The Debate on Spanking is Dead.

On Jul 13, 7:48 pm, "kidman via FamilyKB.com" u35676@uwe wrote:
I feel it's important to make it very clearly known

You have an agenda.

to any and all concerned,
that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is
dead, and has been for a number of years now.

Herein read: You declare it so and don't want to debate.

The most substantial indicator
of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every
professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and
treatment of children, has taken a public stance against the practice of
spanking*.

It goes with the predominantly kook left political demographics too.
So what?

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past
50+ years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional
consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions...

The "Social Worker mentality" was exported as part of the crusade.
So?

even to
the extent that, in an effort to reduce rates of Child Abuse, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands,
Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine
have legislated total bans on spanking.... with Italy, South Africa, Scotland,
Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit.

Nope.
And neither has any of the 50 United States.

It should
also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned
spanking in schools.

But in a few US states while a kid CAN be paddled in school,
the use of the very same paddle at home would be a crime.

The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against
the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

Propaganda from the Berkeley kook Left.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted
(typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can
one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other
'hate group' propaganda.

Whereas Child Protective service agencies have gotten slapped
for hiring pedophiles, child molesters and child abusers.
""Social Worker"" Geoffrey Rantz was quietly ejected from Iowa after
some molestation incidents (for PR reasons!), but got
a job as a child protection caseworker in Colorado Springs CO.

Because of the fact that the actual agendas of these
sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as,
'Family Council', 'People's Choice', 'Rights and Freedoms', etc., people are
forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being
made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard
way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of 'facts and
figures' that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political,
or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Whereas the Child Protection INDUSTRY in the US is so noble
that all the workers, supervisors, and many spinoff contractors
do it all for free!

Having spent 30+ years examining/evaluating the research on this issue of
spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence

Herein read: 30 years of being a left wing kook ACTIVIST...
What are your actual CREDENTIALS ""Jim C Talbot"" ?

that
there has never been a peer-reviewed

Politically inbred.
Peer review is NOT all that it's cracked up to be.

study that has been able to establish
the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an
effective teaching modality;

Did it work on Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Neil Armstrong?
You pretend that spanking has no track record of working.
What about just the first 200 years the USA existed?

as an effective punishment; or as a means of
instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been research findings produced
that have served to refute previous research showing spanking to be
associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for
physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for
the onset of dependence on external controls; or a proclivity toward
authority-directed behavior.

Except you WANT people to respect the authority of a Social Worker,
right?
Cute.

Moreover, there has never been research data
produced that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child
relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of
previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes
claimed to be the case).

Hey, You don't like CONSERVATIVES do you? Who'da guessed?
Only your Berkeleyesque kook left research is valid, right?

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss,
ignore, or discount, the research findings of field conducted experimental
studies related to the Social Sciences.

Academia and the REAL WORLD are NOT the same in many arenas!
Grow up and climb out of your "Ivory Tower" you idealogue!

Well, it's especially these folks
that I'd like to address concerning alarming new research findings which
represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered..
while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof*.

These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided
CAT SCAN pictures showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the
portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who
had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. Although, for the sake
of sample homogeneity, they incorporated subjects who had been categorized as
'abused' children for their study, common sense tells us that

Kook left propaganda tells you

this does not
eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to
spanked children

In other words, the linkage is questionable! But YOU BELIEVE!

who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious
violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must
first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage
can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much
more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children
can disrupt, or prevent, the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a
normal process of healthy brain development.

As far as I'm concerned,

How do you earn your living and what are your actual credentials?
Can they be verified?

How far are you concerned if your JOB depends on this hysteria?

this new area of research (apparently not yet
available on the internet)

They used SLOW electrons?

represents the most compelling, undeniable reason

Not available, yet undeniable? Are you forming a CULT?

that's yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start)
striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers
reading this feel the same way. It's difficult to imagine any parent who
would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote
risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In your case maybe a swat on your butt caused brain damage.

But, in spite of having said all of that, we actually shouldn't need research
to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to
end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for
research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the
practice of wives being physically punished.

No need for research finding to BELIEVE YOU? ARE you forming a
cult?

Instead, when we reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social
tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives,
our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the
higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, our next step ahead in
forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin
recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections.

