Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, krp wrote:


"Ron" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.

In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?

Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see that
as a main theme in your life).

I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

And you have proof that she is me right, Kane? After all, you claimed
that you sent a copy of the Embry study to her im MEXICO! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

Is she in Mexico? ;-)

You didn't answer my question, Kane? Are you harassing me? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.
In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?
Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see that
as a main theme in your life).
I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)

Nope.

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field
leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.

Doan

Now we have two liars and cowards trying to fool the readers, Doan and Ken.

Interesting.

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

And you have proof that she is me right, Kane?

I simply posted information that is circumstantial...highly.

Anyone that reads with an objective mind would conclude that you very
likely were wearing the Alina/Aline sock.

The extremely abbreviated posting history of Alina/Aline...and error you
made that triggered my memory of a nun living on the campus where you
work....90:-

Now why would you make such an error I wonder, to refer to the one
posting here as the other, the nun on campus...R R R R R

The disappearance of the sock when I made the offer to ship the study to
her.

"Her" answers to my questions when I asked why she wouldn't let you send
"her" a copy.

(And you knew she could get it from AAA -- R R R R ...)

Come on Doan, with your record lies anyone here think you are telling
the truth?

The least would be that you recruited someone to try and get the
material from me.

After all, you claimed
that you sent a copy of the Embry study to her im MEXICO! ;-)

Yes, I did claim that.

Show us your proof I didn't mail that study to her in Mexico.

She lived there, according to her.

Are you still breastfeeding, by the way?

That was clever to post to such an apparently unrelated newsgroup...but
Alina seemed reluctant to carry on a conversation after a single post
into a thread. She sort of "disappeared."

I wonder why.

Doan

If you can get in touch with her, have her get in touch with me snicker

Maybe Ken will sock her for you. You can even run in a little Spanish
for him.

R R RR R R R R R R

You aren't half the liar today you were when you were posting to Chris,
Doan.

You are slipping.

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

Is she in Mexico? ;-)

You didn't answer my question, Kane? Are you harassing me? ;-)

Just noticed your post.

Doan

You tell me.

Is Alina in Mexico, or at USC?

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.
In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?
Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see that
as a main theme in your life).
I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)

Nope.

Yup!

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field
leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

Yup! I ran when I was on your "do-not-reply" list. I ran when you claimed
that you do not read my postS!

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.

He did, STUPID!

Doan

Now we have two liars and cowards trying to fool the readers, Doan and Ken.

The proven liar here is you, Kane!

Interesting.

Yes, indeed! ;-)

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

And you have proof that she is me right, Kane?

I simply posted information that is circumstantial...highly.

Hihihi! You LIED and got caught!

Anyone that reads with an objective mind would conclude that you very
likely were wearing the Alina/Aline sock.

Hahaha!

The extremely abbreviated posting history of Alina/Aline...and error you
made that triggered my memory of a nun living on the campus where you
work....90:-

There is a nun living on the campus???

Now why would you make such an error I wonder, to refer to the one
posting here as the other, the nun on campus...R R R R R

Which num is that, Kane?

The disappearance of the sock when I made the offer to ship the study to
her.

You said you shipped to her address in Mexico, Kane! Keep your story
straight! ;-)

"Her" answers to my questions when I asked why she wouldn't let you send
"her" a copy.

(And you knew she could get it from AAA -- R R R R ...)

You claimed it was out-of-print from AAA, Kane. Keep your story straight!

Come on Doan, with your record lies anyone here think you are telling
the truth?

The proven liar here is you, Kane!


The least would be that you recruited someone to try and get the
material from me.

Hahaha! You meant your "poor copy" and then "corrupted" one? Keep your
story straight, Kane!

After all, you claimed
that you sent a copy of the Embry study to her im MEXICO! ;-)

Yes, I did claim that.

And you also claimed that she is me! Keep your story straight, Kane!

Show us your proof I didn't mail that study to her in Mexico.

Show me the proof that you did!

She lived there, according to her.

But she is me, according to you! ;-)

Are you still breastfeeding, by the way?

Hihihi! A stupid diversion tactic, Kane?

That was clever to post to such an apparently unrelated newsgroup...but
Alina seemed reluctant to carry on a conversation after a single post
into a thread. She sort of "disappeared."

I wonder why.

Because you are a STUPID liar, Kane!


Doan

If you can get in touch with her, have her get in touch with me snicker

You have her address in Mexico, Kane! So you claimed!

