Doananism, The Great Pretender

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for years now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to pretend this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods. He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study. He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study. As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.
All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Doan

On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for years now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to pretend this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods. He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:57:21 -0800, Doan wrote:

......yet another Doananism.

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study.

Of course I can. I won't until you met the debate criteria.

Have you met the easy criteria for debate? No, of course not.
Why, I wonder.

What is our answer to The Question? And this time answer The Question
that was asked, not your made up replacement.

Prove your challenge to me that I've claimed to be "never spanked."

Prove you actually have a copy of the Embry study. Post it in its
entirety.

He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study.

We'll discuss that when you have met the criteria for debate, little
liar.

As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.

What did I lie about? I simply refuse to discuss Embry until you have
met the standards for honest open debate.

You've NEVER EVER done so before with others you've pretended to
"debate" and of course I won't deal with a little liar.

All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Is that what you call not answering The Question as asked, not proving
your contention I claim to be never spanked, and NOT posting actual
proof you have the Embry study?

Those are hardly difficult conditions to meet for debate, now are they
Doananizer?

Now you've tried to throw in two more issues, these from the Embry
study you pretend to have. More Doananisms. Very good.

Doan

Doan the Liar has once more shown he will not debate on issues unless
the field is already tilted in his favor.

He wants to debate from a blind position on bits and pieces. He can't
answer a simple question HE BROUGHT up to deflect from his inability
to answer a simple question honestly. And he relies on claims to
deflect from his lying and lack of facts.

When you, Doananizer, have met the criteria for debate I'm here and
willing.

Three simple requirements.

Kane


On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to
divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for years
now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to pretend
this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a
parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable
injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods. He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even
their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:57:21 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....yet another Doananism.

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study.

Of course I can. I won't until you met the debate criteria.

Gee! And deny all the parents the information they need to make
an informed decision? :-) Gotta give it to you, Kane! You
are one funny dude! ;-)

Have you met the easy criteria for debate? No, of course not.
Why, I wonder.

Weasel words! ;-)

What is our answer to The Question? And this time answer The Question
that was asked, not your made up replacement.

Already answered - reasonable person standard!

Prove your challenge to me that I've claimed to be "never spanked."

Get your master Chris Dugan, LaVonne or Gerald in on it and I will.
They seem to have abandonned you! :-(

Prove you actually have a copy of the Embry study. Post it in its
entirety.

LOL! Wouldn't that violates copyright? You are funny, Kane! :-)

He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study.

We'll discuss that when you have met the criteria for debate, little
liar.

Shall I repost you claim, "never-spanked" boy? :-)

As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.

What did I lie about? I simply refuse to discuss Embry until you have
met the standards for honest open debate.

Weasel words, again! :-0

You've NEVER EVER done so before with others you've pretended to
"debate" and of course I won't deal with a little liar.

Looking in the mirror again? :-)

All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Is that what you call not answering The Question as asked, not proving
your contention I claim to be never spanked, and NOT posting actual
proof you have the Embry study?

Weasel words, again! :-)

Those are hardly difficult conditions to meet for debate, now are they
Doananizer?

Now you've tried to throw in two more issues, these from the Embry
study you pretend to have. More Doananisms. Very good.

Weasel words, again! ;-)

Doan

Doan the Liar has once more shown he will not debate on issues unless
the field is already tilted in his favor.

LOL!

He wants to debate from a blind position on bits and pieces. He can't
answer a simple question HE BROUGHT up to deflect from his inability
to answer a simple question honestly. And he relies on claims to
deflect from his lying and lack of facts.

Weasel words, again! :-)

When you, Doananizer, have met the criteria for debate I'm here and
willing.

Three simple requirements.

Kane

LOL! Keep barking, Kane9!

Doan


On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to
divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for years
now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to pretend
this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a
parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable
injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods. He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even
their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:49:44 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....yet more Doananism.

On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:57:21 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....yet another Doananism.

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study.

Of course I can. I won't until you met the debate criteria.

Gee! And deny all the parents the information they need to make
an informed decision? :-)

All you have to do is post the study Doan. You know, the one you have,
and I don't...R R R R

Gotta give it to you, Kane! You
are one funny dude! ;-)

Yes. I'm glad to amuse you when ever possible.

