| Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened

On 13 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:34:33 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking and
abuse.

Oh? There is no "fundamental" problem in say diagnosing an illness, or
determining the speed limit. Each is based on a body of research and
scientific knowledge from engineering and bioscience.

Really? If the posted limit is 55MPH, then I must ALWAYS stay below
to be safe, right? There is NO CHANCE at all that I will crash or
be killed even if I am doing only 5 MPH in the highway right, Kane???
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutaully exclusive? :-)

We go to considerable trouble to set educational "standards" that
establish through testing and evaluation what is and isn't learned.

What are these "standards", Kane? How were they "scientific" set?

Doan

Doan wrote in message ...
On 13 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:34:33 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking and
abuse.

Oh? There is no "fundamental" problem in say diagnosing an illness, or
determining the speed limit. Each is based on a body of research and
scientific knowledge from engineering and bioscience.

Really? If the posted limit is 55MPH, then I must ALWAYS stay below
to be safe, right?

Yep, if you are to be legal.

There is NO CHANCE at all that I will crash or
be killed even if I am doing only 5 MPH in the highway right, Kane???

Nope. there is always a chance you will be injured or killed by your
own or other ineptitude or incapacity. The insistance of all or
nothing is one of your stupider ploys. I've never heard or seen a
single advocate of non CP or non punitive parenting ever suggest there
is zero risk in their methods, just a huge odds favor for
them....just like millions of people a day DO go with the posted speed
and are NOT INJURED OR KILLED.

Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutaully exclusive? :-)

Oh, I see. Then I guess I must be wrong about those millions who DO
stay within the speed limit and DON'T DIE. And of course then I'd also
be wrong that those that DO go over the speed limit have a higher rate
of death of themselves and others when involved in an accident...and a
higher incidence of accidents than the safe drivers that follow the
rules.

Gee, let's then.............R R R R R Donanising...........get rid of
the rules.

Have you any idea what a fool you make of yourself? I think you could
apprentice to a comedian and make more money than you do now.

We go to considerable trouble to set educational "standards" that
establish through testing and evaluation what is and isn't learned.

What are these "standards", Kane? How were they "scientific" set?

Oh puleeze. Are you going to pretend there are no studies on learning?
Get the to your own university library and the student assistance
center and talk with some of the guidance folks. They can put you on
to what you are PRETENDING to be ignorant so you can one more through
up a smoke screen behind which you construct men of staw.

And if you think a few hundred years of observation of student
behavior and outcomes isn't scientific you are really was weak minded
as I've suspected.

Doan........
.....anating publically as fast as he can so he won't ever have to get
to the study....R R R R

Kane

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:59:04 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 13 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:34:33 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more
dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking and
abuse.

Oh? There is no "fundamental" problem in say diagnosing an illness,
or
determining the speed limit. Each is based on a body of research
and
scientific knowledge from engineering and bioscience.

Really? If the posted limit is 55MPH, then I must ALWAYS stay below
to be safe, right?

Sure, but you don't know the limit is set at 55 in child CP. All I'm
asking for is the number.

There is NO CHANCE at all that I will crash or
be killed even if I am doing only 5 MPH in the highway right, Kane???

Actually you will get run over where you live, Droany. And you and I
both know that. But the point, as metaphor does NOT respond to my
original question.

The parent, seeking to know the limit, wants to be able to use all the
force up to that limit in the event 5 mph doesn't get the job desired
done.

How many parents, unable to stop a behavior with a little light smack
on the butt, who immediately stop and go to a non cp alternative?

Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutaully exclusive? :-)

Well, by your logic there HAS TO BE A SIGN POSTED...and in spanking
there isn't. All one can do is hope they have not exceeded it and
injure the child.

And also by your logic, if one is to go 5 in a 55 zone to ensure
safety, then what would be their speed in a 35, a 25, a 20 mph school
zone.

Tell me again about logic and the "anti-spanking zealotS." I find it
one of your more amusing public exhibitions.

