claim I did not know what I was talking about.

If you scool has a
Psychology Clinic in it, as a grad student - pre-Master's you MAY get some
clinic experience - MAY........ You DO as a Doctoral Student as part of your
coursework. Of course I went to school a LONG time ago and bachelor's level
students didn't do "Practicums."

I went probably before you did. And yes they do.

1967 undergraduate studies began.

The plural of "practicum" by the way, is, surprise, "practicum."

As in "I have participated in and completed two undergraduate
practicum." Or, "How many practicum are you going to do?"

Granted, they also are sometimes labeled "practicum." But, just like X
leads to Y to 'cause', they are NOT confined to that term.
One may do a practicum, or intership.

Well tell us what GOOFY "field" you ARE actgually in Kane. UNLESS it is
rated ABOVE Top Secret that is.

It's irrelevant to my punching a hole easily through your claim that
undergraduates can't do a practicum. Are you not arguing that?

I wonder if you answered my question of, "what do you call it when an
undergrad does field study for him major?"

What do you call the field study that undergraduates do, when they do Ken?

Generally didn't DO "field studies" as an undergrad Kane.

That's YOU. And this is the first time you'll more carefully qualified
your statement. And if it's "generally" then you don't HAVE an argument
with me that I have claimed anything not possible or ordinary. Right?

You appear to be claiming I lied about doing a practicum as an
undergraduate student. You have even gone so far as to claim a psych
major undergrad doesn't do, "practicum."

[[[ LAST ENTRY TO THE CITATIONS I PROVIDED IN MY VERY LAST POST TO YOU
ON THIS SUBJECT ]]]

Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology
Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology ... The Practicum program will
contact students using their GSU email address only with information to
complete the ...
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwpsy/undergrad...eneralInfo.htm - 30k - Cached -
"Prerequisites

Applied Practica in Psychology (Psyc 4770) and Research Practica in
Psychology (Psyc 4760) have the following prerequisites:

* A student must be in sophomore standing
* A student must have taken Psyc 3110 (Interpersonal Behavior)
(Psyc 4770 only)
* A student must have a minimum (overall) GPA of 2.5 and a
minimum Psychology GPA of 3.0
* Advising and authorization by the department

Description of Practicum Program

Students work and receive training in a setting where psychological
methods and principles are applied in a community setting (Psyc 4770) or
through directed research involving the principles and methods of
psychology in a research setting (Psyc 4760). Each practicum course is
equivalent to 1-3 credit hours of course work. Students are required to
receive 30 hours of training for each credit hour registered. Each
student is expected to have weekly contact with an on-site supervisor or
faculty supervisor directing the project.

Students are expected to demonstrate their growth and their ability to
integrate this experience through a written document at the end of the
semester for each practicum, e.g. a scholarly paper, a journal, or
reaction paper. All students registered for practicum will receive a
grade of "S" or "U" in this course. According to the provision of the
current catalog, we allow students a maximum combined total of (6) six
hours of Psyc 4760 or Psyc 4770. No more than (3) three credit hours can
be taken per semester, for example, (3) three Fall semester and (3)
three Spring semester for a total of (6) six or (2) two fall, (2) two
Spring and (2) two Summer for a total of (6) six. "

See? Plenty more where that came from...at the end of my last post and,
(did you forget to snip?) appended in attributions to this very post.

Kinda shoots your silliness in the ass, no?

An aside: I managed to carry 21 hours, maintain a 4. GPA my first year,
and finish with a 3.8.

You might guess I'd know whether or not I was off campus, and on site in
the field, right? Though of course undergrad practicums can happen in a
lab onsite as well. But they DO happen before the chappie get's his BS.

Why, pray tell, do I keep getting this feeling you would have been lucky
to finish a semester of undergraduate work, let alone win a doctorate in
Psychology? Hmmmmmmm......

About all we
did was to proctor the written parts of the IQ tests given to students in
the elementary school attached to the university.

Not in my case for my undergrad practicum.

I did work on-site in a prison, a youth mental health treatment center,
CPS, (three were required for the program I enrolled in as my major) and
later two more in related fields in yet another BS degree program.

Maybe because undergrads
don't know **** yet!

