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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that ****es me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too bright. As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to ad-hom. I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-) Regards, Doan I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will be pleased to resume coversing with you. S Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a "smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination of what abuse is??? Doan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that ****es me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S I didn't know you have it in you, Stephanie. :-) Doan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:08:06 -0800, Doan wrote:
On 15 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:11:25 -0800, Doan wrote: On 14 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:22:05 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim" wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Yes. Steve is pointing that out to Droany. Not to you. He is saying "They just got done telling you" meaning both you and I. LOL! Wrong, Kane9. Since those are not my words that Steve responded to. Doan, you are too dumb. Steve THOUGHT he was addressing you. The attributions got jangled. Even a sleeping dog like you should be able to figure that you. Think YOU said that, linked with the nonsense of YOURS the poster was actually responding to, is exactly what happened. In other words, Steve is dumb and I was too dumb to see his dumbness? I did not say you were too dumb for missing the mistake, but for denying it when I pointed out the mistake to the other poster. The matter was clarified and you still insisted on trying to pump your little ego up, as you are doing now. In other words you are an arrogant little twit demonstrating yet again how ethically and morally bancrupt you really are. You are desperately seeking your usual way out. Some small unimportant item you can grap up to shield yourself from the obious paucity of reason and fact that is reprseted by the stand taken by you and the other spanking compulsives. Your argument feel out in a few posts to someone that isn't even familiar with your misleading and misdirecting logical fallacies in debate. She tried to engage you in normal conversation, clarifying her desire to NOT debate the data but offering to express her opinion. And you, with nowhere to go as usual, with data you don't even understand, from a study that does NOT compare punishment and non punishment, but instead fails by comparing two types of punishment....neither of which have ever been shown ot be successful in raising children....fell on your stupid ass once again, and resort not to attacking. Tell me, what "smelly-****" did you crawl out of to come up with such a logic? As I said. You don't want to debate the facts, and you never have, because each time your nonsense is pointed out, you continue it until someone expresses disgust at your apparent obtuseness (the mistake hubris for obtuseness) and you get to bail out like you are doing now, a bailout from another bailout. How many levels of moral deficiency are you cabable of before you stop and admit you lost? Do you have a problem with logic or are you just naturally this stupid? ;-) My statement is STILL valid. And I did not say he was responding to YOU, but about you. Oops! Another contradiction. First, you claimed that Steve "THOUGHT he was addressing me" Yes, a mistake on my part. How does that excuse you from you dodges? and now you claim he is not responding to me! He is responding to you about you, dummy. . Tell me, which side of your family has this defective gene? The "smelly-****" side? ;-) Tell me, which part of The Question are you unable to answer? All of it? And why are you running from debate on the Embry Study, which you steadly lie that you have. Steve has a real problem with suffering fools. Probably even surpassing me. And both of you are "never-spanked"! :-) You don't know about me. I DO know you were spanked. I DO know more about you than you think? That's nice. And that is total obscure. Care to clarify? Wouldn't be hilarious of I WAS spanked as a child and STILL had the guts that so many who were spanked, to put an end to it in my family? It's your choice! Am I seeing a change of direction in your story making? Remember, google has the archive! ;-) Did I not say, and the typo is obvious,"IF I was a spanked child." Yes I know. And yet you won't show the proof that I said one way or another. Would you like me to show you admitted your parents spanked you? So do you consider all people that were unspanked as having a problem because of it? Nope! I have not met ALL. :-) I can only determine it on a case by case basis. So far I have you and STEVE! You know TWO people you claim are unspanked? Do you live in a shoebox with your pet frog? Funny, I actually DO think that all people that were spanked have various life problems to sort out...some do so, gallantly, and some do not. Hi! Droany. Funny thing is I DO NOT CARE what you think. Well, socially deficient one, I DO care what people think, even one so obviously socially and morallly arrested as you. Fortunately, it's the spanked like BUSH that is running the world. It's the spanked like Ted that gave billion of dollars to the United Nations. It's the spanked like Mother Theresa that looked after the poors. WHERE ARE THE NEVER-SPANKED? They are in this newsgroup, sitting behind a compunter, hiding behind fake aliases, to spout vulgar language. :-) You think there are two unspanked and the rest of the unspanked are destroying the world? Your logic amazes me. How do YOU know Mother Teresa was spanked? And you really think Bush is making the best choices? And who is Ted and how do you know he was spanked? I love your world leader referance though. I'm sure any reader but your morally deficent spanking compulsives would have laughed at the flood of memories