No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the
jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged
and 'deserving' (namely white males),
regardless of race, gender, religion,
ethnic group, or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remains
legally unprotected from being violated by harassment, threats, defamation,
discrimination, or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So,
given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower
social status
by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in
terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also
shelter the younger, weaker of our members by allowing them to join those of
us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that's provided
under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?

Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn't seem all that
magnanimous if we keep in mind that we've already been willing to share the
shelter of our umbrella of Assault laws with even the most vicious of
hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of
our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected
to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when
we don't allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away
on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for
the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children as
deserving of such treatment.

Fact is, we define corporal punishments of prison inmates as 'Cruel and
Unusual Punishment', 'Guard Brutality', or 'Aggravated Assault'. And should
the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such a
treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of 'Torture'.

Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a
helpless 3-year-old child?

Logically, morally, humanely, and scientifically, the debate on spanking is
dead...save for those who would object to continuing social progress.

James C. Talbot

What exact sort of Socialist Utopia (Harmonious) are you after Jim?

OORAH!

On Jul 14, 8:14 am, Greegor wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:48 pm, "kidman via FamilyKB.com" u35676@uwe wrote:

I feel it's important to make it very clearly known

You have an agenda.

to any and all concerned,
that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is
dead, and has been for a number of years now.

Herein read: You declare it so and don't want to debate.

The most substantial indicator
of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every
professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and
treatment of children, has taken a public stance against the practice of
spanking*.

It goes with the predominantly kook left political demographics too.
So what?

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past
50+ years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional
consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions...

The "Social Worker mentality" was exported as part of the crusade.
So?

even to
the extent that, in an effort to reduce rates of Child Abuse, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands,
Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine
have legislated total bans on spanking.... with Italy, South Africa, Scotland,
Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit.

Nope.
And neither has any of the 50 United States.

It should
also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned
spanking in schools.

But in a few US states while a kid CAN be paddled in school,
the use of the very same paddle at home would be a crime.

The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against
the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

Propaganda from the Berkeley kook Left.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted
(typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can
one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other
'hate group' propaganda.

Whereas Child Protective service agencies have gotten slapped
for hiring pedophiles, child molesters and child abusers.
""Social Worker"" Geoffrey Rantz was quietly ejected from Iowa after
some molestation incidents (for PR reasons!), but got
a job as a child protection caseworker in Colorado Springs CO.

Because of the fact that the actual agendas of these
sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as,
'Family Council', 'People's Choice', 'Rights and Freedoms', etc., people are
forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being
made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard
way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of 'facts and
figures' that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political,
or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Whereas the Child Protection INDUSTRY in the US is so noble
that all the workers, supervisors, and many spinoff contractors
do it all for free!

Having spent 30+ years examining/evaluating the research on this issue of
spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence

Herein read: 30 years of being a left wing kook ACTIVIST...
What are your actual CREDENTIALS ""Jim C Talbot"" ?

that
there has never been a peer-reviewed

Politically inbred.
Peer review is NOT all that it's cracked up to be.

study that has been able to establish
the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an
effective teaching modality;

Did it work on Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Neil Armstrong?
You pretend that spanking has no track record of working.
What about just the first 200 years the USA existed?

as an effective punishment; or as a means of
instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been research findings produced
that have served to refute previous research showing spanking to be
associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for
physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for
the onset of dependence on external controls; or a proclivity toward
authority-directed behavior.

Except you WANT people to respect the authority of a Social Worker,
right?
Cute.

Moreover, there has never been research data
produced that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child
relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of
previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes
claimed to be the case).

Hey, You don't like CONSERVATIVES do you? Who'da guessed?
Only your Berkeleyesque kook left research is valid, right?

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss,
ignore, or discount, the research findings of field conducted experimental
studies related to the Social Sciences.

Academia and the REAL WORLD are NOT the same in many arenas!
Grow up and climb out of your "Ivory Tower" you idealogue!

Well, it's especially these folks
that I'd like to address concerning alarming new research findings which
represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered..
while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof*.

