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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
"0:-" wrote in message news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not debated it. And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it. Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR scientifically validated. The issue isn't in the question you ask. I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or its speciality subdivisions. AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task. To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually abused. BONG!!!! I win! You won what I agreed with? Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. In fact you have taken sides I never dreamed existed. When you figure out what you believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather! |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
MORE DAVID MOORE BULL****
"0:-" wrote in message news:dZWdnWxaW92EZiHYnZ2dnUVZ_rrinZ2d@scnresearch. com... freedom wrote: "The character's name was actually Tommy Flanagan, and he would tell outrageous, unbelievable lies to make himself sound important." Sound like anyone we know? It's actually ironic that Ken, of all people, brings this up. A few years back I was contacted by the adult daughter of a man who was duped into using Ken's services. She told me that they met him at the airport, and that his personality was exactly like this particular character. Oh yeah BULL**** Moore. More CRAP you make up in that deluded mind of yours. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not debated it. And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it. Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR scientifically validated. The issue isn't in the question you ask. I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or its speciality subdivisions. AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task. To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually abused. BONG!!!! I win! You won what I agreed with? Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification. Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged. I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken. Exploring various possibilities about using the dolls. Instead of discussing those speculations with me, you have simply taken the stand that because I don't agree with you in one part (a patent lie, by the way...I said I don't accept the use of the dolls for investigating if abuse has taken place) my other speculations are null and void. And odd thing to do about speculation. In fact you have taken sides I never dreamed existed. My guess is that you are ignorant of a lot, Ken. By careful cultivation of avoidance of facts and their implications. When you figure out what you believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather! I posted that to you repeatedly. You have reduced the argument, your argument now, simply to lying. Think the subject is so long behind us either by time or volume that I can't post my prior comments here that prove you are lying about what I "believe" about the SAC dolls? And I certainly am not wasting your time. You keep responding. It time is being wasted, you are choosing to. I have no power to waste yours, only mine. And I don't. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
Ah ah ah, Ken.
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of. Tsk. krp wrote: "0:-" wrote in message news:CJ6dnfzPtpiaeSHYnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not debated it. And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it. Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR scientifically validated. The issue isn't in the question you ask. I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or its speciality subdivisions. AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task. To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually abused. BONG!!!! I win! You won what I agreed with? Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification. Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged. I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken. Exploring various possibilities about using the dolls. Instead of discussing those speculations with me, you have simply taken the stand that because I don't agree with you in one part (a patent lie, by the way...I said I don't accept the use of the dolls for investigating if abuse has taken place) my other speculations are null and void. And odd thing to do about speculation. In fact you have taken sides I never dreamed existed. My guess is that you are ignorant of a lot, Ken. By careful cultivation of avoidance of facts and their implications. When you figure out what you believe about the SAC dolls use to assess child sexual abuse - get back to me - till you do - don't waste my time with your blather! I posted that to you repeatedly. You have reduced the argument, your argument now, simply to lying. Think the subject is so long behind us either by time or volume that I can't post my prior comments here that prove you are lying about what I "believe" about the SAC dolls? And I certainly am not wasting your time. You keep responding. It time is being wasted, you are choosing to. I have no power to waste yours, only mine. And I don't. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
"0:-" wrote in message news:Q9SdnY34prqO3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not debated it. And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it. Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR scientifically validated. The issue isn't in the question you ask. I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or its speciality subdivisions. AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task. To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually abused. BONG!!!! I win! You won what I agreed with? Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification. Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged. I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken. No Kane you have taken the PRO- SAC dolls side, the anti-SAC dolls side and everything orbiting around it. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