You have an overblown sense of your importance and capacity to judge
others. All one has to do, that has a good education in one field is to
then go back to school. Do you think they don't know ****?

If you are what your grad school doctoral program produced as an
educated man, I don't see how you stood up to the rigors of defending
your doctoral dissertation.

Say, by the way, while I'm thinking of it, what was the title of your
dissertation. I'd like to look it up and read it.

You do know they are available.

My daughter works for Xerox.

Just enough to be dangerous.

You may just set a record for the dangers of holding a PhD from the
school that you won yours from.

They also didn't allow the
people in nursing achool to do brain surgery either!

Trite.

And why would they, since nurses are studying to be brain surgeons.

They do have them do NURSING practices under supervision.

Ken, you are boring me. A PhD should surely be able to whip me in
debate. At least occasionly, WITHOUT LYING. What's holding you up.

Or did you mean to suggest undergrad programs don't have practicums or
something else? Did I misunderstand? Please clarify.

I know of no undergrad program in psychology that does not have a
PRACTICUM.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Get your lips off Doan.

I provided you an example in my prior post.

Here, try a few more. I'm certainly not going to provide ALL of them:

Spalding University: School of Professional Psychology
Practicum Information · Adult Psychology Emphasis Area ... Psychology
Students Our Undergraduate Major in Psychology offers a Bachelors of
Arts degree in ...
www.spalding.edu/frame.asp?pg=db2.asp?id=419 - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
The Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology provides a broad coverage of
modern scientific psychology. ... P495 Practicum I & P495 Practicum II ...
www.iuk.edu/~kosbsc/psychology.shtml - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Clemson University's Department of Psychology
The Bachelor's degree in psychology at Clemson is designed to prepare
.... Students frequently enroll for credit in a Practicum course as part
of their ...
business.clemson.edu/psych/undergrad.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Here is what graduate program field work under supervision of a faculty
advisor can be called. And it's not limited to psychology.

Ah GRAD SCHOOL - you said UNDERGRAD.. Before a Bachellor's is granted.
BIG difference Kane,. The ADD kicking in again?

My my, but you are the happy little conclusion jumper, aren't you now?

Had you read on, and understood what I had said, you would have seen I
covered both subjects brought up by YOU, child. And have come back like
the gentleman I am attempting to teach you to be one, and erased your
silly bull**** ad hom. Surely, sir, you can do better.

I posted the information below to show that often "practicum" at
graduate level is called, Internship. It's done both during (before
awarding of degree) and of course also as you point out, after awarding.
It varies.

The very first entry uses BOTH.

Sir, practicum is used for both, internship for ONE. And I have
participated.

You have the child's way of seeing the world, presuming YOUR experience
and knowledge constitute the ONLY possible correct fact or truth.

Simply read what I posted before as proof, come back and defend your
comment, or challenge.

You will see below that this is an INTERNSHIP program below. It's not
called a "practicum" all by itself.

And it is not in agreement with your claim about it having to be AFTER
award of degree.

I'll add the actual info given from the cite and link below. Figure it
out for yourself. I'm tired of teaching you English comprehension to the
point I feel even more justified in calling you a liar.

Applying to a Graduate Program ... M.A. Program Internship Practicum. An
important part of the MA program, for those who are not writing a formal
thesis, ...
http://www.albany.edu/communication/...ternship.shtml - 9k -
From the above. ...
M.A. Program Internship Practicum

An important part of the MA program, for those who are not writing a
formal thesis, is the internship practicum. The internship comes near
the end of the program, after a student has completed at least 21
credits. This six credit component of the program includes a twenty hour
a week placement in a communication internship lasting for a minimum of
12 weeks.

Students do a variety of types of internships, depending on their
interests. Some are interning in state agencies, the state legislature,
public relations, radio, television, advertising, personnel work,
counseling, student affairs work, and fund-raising. Opportunities for
internship placements are enhanced by the University's proximity to New
York State government as well as its location in the burgeoning Tech
Valley region.

A practicum seminar meets once a week to discuss the final analytic
paper. Students are encouraged to bring research and other scholarly
problems to the seminar and to critique the work of other students.

This proves FRESHMAN get to do it too???? See that MAGIC WORD ....
"GRADUATE" there Kane??? Not UNDERGRAD!