of past bloody dictators this world has been treated to that were "spanked." The spanked battling the spanked is all it amounts to....with neither of them spilling their blood, just everyone elses. Yeah, lets hear it for Hitler and Roosevelt, Stalin and Kennedy, Tojo and Truman. Bush and Saddam. And all the spanked string pullers in business and industry that profit from such wars.....and lose non of their blood. If only somewhere between 2 and 10% of the population is unspanked it's hardly a wonder they don't win elections or rise to high level business positions. All you are bragging about little man, is tht there are more of you than of the unspanked. Do you consider that some kind of win? Wasn't addressed to you and recognised what you said about the victim being the judge. Then you really have a problem with English. :-) Nope, Steve thought YOU said that and was ADDRESSING YOU about it. So Steve is stupid? ;-) No, he made a mistake and acknowledged the mistake. While you, being told he made a mistake and being told you are stupid for very different reasons, mostly that you can't get the significance of data you offer up in evidence that PROVES YOU WRONG, are a yak a minute. He did not understand that the attributions made it appear her words were yours. So Steve is stupid? ;-) Are people that make attribution mistakes stupid? Or are people that have had explained to the again and again for year after year that they are misinterpreting the content and meaning of studies on CP stupid? If we who keep telling you you are misinterpreting are stupid it must be because we keep thinking you are going to have some ethics and intelligence and sort out the other possibilities than the ones you cling to so hysterically. I'd say that is stupidly and naively and hopeful of us, wouldn't you? I confess. When it comes to expecting honesty and intelligence from you we look like dunces, or it could be that as advocates for non-spanking we are patient and hopeful. And all around, in the long run, decent and admirable trait. Said by her, it was clarification, but said by you, the very same words, in the context of your stupidity, were responded to with considerable accuracy. Only if you have the logic of a "never-spanked" boy. :-) No, the problem is that you are invested in scrabbling around with this to draw attention away from the fact she engaged you fairly and you ignored her request for dealing with opinion, then blamed her for not debating on what YOU wanted to and she had said she didn't. In other words, little sneak, she was honest and took advantage of it. But that is common among the spanked, and why the world is not very well run. When you claim that the spanked are doing all these wonderful things you also forget there is a very good chance it's other spanked that put us in the trouble the other get to play at making up for. YOU have both a problem with English and context, but more seriously one with honor..but we've known that for years. You are basically a damaged child still stuck at the 5 year age when cheating is considered clever by the child. No conscience, yet. You are looking in the mirror again. :-) No, obviously I wasn't saying that. And is that the best comeback you have when you have been outed? How we doin' on Doan? Very good, Kane. You are almost there. Keep posting. :-) I'll be "almost there" when you stop playing with your appendage publically and answer The Question, prove your allegations that I'm unspanked, and prove you have the Embry study by quoting with a page citation or answering my page citation question. So far nothing but babble from you. As though your dodging is a sign of superiority. Well, I think I see a light coming on over his little pointy head. Look how quick he ran, with one of his usual excuses (for something he does himself all the time..and did again in this post) the "ad hom bailout" ploy. You are confusing me with Chris Dugan. Didn't he pull that one on you? ;-) Well, I don't recall debating him, so what would he bail out from? You mistake a genuine disagreement honestly stated for a weasel dodging his own stupidity by lying and misdirecting. You can't even trick someone brand new to your nonsense. And boy,..... I don't have to "trick" anyone. In a previous post, you claimed that only 2% are "never-spanked". Do I need to trick the other 98%? I didn't "claim" it, I simply conceeded that others claim it. And what an obvious and stupid ploy to try and evade the point I made....someone else, without any history with you caught on to you that quick. And you are nothing but tricks little man. You throw up claims and refuse to support them for months at a time. And you do it when you are cornered and mistaken instead of simply admitting you don't know or you can't answer. You can't answer The Question and you won't admit it in defense, I have to presume, of the spanking compulsives argument. You refuse to back up a claim you know I'm never spanked, claiming something in the archives. But you can't answer a challene to produce your evidence. You can't prove you have the Embry study except by coming up with things, some of which I KNOW is not in the study in question, that could be dredged up from others citations and bits and pieces of Embry. In other words you are just a lying little weasel, as you always have been...year after year. Others don't have the logic you have. Others don't have the facts you have. Others don't have the neutrality you have. All shown as a great pile of rotting garbage. Defended by a belief in spanking as a right of parents to damage their children. I'm here to help you. Thank you. You don't know it but you are helping me with every post you made. Ask LaVonne; she was trying to tell you PRIVATELY but you made her plea public. Need I say you are stupid? Chris Dunga publicly trying to tell you, but for his trouble, all he got is a "**** YOU". Need I say you are stupid? Now it is Stephanie trying to tell you the same thing. Could I expect a "smelly-****" coming from your mouth? ;-) Oh, then you are