You have three tasks and I'll then discuss Embry.

Have you met the easy criteria for debate? No, of course not.
Why, I wonder.

Weasel words! ;-)

No, Doan. Simple criteria for debate. The Question, the Proof, the
Study. It's really not all that hard, is it?

Are you finding it difficult to meet these little challenges? Tsk.

What is our answer to The Question? And this time answer The
Question
that was asked, not your made up replacement.

Already answered - reasonable person standard!

Please explain how a parent contemplating risk could use that to avoid
going past the abuse line with their child, a child different from all
others, of course.

Give it another shot, Doananator. You haven't really answered The
Question at all. If you wish to say the parent is to take the risk of
injury to their child with only a "reasonable person standard" that's
okay. We just need to be clear that you are telling them to guess,
because that's all a "reasonable person standard" is.

Or you can print out the mechanics of spanking risk more clearly. Your
choice.

Prove your challenge to me that I've claimed to be "never spanked."

Get your master Chris Dugan, LaVonne or Gerald in on it and I will.

They can read.

They seem to have abandonned you! :-(

They can read. They are watching with considerable amusement I'd
wager.

It's more than a little fun watching you dodge yet again, this time so
grandly.

You can't answer the question and defend your position on spanking and
parents without blowing your cover (hell, you have for years but are
in denial) as a hot for spanking advocate.

You and they are irresponsible and you know The Question proves it.

Prove you actually have a copy of the Embry study. Post it in its
entirety.

LOL! Wouldn't that violates copyright? You are funny, Kane! :-)

According to you it wouldn't. So what's holding you up? Yes, I know
I'm funny. All I have to do is get you to respond to my posts and it's
obvious what the laugh riot is all about. R R R R R

Keep telling everyone I'm running from a debate, Doananator, then post
this nonsense where you dodge yet again from simple questions and
challenges...only three little things...all very easy.

Yet you dodge.

He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study.

We'll discuss that when you have met the criteria for debate,
little
liar.

Shall I repost you claim, "never-spanked" boy? :-)

Any time you like. You see it's really up to you, not me. If you
really had the Embry study and really wished to debate it you'd be all
over yourself meeting the three criteria for debate, including this
one.

Yet, you hesitate. You dodge. You weasel. Now why IS that, Doananator?

No Answer, no Proof, no Study. It's all up to you, yet you don't come
through. Your cohorts must be starting to wonder, Doananator.

Are you live or memorex?

As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.

What did I lie about? I simply refuse to discuss Embry until you
have
met the standards for honest open debate.

Weasel words, again! :-0

Notice, you asked if I wanted you to post the "never spanked" proof,
and here you are again, weaseling.

You've NEVER EVER done so before with others you've pretended to
"debate" and of course I won't deal with a little liar.

Looking in the mirror again? :-)

No. Looking directly at your words in this post. Just more
Doananatoring.


All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Is that what you call not answering The Question as asked, not
proving
your contention I claim to be never spanked, and NOT posting actual
proof you have the Embry study?

Weasel words, again! :-)

More whackin' off? Yes, I guess that is all you have.

Those are hardly difficult conditions to meet for debate, now are
they
Doananizer?

Now you've tried to throw in two more issues, these from the Embry
study you pretend to have. More Doananisms. Very good.

Weasel words, again! ;-)

So are you going to come through, or dodge again?

Doan

Doan the Liar has once more shown he will not debate on issues
unless
the field is already tilted in his favor.

LOL!

I guess I have my answer to my previous question.

He wants to debate from a blind position on bits and pieces. He
can't
answer a simple question HE BROUGHT up to deflect from his
inability
to answer a simple question honestly. And he relies on claims to
deflect from his lying and lack of facts.

Weasel words, again! :-)

Yep, for sure.


When you, Doananizer, have met the criteria for debate I'm here and
willing.

Three simple requirements.

Kane

LOL! Keep barking, Kane9!

Apparently Doananating Weasels have the bark.

Doan

Gee, Doananator, do I have to "double dare" you? R R R R R

I'm waiting to debate you and post after post you refuse to respond to
the criteria...the very simple criteria.

Now why would that be, Doananator?