We go to considerable trouble to set educational "standards" that
establish through testing and evaluation what is and isn't learned.

What are these "standards", Kane? How were they "scientific" set?

My, you are more ignorant than I first assumed. You exceed the limits
of ignorance to the point of retardation.

Doan

Kane

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:23:37 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:15 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:

And smacks the child's butt most thoroughly.....R R R R

Nice going Stephanie......

If you care you can google on his name and look for this cops and
batons subject....you'll see he's posted on this before and been
told
pretty much, with less eloquence than yours I might add, the same
thing.

There is no comparison between cops and perps and children and
parents. Just doesn't compute for who each is and the variable
outcomes desired.



My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem
too
bright.

Though not a Mensan myself I have many aquaintences that are. There
seemed to be a few more than in the general population that had this
":intelligence" but were, as you say, not too bright. Usually they
slowly went nuts or they woke up sometime in their 30s to 40s.

Fun to hang with though and play mind games, like who could think up
the hugest groaner of a pun, or silly made up scientific sounding
names for things from amalagated latin. I was rather good at both
myself.

That's about all you got going with Droany. And he isn't nearly as
good as the least bright of that crowd.

He'll keep you going though until he finds something, anything,
that
you have no answer for, like why you chose one word and not another
and that that then makes you a liar...seriously, he'll do that.



See above.

It's been his posting style for years. When you wear him down
through
all his garbage and fuzzy brained nonsense that will be all that is
left.

And he's come here, as I predicted he would do, in search of a time
consuming rest while he avoids actually giving the answer he knows,
and you demonstrate once again to him (dozen of folks have before)
that The Question has been answered, as unanswerable, with the same
considerations then that you offer. The safe route is to not spank.

Then he'll drag you back with arguments of law...when of course
that
was not the question and not any of your answers went to that.


I wish he would actually refute any of my arguments.

You will wish until the cows come home, and go back out to pasture
again and it won't happen. He'll always peel of to HIS argument that
not, or minimaly related, and work that to death, and he doesn't even
seem to understand he get THOSE wrong because he couldn't absorb the
meat of the entire complex of the argument.

He has an endless supply of this garbage is you let him, but they
are
all variations on a repetative theme....just a very few logical
fallacy debating ploys.

He's a highschool sophomore intellectual...bright but unskilled
because he keeps, instead of find new ways, doing the same thing
over
and over endlessly.

Catch his "debates" with Gowtch, Jerry Alborn, Chris, LaVonne,
myself.
Nothing new for years. ... and in most instances he bounced from
one
to the other at the first sign of fact and logic refuting his
nonsensical balogna.


Sigh.

Are you tired already, or is that a pity sigh?

Have a good time, if that is possible.

It may feel extra weary to you though when you see this is the same
thing, often the exact same words he's used for years, over and over
again.

Kane




"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway
all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted
premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more
dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely
NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line
between
spanking
and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would
not
cross,
the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of
abuse.
But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and
determined by
them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown
qualities
of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the
spanked
child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor
the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey
bud,
you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court
case....



Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from
abusing
their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment
of
the
suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power
difference
in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in
a
parent /
child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A
child
is not a
criminal suspect.

Interestingly I believe Doan may have, certaily other spanking
compulsives have, cited Dr. Dobson, an early childhood development
specialist that portrays children as filled with violence and guile
and out to defeat adults for their own less than honorable ends.

He not only advocates spanking, but very brutal spanking, and
grabbing
the nape of the neck and squeezing to create a high level of pain,
and
he thinks a dachshund is a formidable opponent to be beaten into
submission....all this by a rather large man.

Doan is a punishment maven. He is unable to conceive of nonpunitive
means of learning and is committed to the ideas of Dobson that
humans
are resistant until conquered.

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly
damaged by
our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the
parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy
accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful
when no
proof is given by you to support that!


No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it
wasn't
harmful.

You have the pleasure of being the two thousand four hundredth
recipient, if you count each hit, of the reframing of your words
into
something you didnt' say, but the Doananator. That is what Donanism
IS, among other little tricks he's quite proud of.

