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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION. It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that). So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name of The Ken Assume the child is C. Let X equal SAC doll Test, Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested. Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test showed that Y results in n and y results in M. Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing unresolved issue over SAC doll use? Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say. "Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for Molestation. If XC leads to y then C is m If XC leads to Y then C is n Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls. And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested. To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant. The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to them not having been molested. So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool. I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty. The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT likely to have been molested. LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!" It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools. Kane wrote I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off that cross he had you nailed so securely to. Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research? Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire deprived. My apologies. Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together? The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the master debater, from the central region. And and answers thusly: Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo. I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones! All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was molested, and vice versa. While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what his claim IS. Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you. He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption. High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest. Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so. ROFL! I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences and have this moment of jollity and comic relief. I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me. Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will. R R R R R R R R R Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this Homage to his great analytical skills. Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud: Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents. You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind of dumb puds they are. Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here. If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it. Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize. Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting. It just might let your brain work again. Kane Kane is RIGHT on this one! And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding with you, and telling the truth will increase it. Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you used and agreed with you? ;-) You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it." Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An attempt to deceive. I am not saying anything but what I said. I said that you told the truth. "Method" doesn't matter to the point made. I said you sometimes lie, mostly in fact. If you do it again then you become the usual boorish child you aspire to be most of the time. Not worth replying to. Truth gets you attention. If you disagree don't ask a question. Say how you disagree. Otherwise, yawn it's the same old tricks of lying by questioning to divert, mislead, and deceive. You were not asking for clarification. That's a deception of yours. Thats why this will not be accepted as an opening to have a discussion. Deception, I'm gone. Honest discussion without resorting to this or any other kind of deceptive ****, and I'll be happy to treat you civilly and more. Tsk. And tah for now. Doan No, I did not say that Correlation and the X leads to Y was the only conclusion that could be drawn. But when you have a choice, as the title provided, you look further support for a cause meaning existed anywhere. post hoc ergo proctor hoc, as to my being right. Silly science used a proof is poor science indeed. I deliberately created silly science out of silly science, as one cannot do otherwise. There is a slight chance Ken understood and described the test and outcome and the correlation claimed, but I doubt it, given his record so far. If he was right, I am right. If he is not one or more of the elements would be wrong thus the entire premise would be wrong. I doubt it would be a tight enough result to trust it even for field trials with human subjects under actual case circumstances. All it would give would be a correlation and a statistic, thus a a probability, not proof of molest or not proof of molest. It could be part, but only part, of an investigation, couple with other valid investigative techniques. It's almost not worth bothering with. Though for actual interviewing with older children, say six up to early teens, where children can be shy about naming or pointing to their own body parts, a model would be useful. Not as proof the child was molested but in HOW they were molested. And yes, though I don't pretend to expertise in SAC dolls...I already told Ken I do have, I do know enough to discuss the use and techniques, concepts and possible appropriate uses failure intelligently. The heavy lifting has to be left up to social scientists at this point and the research has been poor, including, I believe, the one Ken refers to. He WANTS it to be good science. Because it gave the outcome he wanted. Personally I'm always thrilled almost beyond speaking to find my own biases disproved. It's fun to learn new stuff, and very boring to keep recycling the old, no matter how "proven" it may appear to be. On the rare instances you have come close it's always been refreshing. But I find your propensity to manipulate my comments, even to the point of lying about what I have claimed, and leaving out my corrections totally unproductive to debate. And I'm sorry to say you have proved to be totally untrustworthy when I've asked you, and thought you agreed to debate, and began lying again, almost in the next breath. No, we are out of debate. Pleasant or unpleasant chats are all you get. I won't continue to be suckered forever as I struggle to operate factually and in honesty against a determinedly dishonest man, Doan. Enough. You win by cheating. Trust noting, always test. You've been tested enough. You are untrustworthy to a fault. Don't even pretend you actually wish to debate again. Kane Quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. Again, admitting that I have no clue on on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right? Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags". Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37 seconds) Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the .... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any validity or ... www.allencowling.com/false15.