Honesty too much for you? R R R R R R

Kane




On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that
he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove
it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry
study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both
issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to
divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has
him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for
years
now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to
pretend
this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking
enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng
FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is
definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a
parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable
injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make
unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods.
He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even
their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On 06 Jan 2004 02:53:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Kane, I believe, made the statement he was never spanked,

You can provide a citation, or is this going to be more of your
Manure?

but also claimed his
Mother abandoned him to foster care,

Really? Where did I say that? Leaving a child with friends and family
is "foster care?"

You do know that during WWII, when I was a baby and toddler, that men
went to war and women to the factories, do you not? My mother was a
top welder for Kaiser shipyards building Liberty Ships.

and he was rescued at age 7 or so by his
father.

Yes. From the viewpoint of a little child that is exactly how it felt.


Great parentage. ....Course...maybe that explains his personality.

Does this demonstrate your concern for children? And especially for
"foster" (R R R R) children?

Figgers.

The man really does not have a life.

Boy, ain't it the truth. Here I am leaving my lovely young wife
(hehehehe) alone, only going on photo safari twice a week instead of
everyday, even leaving off helping families part time to the point my
appt book is backlogged for weeks, and instead yakkin' it up with a
Plant.

I should be ashamed. And I would be were it not all in a good
cause....making damn sure people that come here for help see what a
vicious fool you are and how you hate families and children and feed
them to your hatred of CPS...say, why DO you lie about CPS so much?
You never have answered that question.

Is LaVonne right about you?

Kane and Doan debate:

No, I don't debate the Doananator until he gets honest. I've seen him
weasel, dodge, and outright lie, all in the same post, for too many
years. Homey don't do dat, if you get my drift.

The Embry study is a nice solid piece of work that will do just fine
without our debate. But I'm happy to oblige when he obliges me.

Now put up, Cacti, or shut up.

Kane


Subject: Doananism, The Great Pretender
From: (Kane)
Date: 1/5/2004 8:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:57:21 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....yet another Doananism.

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study.

Of course I can. I won't until you met the debate criteria.

Have you met the easy criteria for debate? No, of course not.
Why, I wonder.

What is our answer to The Question? And this time answer The
Question
that was asked, not your made up replacement.

Prove your challenge to me that I've claimed to be "never spanked."

Prove you actually have a copy of the Embry study. Post it in its
entirety.

He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study.

We'll discuss that when you have met the criteria for debate, little
liar.

As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.

What did I lie about? I simply refuse to discuss Embry until you
have
met the standards for honest open debate.

You've NEVER EVER done so before with others you've pretended to
"debate" and of course I won't deal with a little liar.

All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Is that what you call not answering The Question as asked, not
proving
your contention I claim to be never spanked, and NOT posting actual
proof you have the Embry study?

Those are hardly difficult conditions to meet for debate, now are
they
Doananizer?

Now you've tried to throw in two more issues, these from the Embry
study you pretend to have. More Doananisms. Very good.

Doan

Doan the Liar has once more shown he will not debate on issues
unless
the field is already tilted in his favor.

He wants to debate from a blind position on bits and pieces. He
can't
answer a simple question HE BROUGHT up to deflect from his inability
to answer a simple question honestly. And he relies on claims to
deflect from his lying and lack of facts.

When you, Doananizer, have met the criteria for debate I'm here and
willing.

Three simple requirements.

Kane


On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that
he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove
it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry
study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both
issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to
divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for
years
now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to pretend
this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is
definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a
parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable
injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make
unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods.
He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even
their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:49:44 -0800, Doan wrote:

....yet more Doananism.

On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:57:21 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....yet another Doananism.

LOL! Kane can't even tell the sample size in the Embry study.

Of course I can. I won't until you met the debate criteria.

Gee! And deny all the parents the information they need to make
an informed decision? :-)

All you have to do is post the study Doan. You know, the one you have,
and I don't...R R R R

The sample size is so ridiculously low that only anti-spanking zealotS
with "cargo cult" mentality would rely on it. :-)

Gotta give it to you, Kane! You
are one funny dude! ;-)

Yes. I'm glad to amuse you when ever possible.

Thanks, you do so every time you post. ;-)

You have three tasks and I'll then discuss Embry.

You can't discuss something that you have no knowledge of. You didn't
know that Embry employed PUNISHMENT in this study! ;-)

Have you met the easy criteria for debate? No, of course not.
Why, I wonder.