The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm.

And in that sentence is eloquently wrapped up what has been offered
to
him for years, and all he's done is weasle and squirm and change
the
subject and try his reframing of your words, but claiming you are
presenting a "logic" that means that kids and parents and cops and
baton use are somehow metaphorically linked in refutation of your
claim.

Convoluted enough for you? He thinks it's intelligent.

Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly
damaged
by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could
have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."


It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final
arbiter
of the
possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were
the
case
with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say.

I probably misunderstand, but as long as the child is the only
arbiter
of the damage the risk is extremely high. The parent is all
poweful,
even to influencing the views and biases of the child when they are
NOT in the child's best interest.

Child will willingly present for a blood drawing thrashing if the
parent convinces them it's deserved and appropriate.

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!



OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive
hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is
damaging,
would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of
damage is
the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be
certain
of where
to place the line.

Gee, now if that isn't a bushel of weasel "hides"? He'll keep you
busy for a week with all that. Cut him down to one issue at a time
and
wait for an answer.

Of course he'll be gone when you do and claim YOU ran.

That's what happened to him with The Question. He set it up himself
with his claim to neutrality, and his insistance that the parent is
the arbiter of the difference between spanking and abuse. I merely
asked for a bit of clarity on how parents draw that line.

Instead of being honest, probably congenitally impossible for him.
he
actually pretended to himself there was an availabel LINE, he still
instists it exists forgetting that I asked for the measure to be
practical.

We are reasonable sure there is actually an end to the universe,
but
nobody I know had been there and can use it do decide where on this
planet would be best to live, ...so they don't go there.

He is incapable of understanding even the most basic logic, that
does
not serve his compulsions and neurotic twitches, as you are
learning.

Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child.
This
is a
technique that is frequently used in situations where a small
child
might be
spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction
which
could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no
presence
or
possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced.

Again, exactly to the point. He'll just claim that that might be
true
but what has that to do with spanking...spanking is proven to work
too...and of course shinin' on the risk factor.

He play both sides of the net very well, but not to any
conclusions.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to
all
parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their
own
informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims,
folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP
question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for
practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable
people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You
bring up
the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though
is
that
the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we
all
got
into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were
going
to
beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the
possibility of
abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not
the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is
damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police
should
not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable"
doubt
standard!!!



I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it
relates
to
courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the
situation
of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to
apprehend
a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a
threat to
society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a
thinking,
loving,
caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit
different
endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that
you used.

Noooo....Droany?

Inadequacy? But that IS his point. He can keep people, decent,
honorable, thoughtful, concerned people his to play with for
months.

that's the same method all sociopaths use as well. They can't and
don't go after their own kind. They go after the decent normal
folks
that do not have a lot of knowledge of their nonsense.

My background is primarily in mental health.

That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you
accept that
said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the
child who
is damaged it, albeit unknowingly.

Oh, he has made it clear, with his statement of "let the parent
make
up their own mind" claim of innocence of bias on his part. He does
NOT
want anyone else having any input until the damage is done.

A true son of Darwin approach. He might be right, but I'm not
buying.
Not as long as children are the unwilling ones at risk in that
experiment.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not
physically
abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if
you
are of
a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not
mentally
abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have
to
do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and
see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the
child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4)
Removal
of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much
stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB -
antisociable
behavior).


Don'tchajustloveit? If you don't punish then your only alternative
is
"to do nothing?"

Does THAT not point directly to neurotic hysterical blindness?

You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have
immediat
compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work.

With two very common risks: having to escalate to the point of
abuse
to get compliance, the extinguishing factor; and the creation of a
sneak or a monster. Fortunately "sneak" is most common, but the
monsterous brute comes along now and then. Have YOU ever known any
unspanked kids that were sneaky or monsters as a rule?