Nope. I proves that it's not POST award of degree only, as you said. It
all depends on the program, bunky.

Here we are on the dorrelation - causation confusion badwaggon again. YOU
said that the PRACTICIM as an UNDERGRADUATE.
Freshman, Sophomore etc!

Yes, I most certainly did. And you most certainly have ignored the last
entry, or are lying about it....did you forget to snip?

My entries here are to show that "practicum" as you said, IS used in
describing a part of the graduate program. It is NOT confined to it and
denied to the UNDERGRAD program.

Just as X leads to Y is NOT confined, as you claimed, to Cause and not
allowed in Correlation studies.

You were wrong then, and now.

I will leave, for your edification, the entry that shows, indeed, that
the term "practicum" is used in undergrad studies.

Now please tell us if you really think that ----all---- Master's level
'practicum' or internship, is performed AFTER degree is awarded.

....snip........

Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology
Undergraduate Practicum in Psychology ... The Practicum program will
contact students using their GSU email address only with information to
complete the ...
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwpsy/undergrad...eneralInfo.htm - 30k - Cached -
Similar pages


So Georgia State has a practicum for undergrads - WE DIDN'T!

Oh, then you weren't disagreeing with me in your first comeback about my
having had three practicum assignments in undergraduate school?

I find that just a tad hard to believe after I replied and you again
took up the argument I've left attributed here, ad homs and all.

So you don't believe that what you did (which by the way, I have
considerable doubt about given the site of your matriculation that
issued you a degree) is then required to be used as the measure for
others experiences?

Then why did you comment with what appears to be a negative affirmation
to my comment about my practicum experience in a Bachelor's program?

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

You are right, YOU haven't directly said anything about the accounts.
KANE has

True, inquiring, after your "invitation" by posting them to "prove"
malicious intent and low moral character of Moore.

Which the website content DOES.

?

I specifically asked you at the very next post in reply to you "proof"
how they came to be posted and were the in fact a much smaller part of
a larger document. Turns out it was, and the bankruptcy filings posted
by him was to prove another argument, not to expose your record.

OH? What was it to PROVE?

He just posted it a day or two ago.

And my further discussion with you was to note that you, an apparent self
described consultant to fathers, would miss the obvious move, upon
YOUR filing, of moving your accounts immediately.

Why? When you file you are REQUIRED to provide ACCURATE and CURRENT
information.

Yes?

At the final hearing you are asked about the accounts.
You CANNOT move them before the discharge. AT least not without disclosing
them to the court. And then the NEW ones become part of the record.

How long after filing was it until discharge?

And provide a citation please for that claim that you cannot move them,
and what difference would that make to Moore who was not trying to
specifically post your account numbers but simply a bankruptcy filing
record for his argument?


(You're slipping. You forget to move the dad's rights addy from the send
to field. Tsk.)

I remove it YOU keep adding it back!

Usually.

It was there in the beginning. Why do you wish to remove it now...and
don't give us that bull**** that it's off topic in that ng. R R R R R
RR R R

In fact, Ken, in an attempt to alert hackers to your comments, in hopes,
we can presume they'd come swooping in and go after us....odd that I
started getting notices of just such attempts not long after....that I
haven't had a problem with in 7 years now....YOU include the one I keep
putting back.

Here's your list of addies from that first post with this subject:

1/18/ 12:06 pm

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.hackers.malicious, alt.dss.hack,
alt.support.child-protective-services

Interesting, eh?

It stayed there through a number of posts to the thread, including
yours, until, thinking better of it.....can we presume because you were
getting your ass kicked and being exposed as even MORE of a pernicious
lying asshole....it disappeared from your headers,

And the hacker bait addies were removed by.....WOW....GREG.... on the
20th....but impolite little ****ant that he is, and stupid, he thought
YOU were going to whupass on us here and left the addies as:

alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents

You don't suppose Greg could have suggested to you, puppy boy, that you
do that, then he quickly dropped them for you hoping no one would notice
do you? R RRR RRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..........stup id
****s.

Whereupon, the addies remained through a long string of posts until you
posted and went on to post based on a lie, a false argument that you
repeatedly compounded the lie thereby:

"Kane and Ronnie are proclaiming themselves to be the VICTORS... Doan -
there is a great deal of published "BULL****." Kane is cute when he
INSISTS so angrily that "X leads to Y" is a statement of correlation and
NOT causality! He is, of course, absolutely full of ****" ...