These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided
CAT SCAN pictures showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the
portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who
had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. Although, for the sake
of sample homogeneity, they incorporated subjects who had been categorized as
'abused' children for their study, common sense tells us that

Kook left propaganda tells you

this does not
eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to
spanked children

In other words, the linkage is questionable! But YOU BELIEVE!

who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious
violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must
first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage
can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much
more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children
can disrupt, or prevent, the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a
normal process of healthy brain development.

As far as I'm concerned,

How do you earn your living and what are your actual credentials?
Can they be verified?

How far are you concerned if your JOB depends on this hysteria?

this new area of research (apparently not yet
available on the internet)

They used SLOW electrons?

represents the most compelling, undeniable reason

Not available, yet undeniable? Are you forming a CULT?

that's yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start)
striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers
reading this feel the same way. It's difficult to imagine any parent who
would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote
risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In your case maybe a swat on your butt caused brain damage.

But, in spite of having said all of that, we actually shouldn't need research
to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to
end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for
research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the
practice of wives being physically punished.

No need for research finding to BELIEVE YOU? ARE you forming a
cult?





Instead, when we reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social
tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives,
our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the
higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, our next step ahead in
forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin
recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections.

No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the
jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged
and 'deserving' (namely white males),
regardless of race, gender, religion,
ethnic group, or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remains
legally unprotected from being violated by harassment, threats, defamation,
discrimination, or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So,
given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower
social status
by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in
terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also
shelter the younger, weaker of our members by allowing them to join those of
us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that's provided
under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?

Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn't seem all that
magnanimous if we keep in mind that we've already been willing to share the
shelter of our umbrella of Assault laws with even the most vicious of
hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of
our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected
to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when
we don't allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away
on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for
the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children as
deserving of such treatment.

Fact is, we define corporal punishments of prison inmates as 'Cruel and
Unusual Punishment', 'Guard Brutality', or 'Aggravated Assault'. And should
the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such a
treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of 'Torture'.

Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a
helpless 3-year-old child?

Logically, morally, humanely, and scientifically, the debate on spanking is
dead...save for those who would object to continuing social progress.

James C. Talbot

What exact sort of Socialist Utopia (Harmonious) are you after Jim?

OORAH!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank God you have no children to spank.

Firemonkey

On Jul 14, 8:25 am, firemonkey wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:14 am, Greegor wrote:

On Jul 13, 7:48 pm, "kidman via FamilyKB.com" u35676@uwe wrote:

I feel it's important to make it very clearly known

You have an agenda.

to any and all concerned,
that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is
dead, and has been for a number of years now.

Herein read: You declare it so and don't want to debate.

The most substantial indicator
of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every
professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and
treatment of children, has taken a public stance against the practice of
spanking*.

It goes with the predominantly kook left political demographics too.
So what?

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past
50+ years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional
consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions...

The "Social Worker mentality" was exported as part of the crusade.
So?

even to
the extent that, in an effort to reduce rates of Child Abuse, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands,
Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine
have legislated total bans on spanking.... with Italy, South Africa, Scotland,
Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit.

Nope.
And neither has any of the 50 United States.

It should
also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned
spanking in schools.

But in a few US states while a kid CAN be paddled in school,
the use of the very same paddle at home would be a crime.

The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against
the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

Propaganda from the Berkeley kook Left.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted
(typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can
one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other
'hate group' propaganda.

Whereas Child Protective service agencies have gotten slapped
for hiring pedophiles, child molesters and child abusers.
""Social Worker"" Geoffrey Rantz was quietly ejected from Iowa after
some molestation incidents (for PR reasons!), but got
a job as a child protection caseworker in Colorado Springs CO.

Because of the fact that the actual agendas of these
sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as,
'Family Council', 'People's Choice', 'Rights and Freedoms', etc., people are
forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being
made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard
way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of 'facts and
figures' that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political,
or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Whereas the Child Protection INDUSTRY in the US is so noble
that all the workers, supervisors, and many spinoff contractors
do it all for free!

