| Spanking not best BUT CRIMINALIZING FAMILES?

On 6 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:37:18 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 5 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 3 Apr 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 11:46:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 3 Apr 2004, Greg Hanson wrote:

Kane you are an expert at obfuscation.

That is all Kane2 is good at. If the Embry Study really
supports the
anti-spanking position, why hide it?

Exactly my question. Why ARE you hiding it?

Because if it supports your position than I am SMART in hiding
it!

Ah, NOW we have an inkling why, if you had the report, you went to
such lengths to avoid debating it...like not really answering The
Question with a sensible answer, or proving your DARE, or even
proving
you had the study.

LOL! Are you saying that YOU ARE STUPID??? ;-)

No, just pointing out you appear not to want to debate. No one so far,
in this whole wide world knows if you have the study, but you. Three
people are very clear that I do.

I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY! You are being stupid again. :-)

They are watching with some amusement. You are making such a fool of
yourself.

You are looking in the mirror again! ;-)

Thank you.

So you are saying that YOU ARE STUPID???

Give what you just revealed and the slight chance I maneuvered you
into spilling the beans, again, what do you think I'm saying about
my
intelligence?

Very little! ;-)

Please. Put that away. No one here is the least interested. :-

LOL! Is that why you refused to provide the study when asked by Alina?
Or is she me? ;-)

You could easily force me into a debate, but somehow you seem
reluctant.

I can only take a dog to a hydrant. I cannot force it to pee!
:-)

That doesn't answer why you wouldn't do three simple things you
claimed you could do so that you could "force" me to debate. I gave
my
word I would. On quite simple conditions.

I can force a dog to pee? ;-)

Are you confusing peeing with debating? (:-

With you, the difference is minimal! ;-0

YOu choked.

You lied!

Not so's ya'd notice. I haven't seen you respond with anything but
demands of me. And I've even humored you to see if you were sincere,
and answered a couple by asking questions from the study I couldn't
possibly ask without it.

You lied about the PUNISHMENT component nevertheless!

And you choked. Wouldn't answer even the simplest questions about the
study. Hence, no debate, stupid little boy.

And you are STUPID little Kane0! ;-)

Want to read our posts and the time lines involved?

No! ;-)

Of course not. (:-

I hate the lies from you! ;-)

The criteria hasn't changed for some months now, and yet you
still
refuse to do anything to meet any of the criteria.

LOL! Why must I MEET your criteria???

Because I said so.

LOL!

Gosh, didn't you really want to "debate?"

UNCONDITIONALLY! How about you? ;-)

You do recall I didn't challenge you to a debate on Embry. I just
said
I would debate if you would meet three inconsequentinal tasks.
Tasks
you already claim to be able to do.

I don't have to! ;-)

Yep, you sure don't. And you sure can't. (:-

Kane9 Kan't! ;-)

In fact you've have even bragged and done some loud mouth daring,
but
no beef. No noodles. No soup. Nothing, Droaner. Just more babble.

And I said I just having fun with you.

I don't debate with little children. There's no point. Just as you've
proven so well these past months.

LOL! Kane dodged again!

I was hoping that LaVonne
and Chris Dunga would jump in and defend you.

What would that accomplish?

They are the bigger fishes! :-)

They are smarter than
I thought and stayed away.

Gosh, Droany misjudged? R R R R R

Not about you! :-)

I suspect they are amused at how far you'll go to get attention. I
know I am.

They so amused that they reproached you in public! And all they
got from you is a "**** you"! ;-)

Chris even warned you publicly not to
be STUPID!

About YOU? R R R R R

Nope! About debating based on studies not ad-hom! He basically said
you are being STUPID and hurting the anti-spanking agenda! DO YOU
SEE THAT? ;-)

Now I ask you, if you really wanted to debate would you have not
provided me the proof you had what you claimed you had?

I said I would debate UNCONDITIONALLY!

So did I, when you proved you were actually ready for debate. YOu
missed the deadline. Then you choked on a second chance.

And how is that UNCONDITIONAL? You are being STUPID again. :-)

Any "reasonable person" would agree to that and that you should
have
if you REALLY wanted to debate.