"0:-" wrote in message news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com... Ah ah ah, Ken. alt.dads-rights.unmoderated And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of. Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to CALL UP THE RESERVES! MOORE!!!!! HELP!!!! KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT! MOORE COME HELP KANE!!! EMERGENCY!! KANE NEEDS HELP! |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message news:Q9SdnY34prqO3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@scnresearch. com... Now, what I did say is that your interpretation of the validity of the use of SAC Dolls in child sexual abuse investigations is that of an ignorant individual, and I stand by that statement. Which is of course why I attempted to provide you with a bit of education on the subject prior to our discussion of them, but you chose to not read the information I offered and of course without a frame of reference you were unable to debate the topic. Which is why we have not debated it. And you continue to make statements about the validity of the use of SAC dolls even to this day, and again from ignorance. Until you educate yourself on the subject we cannot debate it. Okay AGAIN show me where the use of the SAC Dolls to assess sexual molestation HAS been either accepted by courts OR scientifically validated. The issue isn't in the question you ask. I said they are "JUNK SCIENCE." I also said they are NOT accepted in courts and NOT by the American Psychological Association or its specialty subdivisions, nor by the American Psychiatric Association or its speciality subdivisions. AS used, yes, they are not appropriate to the task. To the task of assessing whether or not a child has been sexually abused. BONG!!!! I win! You won what I agreed with? Kane you have taken EVERY IMAGINABLE SIDE on that issue now. No, I've pretty much refused to do that in most instances. I have speculated and in so doing asked for your clarification. Rather than give a clear and concise answer you have dodged. I have, in this case, taken only one "side." Ken. No Kane you have taken the PRO- SAC dolls side, the anti-SAC dolls side and everything orbiting around it. Aborting what I actually said, and in addition not providing proof by quotation means you have an opinion, or, and more likely, you are lying. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com... Ah ah ah, Ken. alt.dads-rights.unmoderated And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of. Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to CALL UP THE RESERVES! Don't tell me you are afraid of Moore? Hell the last time he was here and I addressed him on the issue of Cuba I basically aced him out. Turned what might have been a claim into his admission of an impasse. MOORE!!!!! HELP!!!! KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT! Then you are afraid of him. MOORE COME HELP KANE!!! EMERGENCY!! KANE NEEDS HELP! Come on Ken, no one's going to believe that when you don't answer questions, and in desperation try weasel games like this to dodge. You have not refuted a single claim I've made, and on those things I'm not claiming but simply exploring issues with you, you are making something of an ass of yourself. If Moore and I are such buddies how come he didn't come 'help' me when you called him, or when I'm supposed to have by putting back the group addy that YOU STARTED THE THREAD WITH, eh? Ken, you are such a transparent phony. 0:-] |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
RON AND KANE READ THIS IF YOU CAN
freedom wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, "krp" wrote: "0:-" wrote in message news:Q9SdnYz4proX3yPYnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@scnresearch. com... Ah ah ah, Ken. alt.dads-rights.unmoderated And you refuse to answer my question about why you keep removing the newsgroup that you originally cross posted out of. Yep and YOU being the little DIP**** that you are keep adding it back to CALL UP THE RESERVES! MOORE!!!!! HELP!!!! KANE NEEDS A RESCUE FLIGHT! MOORE COME HELP KANE!!! EMERGENCY!! KANE NEEDS HELP! On the contrary, it looks like he's doing a great job of kicking your fat ass all by himself. He's so stupid that when he wins one, he keeps ranting on thus drawing attention to the possibility his accuser can't irrefutably prove the point. He's still ranting that I have to 'admit' he was in Cuba.....r r r r r Of course arguing with something I didn't claim and nullified for him, to avoid admitting that yes, he could have posted from there. Get's a freebie, drops it. Shows he was likely lying. Real smart cookie. But a winner. Along with Greg...because as you see the stated purpose of this ng, as google lists it, is not being pursued while Ken and Greg get all the attention. Fascinating. My bet is Ken congratulates himself when a group falls apart because he intruded on it. Amazing. http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQA/AwUBRb5R6Qu6zDezw650EQLGmACeKuh6RRq89ELTpkv+MOA6NS C9qzAAoMex yS51i+RUSZ8IxJ0MFvmKjZ5M =rT6G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Attention: CMU President and Board... | The only real Barbara Schwarz | Kids Health | 5 | February 14th 04 12:28 AM |
Where Did Hitler Find the "6 Million" ? FORGERY by David Moore | John Gault | Child Support | 1 | October 16th 03 02:31 PM |
THEY JUST DON'T GET IT Yes they DO DAVID MOORE!!!!!! | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 9th 03 12:51 PM |
David Moore is certifably reprehensible | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 8th 03 12:16 PM |
David Moore pretending to be somebody else | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 7th 03 05:51 PM |