Having spent 30+ years examining/evaluating the research on this issue of
spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence

Herein read: 30 years of being a left wing kook ACTIVIST...
What are your actual CREDENTIALS ""Jim C Talbot"" ?

that
there has never been a peer-reviewed

Politically inbred.
Peer review is NOT all that it's cracked up to be.

study that has been able to establish
the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an
effective teaching modality;

Did it work on Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Neil Armstrong?
You pretend that spanking has no track record of working.
What about just the first 200 years the USA existed?

as an effective punishment; or as a means of
instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been research findings produced
that have served to refute previous research showing spanking to be
associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for
physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for
the onset of dependence on external controls; or a proclivity toward
authority-directed behavior.

Except you WANT people to respect the authority of a Social Worker,
right?
Cute.

Moreover, there has never been research data
produced that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child
relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of
previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes
claimed to be the case).

Hey, You don't like CONSERVATIVES do you? Who'da guessed?
Only your Berkeleyesque kook left research is valid, right?

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss,
ignore, or discount, the research findings of field conducted experimental
studies related to the Social Sciences.

Academia and the REAL WORLD are NOT the same in many arenas!
Grow up and climb out of your "Ivory Tower" you idealogue!

Well, it's especially these folks
that I'd like to address concerning alarming new research findings which
represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered..
while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof*.

These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided
CAT SCAN pictures showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the
portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who
had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. Although, for the sake
of sample homogeneity, they incorporated subjects who had been categorized as
'abused' children for their study, common sense tells us that

Kook left propaganda tells you

this does not
eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to
spanked children

In other words, the linkage is questionable! But YOU BELIEVE!

who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious
violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must
first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage
can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much
more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children
can disrupt, or prevent, the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a
normal process of healthy brain development.

As far as I'm concerned,

How do you earn your living and what are your actual credentials?
Can they be verified?

How far are you concerned if your JOB depends on this hysteria?

this new area of research (apparently not yet
available on the internet)

They used SLOW electrons?

represents the most compelling, undeniable reason

Not available, yet undeniable? Are you forming a CULT?

that's yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start)
striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers
reading this feel the same way. It's difficult to imagine any parent who
would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote
risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In your case maybe a swat on your butt caused brain damage.

But, in spite of having said all of that, we actually shouldn't need research
to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to
end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for
research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the
practice of wives being physically punished.

No need for research finding to BELIEVE YOU? ARE you forming a
cult?

Instead, when we reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social
tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives,
our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the
higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, our next step ahead in
forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin
recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections.

No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the
jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged
and 'deserving' (namely white males),
regardless of race, gender, religion,
ethnic group, or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remains
legally unprotected from being violated by harassment, threats, defamation,
discrimination, or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So,
given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower
social status
by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in
terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also
shelter the younger, weaker of our members by allowing them to join those of
us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that's provided
under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?

Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn't seem all that
magnanimous if we keep in mind that we've already been willing to share the
shelter of our umbrella of Assault laws with even the most vicious of
hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of
our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected
to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when
we don't allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away
on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for
the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children as
deserving of such treatment.

Fact is, we define corporal punishments of prison inmates as 'Cruel and
Unusual Punishment', 'Guard Brutality', or 'Aggravated Assault'. And should
the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such a
treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of 'Torture'.

Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a
helpless 3-year-old child?

Logically, morally, humanely, and scientifically, the debate on spanking is
dead...save for those who would object to continuing social progress.

James C. Talbot

What exact sort of Socialist Utopia (Harmonious) are you after Jim?

OORAH!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank God you have no children to spank.

Firemonkey

Firemonkey wrote
Thank God you have no children to spank.

And you know this how exactly?

On Jul 14, 9:12 am, Greegor wrote:
Firemonkey wrote

Thank God you have no children to spank.

And you know this how exactly?

I know a lot about you greg, in fact, I am thinking about posting some
of that info here and other place a bit at a time until you leave my
computer alone. Why are you so interested in port 24202 ?

And does this number mear anything to you? 401

Firemonkey

On Jul 14, 10:42 am, firemonkey wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:12 am, Greegor wrote:

Firemonkey wrote

Thank God you have no children to spank.

And you know this how exactly?

I know a lot about you greg, in fact, I am thinking about posting some
of that info here and other place a bit at a time until you leave my
computer alone. Why are you so interested in port 24202 ?

And does this number mean anything to you? 401

I believe that was Greg's cell number in the Greybar Hotel.