Weasel words! ;-)

No, Doan. Simple criteria for debate. The Question, the Proof, the
Study. It's really not all that hard, is it?

Weasel words - again! ;-)

Are you finding it difficult to meet these little challenges? Tsk.

What is the sample size? ;-)

What is our answer to The Question? And this time answer The
Question
that was asked, not your made up replacement.

Already answered - reasonable person standard!

Please explain how a parent contemplating risk could use that to avoid
going past the abuse line with their child, a child different from all
others, of course.

All they have to do is use common-sense; something that anti-spanking
zealotS seem to lack of. :-)

Give it another shot, Doananator. You haven't really answered The
Question at all. If you wish to say the parent is to take the risk of
injury to their child with only a "reasonable person standard" that's
okay. We just need to be clear that you are telling them to guess,
because that's all a "reasonable person standard" is.

Dodging the issue again, Kane9. ;-)

Or you can print out the mechanics of spanking risk more clearly. Your
choice.

Weasel words, again. :-)

Prove your challenge to me that I've claimed to be "never spanked."

Get your master Chris Dugan, LaVonne or Gerald in on it and I will.

They can read.

Where are they now? ;-)

They seem to have abandonned you! :-(

They can read. They are watching with considerable amusement I'd
wager.

Where are they now? Why haven't they spoken? ;-)

It's more than a little fun watching you dodge yet again, this time so
grandly.

All they can do is run away from having to debate with me. Just ask
LaVonne! ;-)

You can't answer the question and defend your position on spanking and
parents without blowing your cover (hell, you have for years but are
in denial) as a hot for spanking advocate.

Weasel words, again. :-)

You and they are irresponsible and you know The Question proves it.

Weasel words, again. :-)

Prove you actually have a copy of the Embry study. Post it in its
entirety.

LOL! Wouldn't that violates copyright? You are funny, Kane! :-)

According to you it wouldn't. So what's holding you up? Yes, I know
I'm funny. All I have to do is get you to respond to my posts and it's
obvious what the laugh riot is all about. R R R R R

LOL! Why don't you?

Keep telling everyone I'm running from a debate, Doananator, then post
this nonsense where you dodge yet again from simple questions and
challenges...only three little things...all very easy.

And your posts proved that you are running with your tail between your
legs! :-)

Yet you dodge.

I willing to debate the Embry study anytime! Why are you so afraid? :-)

He even
had the nerve to claim that there is no PUNISHMENT in the Embry
study.

We'll discuss that when you have met the criteria for debate,
little
liar.

Shall I repost you claim, "never-spanked" boy? :-)

Any time you like. You see it's really up to you, not me. If you
really had the Embry study and really wished to debate it you'd be all
over yourself meeting the three criteria for debate, including this
one.

Doan:
He would also know that along with positive reinforcement, giving
stickers for safe play, Dr. Embry also prescribed punishment, using
time-out, for unsafe play.

Kane:
Actually he did no such thing. He prescribed sitting and watching
other children playing safely. Dr. Embry knows how the human brain
actually works and the power of learning through modeling.

I gave the the quote from the study. You are either a very bad liar or
a very stupid person, Kane9. WHICH IS IT? ;-)

Yet, you hesitate. You dodge. You weasel. Now why IS that, Doananator?

Kane's logic! ;-)

No Answer, no Proof, no Study. It's all up to you, yet you don't come
through. Your cohorts must be starting to wonder, Doananator.

Everyone must be wondering by now how you and Chris Dugan cited the Embry
study for years without pointing out how ridiculously low the sample size
is. You are either liars or stupid! WHICH IS IT, KANE? ;-)

Are you live or memorex?

I'm a Kan9 kicker! ;-)

As you all can see, he has been exposed as a liar that he is.

What did I lie about? I simply refuse to discuss Embry until you
have
met the standards for honest open debate.

Weasel words, again! :-0

Notice, you asked if I wanted you to post the "never spanked" proof,
and here you are again, weaseling.

But you said the burden of proof is on you according to your logic! ;-)

You've NEVER EVER done so before with others you've pretended to
"debate" and of course I won't deal with a little liar.

Looking in the mirror again? :-)

No. Looking directly at your words in this post. Just more
Doananatoring.