[[[ You may feel free to be safe from copyright enfringement, as this is
my permission to reprint my entire post where I claim that X leads to Y
is not a causality. Any time now, limpy. ]]]


.... you continued until 1/22 in a posted reply to me the addies changed
fro the first time to:

alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.foster-parents

Ken, do you realize what a law firm would pay ME to consult for them?
You still haven't figured out what I do, have you, dummy?

I have a hunch you woke up to the exposure you were subjecting yourself
to, and the fact that your lies were being routinely sorted out and
dumped back in your lap as a matter of course.

You HOPED that you could prevail (and put that key addie back then to
puff your image) because I had just posted to you, the following:

You begin with:
....
Moore is firmly of the belief that he is a million times smarter than
everyone else.

[[[ I reply with ]]]
I didn't pick that up from any of his writing. Can you point me to some?

He claims he has written an encryption program protecting his
identity so completely that the best the NSA has can't crack his code.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I'm less sleepy about such a claim than you. I have considerable
interest in the subject as I am close friends to one of the better
programmers of encryption code.

If you'll point me to his claim, so that I can verify he made it, and it
says what you say it says, then I'd like to get to know Moore better and
introduce him to my friend.

He's not just an acquaintance, and we have business interests together.

Thanks in advance for the favor.

In time there might be a finders fee involved if this proves a
profitable new association and collaboration.

....


I have a hunch there was something in that all TOO easy to catch you
lying about. So you dumped the sensitive newsgroup's addy.

Isn't that essentially correct, Mr. Pangborn?

From the highly inflammatory "cracker" attention getting addies on 1/18:

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.hackers.malicious, alt.dss.hack,
alt.support.child-protective-services

To the careful removal by Greg two posts later (He didn't count on
Firemonkey's quick reply, did he?) of hacker baiting addies, to your
careful removal, finally, when it occurred to you yours ass is in deep
****, where you pulled the dad's addy on 1/22.

Four days of getting your ass handed back to you hour after hour, and
you finally woke up.

You are too dumb to breath on your own.

Go back to full time lying, Ken.

You aren't good at that either, as I just showed you, again, but it's
better than trying to argue using silly science.

0:-]

"0:-" wrote in message
news:HYadnUWqNsVPkSTYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

You are right, YOU haven't directly said anything about the
accounts.
KANE has

True, inquiring, after your "invitation" by posting them to "prove"
malicious intent and low moral character of Moore.

Which the website content DOES.

I specifically asked you at the very next post in reply to you "proof"
how they came to be posted and were the in fact a much smaller part of
a larger document. Turns out it was, and the bankruptcy filings posted
by him was to prove another argument, not to expose your record.

OH? What was it to PROVE?

He just posted it a day or two ago.

I don't see Moore's posts. What did it PROVE?

And my further discussion with you was to note that you, an apparent
self described consultant to fathers, would miss the obvious move, upon
YOUR filing, of moving your accounts immediately.

Why? When you file you are REQUIRED to provide ACCURATE and CURRENT
information.

Yes?

At the final hearing you are asked about the accounts. You CANNOT move
them before the discharge. At least not without disclosing them to the
court. And then the NEW ones become part of the record.

How long after filing was it until discharge?

4 or 5 months.

And provide a citation please for that claim that you cannot move them,
and what difference would that make to Moore who was not trying to
specifically post your account numbers but simply a bankruptcy filing
record for his argument?

I didn't say you CAN'T move them, I said that IF you do you have to
disclose the FULL information to the court including all bank statements
from when you first moved them. But the documents don't appear until the
final discharge. But were not supposed to appear in the public part of the
on line system.

(You're slipping. You forget to move the dad's rights addy from the send
to field. Tsk.)

I remove it YOU keep adding it back!

Usually.

And I'll continue to remove it. Do you really NEED your hero to rescue
you? (Moore)

It was there in the beginning. Why do you wish to remove it now...and
don't give us that bull**** that it's off topic in that ng. R R R R R RR
R R

In fact, Ken, in an attempt to alert hackers to your comments, in hopes,
we can presume they'd come swooping in and go after us....odd that I
started getting notices of just such attempts not long after....that I
haven't had a problem with in 7 years now....YOU include the one I keep
putting back.