There is a
lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you
select,
if any.
My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several
of
those
issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the
punishment.
He is a
wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction
between
parent
and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to
subsitute
one
punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to
help
the
child to learn SELF discipline.

Your experience with your son is the rule, not the exception.
Parents
who determine to not punishe immediately have but a few
alternatives.
And these are the best of all ways to raise a child. Respect for
his
or her actual inner state of being....spankers never have to even
learn this....no motivation.

Non-spankers have to look at coaching and methods from proven
learning
theory, and apply them for the best mix and match for their
children
under changing environmental conditions, age, etc. Spankers have
nearly zero motivation compared to a non-spanking parent.

ALL the attention of nonspankers goes for a time to non punitive
parenting. Spankers hardly ever examine the whole body of knowledge
unless it relates to their punishment model in some way.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment
by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the
same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?



Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument?

Do you want to learn to dance with a weasel?

There are studies that
demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you
are
quoting
are attempting to ascertain.

Interestingly one of the reasons he's skipped from debating me is
that
I offered, if he would abandon a couple of his more common evasive
ploys, unmet loudmouthed dares to refute information he claims he
already has, but won't produce himself, and an unwillingness to
admit
when he's been bested, we could move to the one most outstanding
study
on the successful use of non-punitive methods done about 26 years
ago
in a study by Dennis Embry (you should look him up...he went on to
apply the principles learn on larger projects...and is used by
major
government bodies for safety planning etc. ) on street entries of
preschoolers.

Hot stuff, and Doan is here avoiding it by babbling old and
resolved
issues, even using the same tired disproven metaphors,

He insists I'm running by asking him to answer the three
questions/challenges first. But I was NOT the one that made the
challenges other than the one question he can't answer honestly,
The
one you are talking about now.

So I cannot comment on them.

Any time he can run YOU he's avoided the valid question you pose of
HIS claims. It's a constant for him.

Just another dodge of the weasel, first left, then right, etc.
endlessly.

I would be
interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside
from one
line sentences of irrelevant analogies.

His only "refutation" will be that you continue to come up with
more
and more support for your claim, no matter what you offer. Post
after
post of it for weeks if he can sucker you into it.

It would certainly be fine if you
want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have
read.

Read closely and insist on the source...one that has access you can
obtain. Read them for yourself, noticing the variable present he
doesn't admit to, and more importantly, the one's absent the
researcher didn't account for. Which he also avoids responding to
when
mentioned to him.

Good hunting. Weasels can't stand bright light.

Kane

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.

Steve has a real problem with suffering fools. Probably even
surpassing me.

Wasn't addressed to you and recognised what you said about the victim
being the judge.

S

Forthwith,

Kane

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. Do you have a problem with logic or are you just naturally this
stupid? ;-)

Steve has a real problem with suffering fools. Probably even
surpassing me.

And both of you are "never-spanked"! :-)

Wasn't addressed to you and recognised what you said about the victim
being the judge.

Then you really have a problem with English. :-)

Doan

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.

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.

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.

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?

So do you consider all people that were unspanked as having a problem
because of it?

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.

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.

He did not understand that the attributions made it appear her words
were yours.

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.

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.

How we doin' on Doan?

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 can't even trick someone brand new to your nonsense. And boy,.....

I'm here to help you.

Yer slipping, Droany.

Doan

R R R R R

Kane

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?
Tell me, what "smelly-****" did you crawl out of to come up with such
a logic?

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" and now you claim he is not responding to me!
Tell me, which side of your family has this defective gene? The
"smelly-****" side? ;-)

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?

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! ;-)

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!

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. 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. :-)


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? ;-)

He did not understand that the attributions made it appear her words
were yours.

So Steve is stupid? ;-)

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. :-)

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. :-)

How we doin' on Doan?

Very good, Kane. You are almost there. Keep posting. :-)

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?
;-)

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'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? ;-)

Yer slipping, Droany.

You are winning, Kane9 Kunt! ;-)

Doan

R R R R R

Stop barking!

Kane9 Kunt

Doan