Weasel! ;-)


All he can do now is run and BARK! ;-)

Is that what you call not answering The Question as asked, not
proving
your contention I claim to be never spanked, and NOT posting actual
proof you have the Embry study?

Weasel words, again! :-)

More whackin' off? Yes, I guess that is all you have.

As usual, resorting ad-hom when you can't debate. What a pity! :-)

Those are hardly difficult conditions to meet for debate, now are
they
Doananizer?

Now you've tried to throw in two more issues, these from the Embry
study you pretend to have. More Doananisms. Very good.

Weasel words, again! ;-)

So are you going to come through, or dodge again?

Weasel! ;-)

Doan

Doan the Liar has once more shown he will not debate on issues
unless
the field is already tilted in his favor.

LOL!

I guess I have my answer to my previous question.

He wants to debate from a blind position on bits and pieces. He
can't
answer a simple question HE BROUGHT up to deflect from his
inability
to answer a simple question honestly. And he relies on claims to
deflect from his lying and lack of facts.

Weasel words, again! :-)

Yep, for sure.

At least you are now admitting that you are weaseling. :-)


When you, Doananizer, have met the criteria for debate I'm here and
willing.

Three simple requirements.

Kane

LOL! Keep barking, Kane9!

Apparently Doananating Weasels have the bark.

Only dogs bark, Kane9! ;-)

Doan

Gee, Doananator, do I have to "double dare" you? R R R R R

Weasel! ;-)

I'm waiting to debate you and post after post you refuse to respond to
the criteria...the very simple criteria.

Like what is the sample size? Don't know, do you? ;-)

Now why would that be, Doananator?

Honesty too much for you? R R R R R R

It is too much for you, Kane9! :-)

Doan

Kane




On 5 Jan 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan continues to pretend that he's answered The Question, that
he
knows if I've ever said I was "never-spanked" (yet won't prove
it),
and that he has a copy of the Embry Study.

As I stated I will not discuss, debate, or remark on the Ebry
study
until he can meet the challenge of his own blabbering. Both
issues:
"never-spanked" and the Embry study were brought up by Doan to
divert
from the fact he could not answer The Question. His lying has
him
backed into a corner he can't get out of.

Now he claims I won't debate him.

This perpetual liar has a history of just such avoidance for
years
now
in this alt parenting spanking ng. He rewrites the FAQ to
pretend
this
ng is something that it isn't, his and other spanking
enthusiasts
forum, and pretends to have the Embry study when it's becoming
increasingly obvious he doesn't have it.

(He also forgets what "alt" stands for as he rewrites the ng
FAQ)

He rewrites the FAQ in an attempt to establish what cannot be
established, that the line between spanking and abuse is
definable
precisely...yet even then fails to so demonstrate.

He promotes the bias that society should have NO say in how a
parent
defines spanking as long as they don't cause legally definable
injury,
but still....that fails to answer The Question.

Doan pretends he's for parents but invites them to make
unqualified
guesses, but never promoting any non-punitive parenting methods.
He
defends parents risking their own child's health and safety even
their
very lives.

The Great Pretender is exposed, as if that was hard to do.

Shall we expect more Doananism?

R R R R R R

Kane

On 06 Jan 2004 02:53:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Kane, I believe, made the statement he was never spanked,

I still have the post from a google search. I will provide it in
due time. I am still waiting for Chris Dugan, LaVonne and Jerry
to come in and save their little Kane9. ;-)

Doan

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:28:42 -0800, Doan wrote:

The same old Weasel Dodges.

You know the drill for debate.

Proof you have the study.

Proof I said what you claim I said.

Answer The Question as it was asked.

You ran and you are still running.

Kane

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:32:46 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 06 Jan 2004 02:53:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Kane, I believe, made the statement he was never spanked,

I still have the post from a google search. I will provide it in
due time. I am still waiting for Chris Dugan, LaVonne and Jerry
to come in and save their little Kane9. ;-)

Naw what you are doing is the usual Weasel Dodge. We've watched if for
years.

You are stretching out the time as long as you can in hopes someone
will forget what YOU have said, what you have lied about, what you
have not followed through on.

I don't play until you meet the criteria.

And YOU aren't going to because you know your ass is grass should you.

Doan

Kane