Here's your list of addies from that first post with this subject:

1/18/ 12:06 pm

alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.hackers.malicious, alt.dss.hack,
alt.support.child-protective-services

Interesting, eh?

They aren't my addies Kane they were added by your GAY LOVER Moore. I keep
removing them. YOU put them back.

You planing on one day answering my request?

I answered your questions, now you answer mine.

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Dontcha think posting bank account numbers is
just a bit too much, Kane?

Yes, I do. I wonder who actually did it.

No acknowledgment?

And they were on Moore's web site also weren't they?

Were they? Please post a link to the page where they were posted.

I ask you to post a link to the page they were on if you thought they were.

Your rhetorical question indicates that is what you believe. Or want
others to believe. "also weren't they?' is the key phrase. That is an
affirmation of their presence.

Support your claim.

Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them? That is the issue that brought
this to ascps.

Or can't you answer?

I notice some other claims by Ken as to things Moore is supposed to
have displayed, but can't be found with proof Moore is the author.

Why do you suppose that is, Greg?

Why do you suppose Ken's claims do not come with proof?

I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

Interesting how it all detracts from alt.suppor.cps and our topics
related to that.

You happy now?

Or ashamed as you should be?

And you can skip the two questions above, as they were most brazenly
rhetorical and presumptive, and correct.


0:-]


Kane

On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane.

To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!

Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

I missed that.

Keep yelling 'stupidity' so we won't miss how stupid you really are.

Doan

You lie constantly. You have since Chris was active here and before.
And you have continued over time to the present.

When you are wrong you lie if challenged. When you are caught lying,
you lie to duck your lie.

0:-]

On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane.

To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!

Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim. That is a fact! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

I missed that.

Keep yelling 'stupidity' so we won't miss how stupid you really are.

I proved your STUPIDITY and LIES, Kane! You even concurred! ;-)

Doan

You lie constantly. You have since Chris was active here and before.
And you have continued over time to the present.

Is that why even Chris had to called you STUPID! ;0-

When you are wrong you lie if challenged. When you are caught lying,
you lie to duck your lie.

The proven liar is YOU!. Q.E.D


0:-]

Doan wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.
And I don't see you responding, Kane.
To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!
Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.
He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane?

You.

Please double check your
attribution.

Okay, here's your post addressing me.

"On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane. The proven LIAR here is YOU!
He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression. The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

Doan
"

Got it yet?


He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim.

Yes it is.

That is a fact

Yep.

! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous.

"Otherwise?" You mean I claimed it WASN'T a causal claim?

Odd, that's not what my posts on the subject claim. I claimed and cited
sources of researchers using "X leads to Y" for both.

And as you said yourself, causal outcomes include correlations.

But I included correlations that were in fact outcomes, by researchers,
of "X leads to Y."

Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

No, it's not.

How can a "tactic" be a 'lie?'

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)
The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

It did, though you have shortened the title of the study:

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm"

Which it continued to say until some time after Ken got into the mix and
was being beaten black and blue by me, where a regular poster's addy was
forged, and the Subject field was changed to: " Don's pathetic
disruptions"

With nothing but ad hom for Don in the post.

And as things continued in that vein for a couple of posts, then Ken,
who had nowhere else to go, responded to an attack on me by Greg because
neither can carry their load with me, even with our help, and Ken did
more pointless unsupported lying in regard to me.

Having gone back, to an early post, Ken brought the true title back to
the subject field from replying to Greg:

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm"

Have you taken up drinking or drugs then?

Here is the title of my post, and the title of the article cited:

"Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural
Norm"

As you can see it does say what you claim it doesn't.

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

Is your rhetorical question to my question:

The beauty
is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)
The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

You appeared to be saying Ken's claim it the authors were claiming a
causal relationship and you referring to the study, left me to assume
that you meant he was right.

My question stands as anything but stupid or goal post moving.

In fact, I'd say yours qualifies and mine does not.

The study did say "Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety,
Regardless Of Cultural Norm," and as such and since I proved that "X
leads to Y," Ken's flaccid attempt to argue with the title to avoid the
content 0:-], was not confined to solely "causal" studies, and used for
correlation studies you are trying to move back to that argument.