Or maybe it was the most cans and bottles in one day Lisa Jr. retrieve
from the garbage.

Or it was the number of cats Greg abused until he found one that would
actually do dog tricks.

Or it's the number you get when you multiply Greg's IQ by his hat size.

On Jul 14, 9:12 am, Greegor wrote:
Firemonkey wrote

Thank God you have no children to spank.

And you know this how exactly?

Yes, thank the lord that the best part spilt down the leg!

Do Woman Rule?

http://mylesbian.blogspot.com/

Save 50% On Your Student Loans

http://clc-micro.blogspot.com/

On Jul 14, 9:42 am, firemonkey wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:12 am, Greegor wrote:

Firemonkey wrote

Thank God you have no children to spank.

And you know this how exactly?

I know a lot about you greg, in fact, I am thinking about posting some
of that info here and other place a bit at a time until you leave my
computer alone.

Firemonkey somebody is sending you fake pings.
They're faking the IP address on them.
Look to your so-called allies.

You're either getting fake pings or else you're making it up.

Why are you so interested in port 24202 ?

I'm not. I blocked your address weeks ago.

I googled it for you. (I know that's hard for you.)

SuSE Linux Forums SSH hack attemptsMay 16 02:19:33 meridian
sshd[24202]: Failed password for mysql from ::ffff:62.138.234.27 port
18547 ssh2 May 16 02:19:34 meridian sshd[24204]: Failed ...
forums.suselinuxsupport.de/lofiversion/index.php/t17475.html - 29k -
Cached - Similar pages

And does this number mear anything to you? 401

Is this some of the information you PAID for Firemonkey?
ROFL

I'm listed in the phone book, and electronic ones online also.
Didn't Ron help you access an online phone book?

I thought you said your ex the cop was all worked up
and anxious to defend your attacks on me...

But you can't work an online phone book and need to pay for
information?

Was it reasonable to start a discussion thread
by titling it "The Debate on Spanking is Dead" ?

kidman - 14 Jul 2007 15:21 GMT
Greg, you don't sound like a happy camper
and I'm sorry about your anger issue.

If a CPS caseworker created a fictional ""Sex Abuse History""
about YOU, in order to tear up your family, how
irate do you think you would be?
Can you tell "constructive anger" from true rage?

Jim wrote
Did you know that anger can render you incapable
of reasonable and/or rational thought?

And I see you have pointed out instances of irrationality! (sic)

Jim wrote
I'm afraid that by appearing as an on-the-edge, mean-
spirited individual on a basis of vindictiveness might leave
others with the impression that you're emotionally stunted
and mentally unstable.

You actually think it's vindictive when somebody
directly challenges your liberal dogma?

Did you forget your own comments about conservatives
and Fundamentalist Christians?
Was that cathartic or vindictive on your part?

This certainly doesn't help in your efforts to
gain retribution against child protection agencies.

Retribution? Challenging the sappy sacharine
"social work mentality" online?

Have you considered professional help?

Civil Rights attorney.

It might help alleviate your miserable disposition.

The jury award will probably fix that.


On Jul 14, 10:05 am, "kidman via FamilyKB.com" u35676@uwe wrote:
Greg, was that supposed to be a rebuttal to my remarks? I'll let your
response stand on it's own merits.

You keep harping on credentials when you already
know they mean nothing on boards such as this.

Then why are you an e-zine ""expert""?

But, I'll tell you what. Considering that you present
yourself as an expert in the field of Social Work,

Where did I present myself as any such thing?

After CPS tore into our family we were amazed that
neither the caseworkers nor the contract ""Social Workers""
actually are state licensed Social Workers.
Early on we saw a "Tricks of the Trade" list and
thought it could not be true. Item by item we
found out that they actually USED most of the
bizarre tactics on us.
"The emperor is wearing no clothes".

Did you honestly think that only insiders have
a right to criticize the system?

I'll be more than glad to
compare my credentials with yours. You go first.

I have never claimed myself to be an expert.
Did you see me writing for an e-zine as an ""expert"" or
posting my Curriculum Vitae/Resume or ""BIO"" on the
web to claim credentials.

BTW, I'm not at all surprised to find that you're
just one more pro-spanking devotee in Denial.