Huh? I didn't put up any condition!

Really? You STARTED WITH ONE. YOu claimed I didn't have the study and
that I had to prove it by debating you. That, little boy, is called a
condition.

You are using the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS again. :-)
I said I would DEBATE UNCONDITIONALLY.

Are you so stupid? ;-)

Doesn't look like it so far. I've put together three simple little
questions that you've danced around for months, unable to answer. How
stupid is that?

Already answered! You just too stupid to understand! ;-)

As I said. If you really wanted to debate....you'd recall I wasn't
even interested until YOU challenged. And I don't debate little boys
that can't meet simple criteria for debate.

Kane0 runs again! :-)

Yer still doin' it Droany.

Having fun at your and the anti-spanking zealotS' expense! :-)

Why didn't you meet such simple criteria?

Because I wan't to have fun with a little dog and hoping to catch
bigger
ones like Chris and LaVonne. ;-)

Oh, I see. Very clever. And no Pho'.

And you are stupid still! ;-)

Was it what you spilled so charmingly above. that it would have
been
smart of you to withhold given the content. {:-

And you are stupid!

Stop shouting at the mirror.

I am shouting at you, STUPID! :-)


Your loss I guess.

If you say so. :-)

Yes I do. And others who might have been interested in the study.

Who would that be? :-)

Who do you think?

I don't know! I can only know when they ask me for the study. You see,
unlike you, I don't hide it from others. Just ask Alina (or is she me?)!
;-)


But then, smile, there is nothing at all stopping you, if you
believe Embry supports your position, from discussing it here, now
is
there? Well, other than your inflated but still flacid eco.

LOL! Same can be said about you!

Anything can be "said." I didn't challenge YOU to a debate. Nor anyone
else.

Because you Kan't! ALL YOU DO IS LIED! ;-)


No face, Droany. No face at all.

But I see your face everytime I go to the toilet! ;-)

Still can't come up with a decent flame. Tsk.

Nope! YOU ARE THE EXPERT! :-)


I can discuss Embry with others, and have.

And LIED! :-)

Please show me any definition of lying that includes making a
mistake
by overlooking something.

LIAR!

Actually that claim is a lie.

Not when it's about you! :-)

I told you I overlooked the use of "punishment" and the reasons
that
influenced me to miss it in the Embry report. I didn't even try to
conceal my mistake....something you have a persistent habit of
doing
for yourself. But the archives kind of catch up with you from time
to
time, as I just recently noted.

And how do I know there was "PUNISHMENT" if I don't have the study.
You are being stupid again! ;-)

I've read bits and pieces of commentary from the study published as
citations by others over the years. You might have. And you might have
guessed. I notice you didn't know precise what form the "punishment"
took.

Another lie! I quote it directly from the study!

Now you want to claim I'm lying....based on what evidence please?

By what you posted!

I don't see what you are referring to. Mind pointing to it, or
directly quoting?

You are stupid as usual. Get Chris and LaVonne in. I'll point it
out to them. They are smarter than you and can probably see it!

R R R R

Kane0 Kan't! :-0



Doan


Best wishes, Kane

Regards,

Doan

The Question, The Dare, the proof. I won't debate past the
deadline,
nor the current chance I gave you. I just wanted to see if you were
still a liar, and by golly, you are, unless you answer to those
three
things.

Weasel!

Yep, still a liar.

You are!


Can't can you. Stuck aren't you. Folks like you are very dangerous
if
they have important jobs with access to sensitive materials.

LOL! Remember I am Alina! ;-)

No, actually I speculated that it was a sock or someone you knew. So
has Alina asked for the study from you yet?

You are a fool! ;-)

Tsk.

How is the anonymizer?

Don't use it.

If you say so!

Is it better then the logs you have? ;-)

No answer. :-) How abouth the "honey-pot"? ;-)

Say hello to Aline for us.

I don't know her. :-)

I see you are at the top of your debating form.

Thank you! ;-)

And I'm having more fun with you all the time.

I know. Please post daily. :-)

{;-p

Kane0 Kan't!

Doan