You were whipped.

I missed that.

Keep yelling 'stupidity' so we won't miss how stupid you really are.

I proved your STUPIDITY and LIES, Kane! You even concurred! ;-)

Nope.

Doan
You lie constantly. You have since Chris was active here and before.
And you have continued over time to the present.

Is that why even Chris had to called you STUPID! ;0-

Relevance to your lying? I was marking a time period, and you?

You were moving the goal post to another subject. Nothing to do with how
long you have been lying. Trying to duck the truth, Doan...which is a
lie to mislead. You were attempting to mislead by misdirection any reader.

When you are wrong you lie if challenged. When you are caught lying,
you lie to duck your lie.

The proven liar is YOU!. Q.E.D

When you are wrong you lie if challenged. When you are caught lying,
you lie to duck your lie.

Doan, Iste homo mendax.

Anyone that can read and isn't themselves a liar, can plainly see I have
repeatedly helped you expose yourself as a liar in debate and argument.

Feel free to lie to protect your mother.

I would do so.

I do not lie in debate.

Mistakes, yes.

You have repeatedly labeled them lies. That is a lie. You have continued
to treat them as lies, even when I went to considerable trouble to
correct and admit the error.

To which I usually own up if I see plainly that I was mistaken. To which
I will not it being otherwise than "plain." Those differences are open
to debate. Not name calling, or claims of liar. YOU lie when you do so.

I have opinions. They may be wrong or they may be right. But they are
opinions, which are not lies.

If I make an affirmative claim intentionally to lead the reader to a
conclusion I do not believe to be true myself, then I have lied.

I don't do that.

You have proven you do exactly that, yet again today.

You know you are not right. You defend your mistake with a lie.
Compounding the lie, and you lie when caught lying, thus compounding both.

You are also a bore. But hey, that's a trait you share with Greg and Ken.

You argue regardless of being caught lying and mistaken and dodge to
mislead any reader into thinking your dodges are meaningful to the issue
in discussion.

You claimed I moved the goal posts, by doing exactly that yourself.

QED.

0:-]

"Kane" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 20, 9:56 am, Doan wrote:
On 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:



Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane.

To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!

Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Debate what? Which article?

FACTS KANE! Those damn FACTS!

"Doan" wrote in message
...

Greegor wrote:
I see krp has run up a few posts addressed to me with the usual lies
about what he's posted and about what I've posted, and claims he did
this or that the refuted my claims, where he has done nothing of the
sort.

And I don't see you responding, Kane.

To?

The proven LIAR here is YOU!

Greegor didn't post the comment attributed to him. I did.

Your apology is welcome if not terribly tardy, since in a later post,
he at least admitted they were misattributed to him, though he, as
would be expected of someone of his character, did not say whose
remarks they were.

He refuted your claim that spanking causes aggression.

He?

Ken?

You have to be kidding. He did nothing of the sort. Link to the
thread, and post or posts where he did this supposed refuting,
Doan.....and we will witness a miracle. Be bellowed like you do. And
what he bellowed didn't prove that at all. He ran.

Hihihi! Who are you talking to, Kane? Please double check your
attribution.

He refused to debate he article content, and spent his time, with your
support, dodging with his erroneous claim that x leads to y isn't also
correlation, but only causal. Absolute nonsense to duck the content of
the International study.

Hihihi! "x leads to y" is a causal claim. That is a fact! Your
claim to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Even your google search
tactic has been shown to be a LIE!

He STILL thinks the statement is a correlation! He's just had his
ass whipped so badly on it he's afraid to say so again.

The beauty is he used that same source you provided; thus exposing your
STUPIDITY
for everyone to see. ;-)

The study report said they were proposing a causal relationship?

Hihihi! Trying to move the goal post, Kane? The study didn't say
"spanking leads to aggression" did it?

Kane STILL can't tell the difference in this case between correlation
and causation.

"0:-" wrote in message
news:5OSdnY31O5jw1SDYnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Where on Moore's website has he displayed those account numbers as the
poster, "anonymous bounce' posted them? That is the issue that brought
this to ascps.

Are you DENYING they are on Moore's website?