You seem bitter.
Get used to it, you are in a severe minority.
Really odd considering the world is so jam packed with
information that proves your political agenda.

You DID have a run-in with a child protection agency, did you not?
Did you have a child placed as a result of your abusive treatment? I
don't know how else to explain the apparent level of rage
you display on this board.

Your clone Kane whose been here for ages has actually
bragged about posting gratuitous obscenity, (epithets etc.)
for over a year. I recently created a thread just to
assess who uses one particular abbreviation for an obscene
epithet. Amazingly the people who have posted that sort
of comment and obscenity are the "system sucks" and
only rarely somebody on the Family Rights or Parents Rights side.

You should really search the alt.support.child-protective-services
newsgroup for swear words, then you can talk to me about
the "level of rage" I display in this newsgroup.

Do you intend to evade all of the questions I asked of you?





James C Talbot wrote
I feel it's important to make it very clearly known

Greg wrote You have an agenda.

Jim wrote
to any and all concerned,
that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is
dead, and has been for a number of years now.

G Herein read: You declare it so and don't want to debate.

J The most substantial indicator
of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every
professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and
treatment of children, has taken a public stance against the practice of
spanking*.

G It goes with the predominantly kook left political demographics
too.
G So what?

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past
50+ years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional
consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions...

The "Social Worker mentality" was exported as part of the crusade.
So?

even to
the extent that, in an effort to reduce rates of Child Abuse, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands,
Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, and Ukraine
have legislated total bans on spanking.... with Italy, South Africa, Scotland,
Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit.

G Nope.
G And neither has any of the 50 United States.

It should
also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned
spanking in schools.

G But in a few US states while a kid CAN be paddled in school,
G the use of the very same paddle at home would be a crime.

The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against
the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

G Propaganda from the Berkeley kook Left.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted
(typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can
one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other
'hate group' propaganda.

Whereas Child Protective service agencies have gotten slapped
for hiring pedophiles, child molesters and child abusers.
""Social Worker"" Geoffrey Rantz was quietly ejected from Iowa after
some molestation incidents (for PR reasons!), but got
a job as a child protection caseworker in Colorado Springs CO.

Because of the fact that the actual agendas of these
sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
figures' that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political,
or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Whereas the Child Protection INDUSTRY in the US is so noble
that all the workers, supervisors, and many spinoff contractors
do it all for free!

Having spent 30+ years examining/evaluating the research on this issue of
spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence

Herein read: 30 years of being a left wing kook ACTIVIST...
What are your actual CREDENTIALS ""Jim C Talbot"" ?

J that there has never been a peer-reviewed

G Politically inbred.
G Peer review is NOT all that it's cracked up to be.

J study that has been able to establish the efficacy of
J spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification;
J as an effective teaching modality;

Did it work on Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Neil Armstrong?
You pretend that spanking has no track record of working.
What about just the first 200 years the USA existed?

as an effective punishment; or as a means of
instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been research findings produced
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
the onset of dependence on external controls; or a proclivity toward
authority-directed behavior.

Except you WANT people to respect the authority of a Social Worker,
right?
Cute.

Moreover, there has never been research data
produced that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child
relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of
previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes
claimed to be the case).

Hey, You don't like CONSERVATIVES do you? Who'da guessed?
Only your Berkeleyesque kook left research is valid, right?

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss,
ignore, or discount, the research findings of field conducted experimental
studies related to the Social Sciences.

Academia and the REAL WORLD are NOT the same in many arenas!
Grow up and climb out of your "Ivory Tower" you idealogue!

Well, it's especially these folks
that I'd like to address concerning alarming new research findings which
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
of sample homogeneity, they incorporated subjects who had been categorized as
'abused' children for their study, common sense tells us that

Kook left propaganda tells you

this does not
eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to
spanked children

In other words, the linkage is questionable! But YOU BELIEVE!

who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious
violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]

As far as I'm concerned,

How do you earn your living and what are your actual credentials?
Can they be verified?

How far are you concerned if your JOB depends on this hysteria?

this new area of research (apparently not yet
available on the internet)

They used SLOW electrons?

represents the most compelling, undeniable reason

Not available, yet undeniable? Are you forming a CULT?

that's yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start)
striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers
reading this feel the same way. It's difficult to imagine any parent who
would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote
risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In your case maybe a swat on your butt caused brain damage.

But, in spite of having said all of that, we actually shouldn't need research
to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to
end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for
research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the
practice of wives being physically punished.

No need for research finding to BELIEVE YOU? ARE you forming a
cult?

Instead, when we reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social
tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives,
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]

James C. Talbot

What exact sort of Socialist Utopia (Harmonious) are you after Jim?

OORAH!

On Jul 14, 11:54 pm, Greegor wrote:
Was it reasonable to start a discussion thread
by titling it "The Debate on Spanking is Dead" ?

kidman - 14 Jul 2007 15:21 GMT
Greg, you don't sound like a happy camper
and I'm sorry about your anger issue.

If a CPS caseworker created a fictional ""Sex Abuse History""
about YOU, in order to tear up your family, how
irate do you think you would be?
Can you tell "constructive anger" from true rage?

Which do you have, Greg?

And it hasn't subsided in more than six years?

Seems like you have a profound problem no matter which one it is.

Jim wrote

Did you know that anger can render you incapable
of reasonable and/or rational thought?

And I see you have pointed out instances of irrationality! (sic)

Jim wrote

I'm afraid that by appearing as an on-the-edge, mean-
spirited individual on a basis of vindictiveness might leave
others with the impression that you're emotionally stunted
and mentally unstable.

You actually think it's vindictive when somebody
directly challenges your liberal dogma?

Did you forget your own comments about conservatives
and Fundamentalist Christians?
Was that cathartic or vindictive on your part?

This certainly doesn't help in your efforts to
gain retribution against child protection agencies.

Retribution? Challenging the sappy sacharine
"social work mentality" online?

Have you considered professional help?

Civil Rights attorney.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

It might help alleviate your miserable disposition.

The jury award will probably fix that.

Dream on, dipstick!

On Jul 14, 10:05 am, "kidman via FamilyKB.com" u35676@uwe wrote:

Greg, was that supposed to be a rebuttal to my remarks? I'll let your
response stand on it's own merits.

You keep harping on credentials when you already
know they mean nothing on boards such as this.

Then why are you an e-zine ""expert""?

But, I'll tell you what. Considering that you present
yourself as an expert in the field of Social Work,

Where did I present myself as any such thing?

After CPS tore into our family we were amazed that
neither the caseworkers nor the contract ""Social Workers""
actually are state licensed Social Workers.
Early on we saw a "Tricks of the Trade" list and
thought it could not be true. Item by item we
found out that they actually USED most of the
bizarre tactics on us.
"The emperor is wearing no clothes".

Did you honestly think that only insiders have
a right to criticize the system?

I'll be more than glad to
compare my credentials with yours. You go first.

I have never claimed myself to be an expert.
Did you see me writing for an e-zine as an ""expert"" or
posting my Curriculum Vitae/Resume or ""BIO"" on the
web to claim credentials.

BTW, I'm not at all surprised to find that you're
just one more pro-spanking devotee in Denial.

You seem bitter.
Get used to it, you are in a severe minority.
Really odd considering the world is so jam packed with
information that proves your political agenda.

Really?

You DID have a run-in with a child protection agency, did you not?
Did you have a child placed as a result of your abusive treatment? I
don't know how else to explain the apparent level of rage
you display on this board.

Your clone Kane whose been here for ages has actually
bragged about posting gratuitous obscenity, (epithets etc.)
for over a year.

BFD.

I recently created a thread just to
assess who uses one particular abbreviation for an obscene
epithet.

oooOOOooo!

And it isn't monumentally more obscene that your former girlfriend's
daughter was removed from her custody six plus years ago because of
what you were doing to her, Greg?

If you know so much about CPS and their weaknesses why hasn't the
mother gotten her daughter back yet?

Amazingly the people who have posted that sort
of comment and obscenity are the "system sucks" and
only rarely somebody on the Family Rights or Parents Rights side.

You should really search the alt.support.child-protective-services
newsgroup for swear words, then you can talk to me about
the "level of rage" I display in this newsgroup.

Swear word are so relevant.

Do you intend to evade all of the questions I asked of you?

Asked Greg, the KING of evading questions.