Maybe Ken will sock her for you. You can even run in a little Spanish
for him.

Hihihi!

R R RR R R R R R R

You aren't half the liar today you were when you were posting to Chris,

Chris was the first one to notice your STUPIDITY, Kane!

Doan.

You are slipping.

And you are still you, STUPID and a proven LIAR!

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, krp wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.
In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?
Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see that
as a main theme in your life).
I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)
Nope.

Yup!

YUP. Your view UP the Proctological end of you.

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field
leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

Yup! I ran when I was on your "do-not-reply" list.

I didn't ask you a question. What would you have run from?

I ran when you claimed
that you do not read my postS!

I didn't. I read them in attribution.

I decide when I will or won't read or respond.

Must be a difficult concept for you given how easy it is to provoke you
into your stupid responses.


And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.

He did, STUPID!

Nope.

Why haven't you responded to my response to you on this matter.

His only rebuttal was to claim that "lead to" can ONLY mean "caused by"
is about as weak a rebuttal as I've seen. Even tops some of yours in
that regard.

The body of the article proves clearly no such claim was being being made.

Correlation was all that was discussed.

Or did you see other evidence in the article that those authors, or the
authors of the study report being quoted by the Non-Parade-magazine
source a claim of causality was being made?

Don't you think it's a bit foolish to try and prove some claim was being
made that nowhere else is there the least bit of supporting evidence for?

I'd say that was your typical contextual lie, Doug. No wonder you
support him in it.


Doan
Now we have two liars and cowards trying to fool the readers, Doan and Ken.

The proven liar here is you, Kane!

Declaring a win again, Doan?


Interesting.

Yes, indeed! ;-)

Still attempting to pretend to claim to rant (thanks Greg) that you have
won something?

0:-]

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Say hello to Aline for us. She still, after all this time, has never
surfaced on Usenet again. I hope...R RRRR R R R "she's" okay.

And you have proof that she is me right, Kane?
I simply posted information that is circumstantial...highly.

Hihihi! You LIED and got caught!

Anyone that reads with an objective mind would conclude that you very
likely were wearing the Alina/Aline sock.

Hahaha!

The extremely abbreviated posting history of Alina/Aline...and error you
made that triggered my memory of a nun living on the campus where you
work....90:-

There is a nun living on the campus???

Nearby. Is she still alive?




Now why would you make such an error I wonder, to refer to the one
posting here as the other, the nun on campus...R R R R R

Which num is that, Kane?

Did you not attend and now work at USC, Doan?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/troja...AP_gerber.html

Or were you as hysterically blind then as you are now? Or you were when
I mentioned her by name and location before in our little tete a tetes
on this confusion of yours when you mentioned Alina, but instead used
"Aline" identify her in a post?

My you are a confused little boy.

Just circumstantial, of course. Just circumstantial.

(Couldn't you have been more original R R R RRR R R R )

Alumni Profile

Aline Marie Gerber '42
To the Manor Sworn Sometimes God moves in ironic ways. Sister Aline
Marie Gerber ’42 took a vow of poverty 50 years ago, yet here she is
living in one of L.A.’s most opulent estates — the Doheny Mansion.

Don’t worry, Sister Aline Marie hasn’t fallen from grace. You might say
the Gothic Renaissance residence is part of her calling. The 81-year-old
nun is the primary caretaker of the Doheny Mansion, the jewel of the
downtown campus of Mount St. Mary’s College, where the good sister
taught languages for 45 years. ...

Taught languages? Gee I wonder if a little boy named Doan attended one
of her Spanish language classes. smile

In fact in my message in a thread way back in 04, I alluded to "Doheny"
just to tease yah a little, "Alina," and you choked up and even started
creatively snipping my posts where questions relating to this were
answered.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...307e9eb?hl=en&

So, Am I lying when I say I shipped to Alina, or are you lying when you
say you were socking, or having someone do it for you, back then, eh?

If I'm lying, how would you KNOW I didn't ship? Eh?

The disappearance of the sock when I made the offer to ship the study to
her.

You said you shipped to her address in Mexico, Kane! Keep your story
straight! ;-)

What's not straight? I made the offer, got her address, shipped, and
never heard from her again, just as I've related to you in prior posts.

Could only find two much later posts anywhere on Usenet, oddly right
after I commented to you that she'd been missing up to that point for
some time....and there she was, popped right up twice, and chuckle
never again.

What a coincidence, eh?


"Her" answers to my questions when I asked why she wouldn't let you send
"her" a copy.

(And you knew she could get it from AAA -- R R R R ...)

You claimed it was out-of-print from AAA, Kane. Keep your story straight!

Yes I did. And you claimed, and have since ... ?

Why didn't you tell her, Doan? No need? For some strange reason? R R R
R R R

Come on Doan, with your record lies anyone here think you are telling
the truth?

The proven liar here is you, Kane!

The proven liar, every time you say that lie, is of course you.

The least would be that you recruited someone to try and get the
material from me.

Hahaha! You meant your "poor copy" and then "corrupted" one? Keep your
story straight, Kane!

Yes. That copy. It still is. It was copied on a copy machine from an old
well used and much handled copy, apparently, or was a multilevel copy,
and came a bit askew and with some fuzzy indistinct courier typeface
characters.

Not enough to fool the human eye, but in the early 2000s when I got it
as I recall, enough to "fool" OCR and misprint. And create a doc that
would not migrate to PDF.

So I offered to send you...oops! Alina, a hard copy of my copy.

She said okay, gave me her address, and I shipped. Either it didn't get
there, or there was no "where" for it to go, and it dead lettered and
was too heavy and too easy to **** can in Mexico by some low level mail
sorter.

Happens here too.

After all, you claimed
that you sent a copy of the Embry study to her im MEXICO! ;-)
Yes, I did claim that.

And you also claimed that she is me! Keep your story straight, Kane!

I claimed I had substantial circumstantial evidence, which I've shared a
little with you today, that you in fact socked that poster.

Do you deny that you did, or had someone do it for you?

Heck, as common a name as that (and it is right around your campus) you
could have asked someone to help you 'pull a joke' and gotten them to
post for you. Asking me for a copy.

What that person, you, or your sock, or the one complicit could not do
was give me a valid address in the US, so I guess the only choice would
be to give me bogus one in Mexico.

Sound plausible to you?

Show us your proof I didn't mail that study to her in Mexico.

Show me the proof that you did!

I don't have any. I would have simply mailed it off. And no reason
whatsoever to keep the address. After all, I trusted Alina. Wasn't I
meant to?

She lived there, according to her.

But she is me, according to you! ;-)

I think I have pretty fair evidence of the highly likely chance that
yes, you or a compatriot was that "Alina," who you accidentally
rreferred to as Aline....the same name as the lovely old Nun on campus,
in Doheny Mansion.

Are you still breastfeeding, by the way?

Hihihi! A stupid diversion tactic, Kane?

Nope. Pointing to one of the few posts of "Alina" that did not go
anywhere. Just "markers" placed in a newsgroup to establish this "Alina"
persona.

That was clever to post to such an apparently unrelated newsgroup...but
Alina seemed reluctant to carry on a conversation after a single post
into a thread. She sort of "disappeared."

I wonder why.

Because you are a STUPID liar, Kane!

Unh huh. Yes, real stupid.

Doan

If you can get in touch with her, have her get in touch with me snicker

You have her address in Mexico, Kane! So you claimed!

I didn't claim I have it now. I can mail something to someone and no
longer have their address. It's pretty likely, given that was 2004 as I
recall.

Maybe Ken will sock her for you. You can even run in a little Spanish
for him.

Hihihi!

The sound the Liar Bird, when caught by his ass trying to hide.

R R RR R R R R R R

You aren't half the liar today you were when you were posting to Chris,

Chris was the first one to notice your STUPIDITY, Kane!

Mmmm..well, oddly enough that's not the point here. Or didn't you notice?

And he and I disagreed on a political matter that is coming out with him
the more apparent winner. I hold no grudge. And would welcome a personal
discussion, given that the topic he posted was very off topic.

On the other hand, the issue of wars and other violence does tie right
in with spanking for teaching children to be violent, don't you think?

I should probably apologize to him.

Now then, we were on the subject of you lying contextually for all this
time, weren't we?

Do you deny you quote out of context precisely to cherry pick and change
the meaning of the article, comment, claim, or other material you are
quoting?


Doan.

You are slipping.

And you are still you, STUPID and a proven LIAR!

Your wishful thinking does not change the real word one bit, Doan.

Nor does stomping your foot and yelling.

You are a proven liar by your own words, and some very convincing
circumstantial evidence.

Or in the paraphrased words of the famous poster to these newsgroups,
"who here believe Doan?"

0:-