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages IPT Journal - "Child Hearsay Vs The Confrontation Clause: Can The ... - 4:01pm The second problem with the use of SAC dolls is that there are no published ... The dolls totally lack scientific validity; for years, all attempts by ... www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_4_2.htm - 116k - Cached - Similar pages one - 4:31pm He reacted strongly to the SAC(CR)'s ?doubts as to the validity of the findings of Bradford Hill and Doll. I find it difficult to understand on what ... www.denialdelay.org.uk/one.htm - 95k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Page 1 46 Ohio St. 3d 108, *; 545 N.E.2d 1220, **; THE STATE OF ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML play with the SAC dolls n8 in a sexually precocious. manner, heard Cynthia use slang terms for ... cases still may have some limited validity but the rule ... briefcase8.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/Boston.pdf - Similar pages essays research papers -- Summer Of 17th Doll Review Year 12 Literature SAC Summer Of The Seventeenth Doll ... the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ... www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=87655 - 21k - Cached - Similar pages ASIS International: Glossary - S The warrant is made valid for only a certain limited period of time. ... sexually anatomically correct (SAC) doll - a doll with parts that represent ... www.asisonline.org/library/glossary/s.xml - 110k - Cached - Similar pages Mackenzie,L The gene coding for the SAC has not yet been identified. ... Validity of self-reported injuries as a result of a fall was less accurate (71% agreement; ... lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Mackenzie,L - 47k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Emphasis Type="Italic"Uvitellina indica/Emphasis n. sp ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat are considered here as valid, although DOLLFUS. (1948) considers the latter as a subgenus of ... sac shaped, enclosed in a cirrus sac; ejaculatory ... www.springerlink.com/index/X529156830437443.pdf - Similar pages [PDF] Emphasis Type="Italic"Echinoparyphium elegans/Emphasis (Looss ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat we suggest that the position of the cirrus sac rela-. tive to that of the acetabulum is not a valid criterion. for the differentiation of species. .... www.springerlink.com/index/T88N620T24134651.pdf - Similar pages [ More results from www.springerlink.com ] Phys. Rev. A 48, 1573 (1993): Staliunas - Laser Ginzburg-Landau ... Equation (2) is valid near the laser threshold: the derivation of the ... A F2A (12) and correspondingly for the LGLE: a= [(DOll(r)-Dth)(1+i[3)+i42(r)]A +id ... link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.48.1573 - Similar pages Result Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Doan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION. It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that). So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name of The Ken Assume the child is C. Let X equal SAC doll Test, Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested. Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test showed that Y results in n and y results in M. Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing unresolved issue over SAC doll use? Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say. "Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for Molestation. If XC leads to y then C is m If XC leads to Y then C is n Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls. And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested. To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant. The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to them not having been molested. So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool. I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty. The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT likely to have been molested. LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!" It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools. Kane wrote I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off that cross he had you nailed so securely to. Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research? Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire deprived. My apologies. Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together? The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the master debater, from the central region. And and answers thusly: Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo. I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones! All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was molested, and vice versa. While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what his claim IS. Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you. He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption. High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest. Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so. ROFL! I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences and have this moment of jollity and comic relief. I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me. Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will. R R R R R R R R R Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this Homage to his great analytical skills. Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud: Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents. You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind of dumb puds they are. Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here. If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it. Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize. Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting. It just might let your brain work again. Kane Kane is RIGHT on this one! And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding with you, and telling the truth will increase it. Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you used and agreed with you? ;-) You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it." Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An attempt to deceive. Exactly! I attempt to deceive by acting just LIKE YOU! We are now agreeing that I am, by imitating you, a LIAR! Q.E.D! Doan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ron wrote: "Doan" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ron wrote: (snip) Could you tell me what SAC dolls are, Ron? Thanks, Doan Sure, love to. http://www.amamantafamily.com/Amaman...ls_history.htm http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm There is as usual some controversy concerning the use of SAC dolls, but its rarely about the dolls themselves but the training and conclusions of the professional using them. I find them distasteful myself, but can see the validity of their use in many areas. I don't buy all that the links above try and sell you on, but then again I am a Traditionalist where child rearing is concerned. Ron Thanks, Ron. I will look them up. What do you mean by a "Traditionalist" in child rearing? Don't tell me you spanked you kids, Ron? You are a child-abusing bully, Ron! I see you are terrified Ron and I might be reasonable in debate, Doan. Why is that I wonder. );-] You going to drop me a line with non-spank in it and suggest that Ron thinks I'm a rapid accuser of spanking parents? With Ron you'd have to prove it. And even then he'd maintain his position of not engaging in the debate. As I would with him. So, little child, you are ****ed. Doan And boring. And the worst sin of all in debate, and social relations, obvious. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION. It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that). So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name of The Ken Assume the child is C. Let X equal SAC doll Test, Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested. Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test showed that Y results in n and y results in M. Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing unresolved issue over SAC doll use? Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say. "Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for Molestation. If XC leads to y then C is m If XC leads to Y then C is n Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls. And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested. To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant. The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to them not having been molested. So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool. I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty. The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT likely to have been molested. LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!" It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools. Kane wrote I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off that cross he had you nailed so securely to. Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research? Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire deprived. My apologies. Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together? The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the master debater, from the central region. And and answers thusly: Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo. I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones! All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was molested, and vice versa. While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what his claim IS. Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you. He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption. High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest. Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so. ROFL! I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences and have this moment of jollity and comic relief. I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me. Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will. R R R R R R R R R Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this Homage to his great analytical skills. Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud: Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents. You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind of dumb puds they are. Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here. If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it. Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize. Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting. It just might let your brain work again. Kane Kane is RIGHT on this one! And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding with you, and telling the truth will increase it. Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you used and agreed with you? ;-) You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it." Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An attempt to deceive. Exactly! I attempt to deceive by acting just LIKE YOU! We are now agreeing that I am, by imitating you, a LIAR! Q.E.D! Quid latine dictim sit, altum videtur. yawn Doan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com... I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. I find this SOOOO exciting! I bet NOT! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? You simply ASTOUND me Kane! You REALLY do! It just few over your head at warp factor 23. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). IF you are a FUKKKKKKKKKKING IDIOT yes! So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. IF you are a drolling FOOL, I'd suppose somebody as totally SIMPLE minded as you might do just that! And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Only for a MORON. Do you have a link to this information as prime source? Or even a scientific or professional periodical (I'm not even insisting on the peer reviewed research itself)? Yes But I am NOT sharing it with you! I alread have with others. This, Ken, is your big chance. What? To waste more time? Don't muff it. I'm sending this to a listserve for researchers that is hosted by Cornell U. that includes people such as Straus and David Finkelhor, Professor at University of New Hampshire. This could be Big Ken, really big. I am sure they are aware of it Kane. Since it isn't exactly a new study. It's is also the platform by wich almost EVERY state has rejected the SAC dolls as evidence. Do you have a CLUE as to the "White" protocol? You draw truly IDIOTIC conclusions from evidence placed in front of you. In this case all that was really established is that the things you get from SAC dolls are unreliable data. YOU want to draw granite level conclusions. YOUI rather NEED a black and white world. But then, that's because you function in life as an absolutist. Do you know WHO runs the Cornel LIST?????? A DIM clue? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"Greegor" wrote in message oups.com... Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! You'd expect an IDIOT to find HARTD evidence within a false field. IF he has an IQ in the LOW teens! Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! BRILLIANT isn't he? It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools. SIGH I wonder how many times Kane's momma dropped him on his head from that tall building? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"0:-" wrote in message ... Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. You are doing a great job of kicking your own ass, you need NO outside help. Never took a course in statistical analysis have you? Here is a CLUE - YALE CHILD STUDIES CENTER!!!!!! Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Okay. Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. No - weenie - ALL I pointed out that the STUDIES prove is the UNRELIABILITY of the SAC Dolls in proving their common interpretation. As expected your reading skills and cognitive skills SUCK Kane. YOU being the little dogmatic asshole that you ARE want to draw rigid conclusions from anything placed in front of you. The studies as I posited them stand ONLY for the premise that the RESPONSES one associated with the "WHITE PROTOCOL" are unreliable as to PROVING that abuse did occur. The entire issue is well beyond your ability to understand. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times Do you know what the "WHITE PROTOCOL" is? Let's forget for a moment that YOU draw a completely INVALID conclusion from the data. But being the RIGID asshole and dumbass you are, that's to be expected that you'd take the information where no man has gone before. They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. No Kane I did NOT say that, and that ABSURD conclusion is something that only people like YOU woudl draw. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. WHOA - I didn't say that. Neither did the authors of the study I referred to say that. The data stands ONLY from the propsition that the protocol is INVALID! Only some weak minded MORON would take ot to the region in outer space YOU do. Let X equal SAC doll Test, No - let "X" equal your IQ. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"0:-" wrote in message ... Greegor wrote: Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION. It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that). So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name of The Ken Assume the child is C. Let X equal SAC doll Test, Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested. Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test showed that Y results in n and y results in M. Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing unresolved issue over SAC doll use? It AIN'T unresolved issue Kane. The law REJECTS their use in courts! To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant. The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to them not having been molested. Kan you are truly an ILL man. The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT likely to have been molested. The "KANE" test. It is 100% in YOUR mind Kane. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"Doan" wrote in message ... Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here. If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it. Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize. Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting. It just might let your brain work again. Kane Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right? Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags". Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37 seconds) Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the ... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any validity or ... I am enjoying Kane whipping the **** out of his straw dog. If I had intended that one draw the IDIOTIC conclusion Kane draws from my reference to a study that showed the UNRELIABILITY of the responses in using the Dolls I would have included such a claim in my post. I didn't! Kane makes his insane argument and now foams at the mouth trying to defeat his own stupid argument. My point was that the researchers concludes only that the SAC dolls were "UNRELIABLE" and not the absolutely INSANE place Kane has traveled to. Let's Rename him JAMES TIBERIUS KANE! Of the Starship Absurdity! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
David Moore, step DOWN ...
"Ron" wrote in message ... "Doan" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote: Greegor wrote: Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental stew. Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida, stupid. Ken wrote: I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest. Kane's response: I find this SOOOO exciting! You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse, right? This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN REVERSE! Okay, watch, dummy. Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent, indicate X (molested or not molested). So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested. And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a positive indication of NOT having been molested. Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane! Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect. Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED. Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION. And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION. It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that). So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name of The Ken Assume the child is C. Let X equal SAC doll Test, Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested. Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test showed that Y results in n and y results in M. Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing unresolved issue over SAC doll use? Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say. "Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for Molestation. If XC leads to y then C is m If XC leads to Y then C is n Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls. And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls. Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested. To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant. The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to them not having been molested. So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool. I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty. The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT likely to have been molested. LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!" It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools. Kane wrote I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off that cross he had you nailed so securely to. Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research? Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire deprived. My apologies. Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together? The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the master debater, from the central region. And and answers thusly: Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo. I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones! All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was molested, and vice versa. While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what his claim IS. Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you. He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption. High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest. Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so. ROFL! I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences and have this moment of jollity and comic relief. I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me. Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will. R R R R R R R R R Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this Homage to his great analytical skills. Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud: Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents. You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind of dumb puds they are. Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here. If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it. Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize. Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting. It just might let your brain work again. Kane Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results: Doan admitted that Kane is right on something? Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, does not compute. Sarcasm sails over you head does it RONNIE? Are you the "SCIENCE OFFICER" on Captain James T. Kane's Star Ship Absurdity? Live long and prosper that Spook! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Attention: CMU President and Board... | The only real Barbara Schwarz | Kids Health | 5 | February 14th 04 12:28 AM |
Where Did Hitler Find the "6 Million" ? FORGERY by David Moore | John Gault | Child Support | 1 | October 16th 03 02:31 PM |
THEY JUST DON'T GET IT Yes they DO DAVID MOORE!!!!!! | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 9th 03 12:51 PM |
David Moore is certifably reprehensible | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 8th 03 12:16 PM |
David Moore pretending to be somebody else | Kenpangborn | General | 0 | August 7th 03 05:51 PM |