offering, if I stop using obscenities, to answer The Question honestly, to prove I claim to be unspanked, and to come up with the Embry study. I'm glad to hear that. Now check on my posting for the last, oh say, 4 days or so. You won't find obscenties. You might find an occasional swear word, but no obscenties. So are you read NOW, little twit? Yer slipping, Droany. You are winning, Kane9 Kunt! ;-) Actually I am, because I've known what you are up to for years. And you slid all too easily into using obscenties yourself while claiming the moral highground. Notice? Yer a sucker. Your own self importance trips you up repeatedly. And you are left to run, as you have been doing now for weeks, and claiming my obscene language as your excuse. That is so funny. Like you can't answer three simple challenges because the other person calls you dirty names. Sure, Droany. Sure. Well, Do you see any obscenties on this page but YOURS? Have you for days, but YOURS? And you claim YOU win. Sure, Droany. Sure. Let's see how honest you really are, now! Doan R R R R R Stop barking! Stop lying. Kane9 Kunt Tsk, Droany, Tsk. Doan.................. ........the morally superior liar. Because someone calls him names he can thereby support child abuse, through parents being denied exact guidelines, and lying about it with a clear conscience. Well, isn't that conveeeeeeenient. (thanks Dana) Kane |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
Stephanie and Tim wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that ****es me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S ----------------- of course they are. Steve |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
Doan wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a "smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. ----------------- It is the Truth! We cannot let you perps decide any such thing, EVER! Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death and claiming that it is ok. ----------------- No, you don't have any such thing, you're a ****-****ing liar. Do you think a baby can make a determination of what abuse is??? Doan ----------------- Of course. Anything that makes a child cry IS abuse! Period! Steve |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Doan wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a "smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. ----------------- It is the Truth! We cannot let you perps decide any such thing, EVER! LOL! Who are "We"? Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-) Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death and claiming that it is ok. ----------------- No, you don't have any such thing, you're a ****-****ing liar. LOL. Since **** is coming out of your mouth, a "****-****ing" liar would be ****ing your mouth! :-) Do you think a baby can make a determination of what abuse is??? Doan ----------------- Of course. Anything that makes a child cry IS abuse! Period! Steve I told you he is a troll! ;-) Doan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that ****es me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S ----------------- of course they are. Steve |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
"Doan" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem too bright. As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to ad-hom. I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-) Regards, Doan I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will be pleased to resume coversing with you. S Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a "smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK??? Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse. Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination of what abuse is??? Doan Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not. So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. But if one is primarily concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can "determine" what consitutes that which damages them. Let;s take an anolgy. Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding, and that is whether or not the child is harmed. I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you did effectively this: - You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does nothing to refute the argument.) - What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.) - You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But again, it does nothing to refute the argument.) S |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened
"Doan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie and Tim wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: "Doan" wrote in message OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting, henceforth just referred to as abuse. ---------------------- No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be ALLOWED to postulate that! The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment! The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!! Steve Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading? Have you learned enough about Steve about now? :-) Funny thing is Steve believe that infantcide is ok up to about 4months. I guess babies that young are not FIT to decide abuse heh? Doan I am exceedingly familiar with Steve. The onlt thing about him that ****es me off is when he does not live up to the intelligence I think of him. I think he is likely quite intelligent. And a complete loon. S ----------------------- You contradict yourself. Steve I do? Are being intelligent and nuts mutually exclusive? S I didn't know you have it in you, Stephanie. :-) Doan What do you mean? Do you think not agreeing with you means I automatically agree with Steve? Hardly likely. S |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened | Kane | General | 80 | February 24th 04 07:08 PM |
| Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened | Doan | General | 7 | February 16th 04 05:08 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |