The Droananator BESTS Kane Again was The Kane9 Kan't Dance continues.....WAS.... Alternate methods of discipline

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote:


LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any
details
on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-)

Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no
commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the
number of the page where the demographics begins in the study.

Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can.

I'm not the one hungry to move on to the Embry study...I've got all
the time in the world....you are...to avoid the embarrassment you have
over NOT being able to answer The Simple Question you claim parents
can, if they just "make up their own minds."

If you have something about the Embry study you wish to share, in the
spirit of more and better information for parents...you know, the
one's you say should inform themselves when making spanking decisions,
why are you withholding it?

And why are you not getting any takers on your offer to send a copy to
"ANYONE that asks"?

Or do I have to say the magic Dronanator mantra, "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE
DARE YOU" to kick your conscience into gear over those dear parents
you wish to assist?

You ARE keeping them waiting, you know. Not me.

I've shared the study with many over the years. How many have you
shared it with so far? R R R R R R R R R

What a poor sad simp you are, Droananator.

Do you really think anyone can't figure out you and your ethical
impairment, tootsweet?

Puleeeeze.

Doan

It's really all up to you. You can share it all or in bits, but you
don't have to question me to do so. Why do you pretend that I'm the
hold up when it doesn't matter a whit to your sharing your discovery
with the world?

Hey, as long as I don't answer, and I can't and be known for keeping
my word and the honor bound person I am, (remember, you have three
criteria for to debate to begin for me) you can put anything out there
and make any claims you wish and I cannot refute with what I know from
the study.

I'm stuck, Doananator. Locked up by my own promise and challenge to
you, and YOU don't know how to take advantage of it....or, more simply
and more likely, you don't have the study at all.

So you can stop pretending now, and dodging by insisting I have to
respond to your questions. Nothing is stoping you from posting the
Embry study, is it?

Well, is it?

Give'm hell, Droananiser. Yah got's the old codger on the ropes. R R R
R R

Kane




On 9 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:30:40 -0800, Doan wrote:

NOT!!!!!!

Well, folks, you didn't really expect a compulsive, posting history
proven, dodging weasal to actually do the simple thing of telling
the
truth, did you now?

As Doan why he didn't, when he claimed to have the study before,
just
tell me the past number I asked for directly from the study?

It would have been no concession of information I could have used
to
prove I had the study if I didn't......yet, somehow he just
couldn't
bring himself to answer....pride I guess....yeah, that's it. Pride.

He's too "proud" to do simple things such as I've asked.

Yet HE is the one mounting the Embry Study debate challenge.

It's hard to understand how he would create such a strong and
powerful
trap for himself when he can walk right out of it so simply.

If you have him figured out, let me know. I still have a puzzle or
two
beyond the issue of his being betrayed by his parents, as he's
revealed already.

On 6 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:54:08 +0000 (UTC), "Sheepshanks"
wrote:

Snipping the story of parent and child that inspired yet another
dodge
from the Doananator, publically that is, you' can read
below...................

My comment is first...just so you can sort the attributions
accurately....

Dr. Dennis Embry did some work with toddler street entry back
about
25
years ago.

Funny! Why are you avoiding the details of this study? Here is
the
claim

Funny! Why are you avoiding the requirements and criteria for
debate
on this study.

First you have to answer The Question honestly, as it was asked,
not
as you reworked it.

Secondly you have to clear up childish "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE
YOU"
schoolboy nonsense that you used to dodge the question when I
flattened your bogus answer.

Then you have to prove you have the Embry study in question. Just
answer my simple and non fact revealing question. What page do the
demographics begin on?

It's not the least difficult. Why are you avoiding?.

that were posted by Chris Dunga and parroted by you:

Pointless evasion. You haven't met the debate standards yet.

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding,
reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by
children.
Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain
parents'
attention."

Yes, I do believe that was a quote of Dr. Embry. I don't recall him
saying THIS study was the soul source of his thinking.

I have read the study and found there data to support such a
claim.

There also may not be any data to support that the moon is made of
green cheese.

Dr. Embry is free to comment on THIS study, as well as OTHERS he
has
done, including OTHER observations of similar events and behaviors.

You don't know, and I DO KNOW that he has done extensive
continuous,
and extremely valuable, in a practical public works planning sense,
work on this and related issues and has many valuable thoughts and
insights on how children and adults learn.

Basically you make a mockery of his valuable work. I won't permit
that. That is one of the reasons I will not debate you on YOUR
usual
shakey bit by tortuous bit breaking down of the study under
question...as you have done with others over the years.

UnnnUnnng...no way, Jose.

Can
you or Chris post the data to support such claim?

I dont' know if Chris has the data. I don't recall him ever
claiming
he did, nor doing any more than quoting Dr. Embry. And that is his
choice, one way or another.

It's not Chris you orginally challenged. Is there some reason you
want
more people involved? Such as further obscuring the study and any
discussion by having more people and their comments to use for bolt
holes and manufactured lies and evasions?

I'll bet it is....that's what you have done here for years.

Besides, the VERY SMALL
sample size of this study

That's funny you should say that. Instead of simply saying the
number
to prove you have the study, and asking me for OTHER information
that
would be nonrevealing of contents, like I asked YOU, you keep just
repeating this silly mantra.

Fishing....lots of fishing...but then that is your style and has
been
since I first spotted your nonsense on this ng.

No real contribution to the folks that you say should make up their
own mind, just cherry picking what can be questioned, and avoiding
ALL
the rest that refutes you that is not easily debated.

would make any claim suspect!

I think you should suspect your mother of mating with pigs. You are
certainly an example of a fine little porker.

Can't speak for Chris. I am bound by my promise to debate you when
and
if you can meet the standards for the debate I requested. I keep my
promised and challenges...always.

Haven't you noticed yet?

And do remember, frantic wallowing thrashing child, I DID NOT WANT
TO
DEBATE YOU, but merely responded to YOUR disire to dodge The
Question
by the insistance that I DID NOT HAVE THE STUDY....which of course
was
another bogus dodge on your part.

As yet, not only have you not meet two criteria, but in the third
you
have refused to respond to simple requests that would clearly prove
you have the study.

Instead you make simple assumptions anyone could make by things
he's
said publically about the study and the fact it's a 25 year old
study
and not likely to have had a large subject demographic. In fact,
the
nature of the study, observational and survey (now you KNOW I have
it)
precludes a very large study group size.

But that's something I'll be happy, should you ever do as you are
told
and behave like something other than a savage child too much
spanked,
and met the criteria.

I don't care if you do or not. There are others I'll happily share
and
debate the material with back channel or face to face, since I know
some of the posters here personally. Over the years I've discussed
it
with collegues then put it away. I had to do some digging in my old
five drawer for it.

A poster here has offered to send a copy of the study to anyone
that
posts him and asks for it. You'll get a great deal of
understanding
about the efficacy or lack thereof of the use of punishment,
along
with no punishment with non-punitive alternatives, and teaching
this
age group. ... and more especially about diminishing street
entries
of small children.

And who is this poster, Kane? ;-) Could it be me and anyone who
wants
a copy can just email me at ?

Of course. Are you suggesting I'd try one of YOUR stupid dodges and
try to hide something or avoid something that was posted the same
day
in the same newsgroup.

Boy you really are a confused and obstinate child. You could have
won
this encounter long ago and saved your ass as well as your face,
but
you have the two confused.

Had I been the one meeting the challenges I've given you I would
have
wiped up the floor with "me" in about three simple posts. You are
too
stupid to know how to use fact in your favor, even if it disagrees
with your position.

What a silly twit.

Why couldn't you make
the same offer since you claimed to have a copy?

Because I chose not to, given that it's not I challenging the
study,
and it's you on the dodge.

I find it funny you claimed all this time to have it, but only a
few
days ago had the guts to offer it up to the public. You've got a
website. Post it twit, and you have met ONE out of three criteria.
Or
send it to someone I'd trust, LaVonne, Chris, anyone you think I
would
trust and I will let them tell me the answer to the simple question
I
asked you and you HAVE REFUSED STEADILY TO ANSWER.

What page do the demographics begin on in the Embry study...you
know,
the one's you claim to be looking at and declaring them, "Small."

I wonder what the reason is that you can't write 4 or 12 or 32 or 2
or
1.

Too much face lost? Too much embarrassment? Or to much of your
lying?

You seem extremely focused, desperate even, to open a debate on the
study without proving you have it. Fishing for clues, willing to
"debate" on point by point that someone else reveals, all the while
not revealing that you DON'T HAVE THE STUDY, LITTLE LIAR.

And everyone here can see you don't.

Why haven't your buddies, surely they would ask for the study, get
it
from you and then answer one or two simple questions that would NOT
give me any vital information I could debate, but would prove the
existance of the study outside of the good Dr. Embry's files, and
my
desk...

Hey, the blasted thing is piling up. I'll have to bring it to the
top
again. Let's see, my dig. camera is on the top, with the cable next
to
it, then a small pad with notes on a contract I'm working on, then
an
ancient address book that I'd better dump before my wife starts
asking
about the femal entries.... R R R R ...., and there it is, just the
corner of a napkin in the way....

Yep, "Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by
Parent Training and Symbolic Modeling for Children: An
Experimental.....well, let's say it's time for your to finish the
title, little boy, and the first page footnotes....four of them.
....By the way, who was the principle investigator?

Nothing....you have nothing. And you have, by your games, made it
appear you are a world class liar.

Hell, even if you came up with answers to everything right now,
everyone that can think would know you made a last snagged a last
second of the game pass. You JUST got the study....maybe.

How DO you manage to screw yourself so thoroughly and frequently,
little ****ant twittering goober?

And why did you LIED
again about PUNISHMENT component used in the Embry study?

You can post the paragraph where Dr. Embry mentions punishment.

You won't of course. Or you wouldn't.

And please explain how expressing my opinion that his particular
tactic of having children sit and watch other children really
amounts
to punishment in the classic "pound their little butts" sense, that
you and your spanking compulsives think is a "punishment."

. Doan..anator
.................the Dodger

strikes out yet again.

I decided you'll NEVER beat me as you have some, by your tactic of
dragging it out and fulling the time usenet group with reams of
evasive postings of babbingly twittery, like this very
one......but,
believe it or not there IS a way to beat me.

AND YOU CAN'T DO IT. And it is so simple a child of 10 could use it
against every challenge I've given you, easily.

Doan, you are a liar. And that IS your problem with losing again
and
again. All the while screaming, "They ran away and I DARE YOU I
DOUBLE
DARE YOU."

Kane

On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote:


LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any
details
on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-)

Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no
commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the
number of the page where the demographics begins in the study.

Love the logic. :-) "I told you I wouldn't". Does it sounds like
somebody who avoiding to debate? OF COURSE it is! :-)

Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can.

Already have. The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT
in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED!

Doan

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:46 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote:


LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any
details
on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-)

Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made
no
commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us
the
number of the page where the demographics begins in the study.

Love the logic. :-)

Love that you avoided yet another simple question, the page number.
I'm perfectly willing to debate you on Embry if you simply do as you
are told...answer The Question, resolve your silly, "I DARE YOU I
DOUBLE DARE YOU" nonsense, and prove you have the Embry Study. You
have done nothing, nothing at all, and yet you seem to think I must do
as you insist, debate Embry without you meeting the criteria.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in your monkey ass.

"I told you I wouldn't".

Yes, that is a correct quote. On the other hand you NEVER set any
criteria for debate on Embry, hence any holdup here is YOURS.

Does it sounds like
somebody who avoiding to debate?

No, actually it sounds like someone that's got your number and then
some. When you get honest, you get debate...........gonna be a long
time isn't it? R R R R R

OF COURSE it is! :-)

Yep, if you have your way, a very very long time.

I recall you pulling the numberous times in the past with others. Me,
I don't fall for it.

Put up, little Droany, put up.

And answering your own question instead of being honest and letting
your opponent answer for himself......? Tsk, Droany, tsk.

Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can.

Already have.

Did you read the sentence? One is not a liar if they claim something
out of ignorance, Droany. Have you never taken a college course in
critical reasoning?

The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT
in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED!

I did not say that. You are lying right now. I argued with the idea
that it was a punishment study.

On the other hand..........

The Embry Study does indeed have page numbers you refuse to give. YOU
are lying that you have the study.

You really DO need to study language a bit more.

You and I disagreed on the MEANING of the study, not the content,
Droany the Dumb.

But then as long as you can keep this going you don't have to answer
The Simple Question, nor answer for screaming, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE
DARE YOU" (now THAT is funny), nor proving you have had the study all
along.

You've completely blown the last one, you know. This holding out on
something so simple as coming up with a page number, a totally
harmless answer to a simple question, has branded you a liar for
certain.

Or possibly you have a reason for not answering such a simple
question?

.............tap...................tap............ ........tap....yea,
like I'm going to get an answer to THAT question.

What ever it takes to drive off your opponent, eh, Droananator?

No one could see you avoiding that simple questionn and NOT think you
a liar.

Some, compulsive liars themselves, might admire you for it, but we ALL
know what you are doing....dodging, with lies and evasions.

You don't want to debate Embry if you DO have the study because you
KNOW what you are looking at, vis a vis spanking punishment vs
non-spanking alternatives...and it scares the **** out of yah, and you
can't answer The Question, and you know that your silly daring is just
childish nonsense.

Your only game is to stall. And you have run out of tactics other than
to run off to another ng and try to strike up a debate there....which
you once again demonstrated your weasel tactics at.

Enjoy.

You can go to bed tonight and giggle to yourself that you were just
"playing with" Kane.

Doan........

...........should get his hand out of his pants.

Kane

Does anyone have the Embry that Kane said he sent out to those that asked?
Could it be that Kane3 is caught lying again? ;-)

Doan

On 11 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:46 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote:


LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any
details
on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-)

Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made
no
commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us
the
number of the page where the demographics begins in the study.

Love the logic. :-)

Love that you avoided yet another simple question, the page number.
I'm perfectly willing to debate you on Embry if you simply do as you
are told...answer The Question, resolve your silly, "I DARE YOU I
DOUBLE DARE YOU" nonsense, and prove you have the Embry Study. You
have done nothing, nothing at all, and yet you seem to think I must do
as you insist, debate Embry without you meeting the criteria.

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in your monkey ass.

"I told you I wouldn't".

Yes, that is a correct quote. On the other hand you NEVER set any
criteria for debate on Embry, hence any holdup here is YOURS.

Does it sounds like
somebody who avoiding to debate?

No, actually it sounds like someone that's got your number and then
some. When you get honest, you get debate...........gonna be a long
time isn't it? R R R R R

OF COURSE it is! :-)

Yep, if you have your way, a very very long time.

I recall you pulling the numberous times in the past with others. Me,
I don't fall for it.

Put up, little Droany, put up.

And answering your own question instead of being honest and letting
your opponent answer for himself......? Tsk, Droany, tsk.

Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can.

Already have.

Did you read the sentence? One is not a liar if they claim something
out of ignorance, Droany. Have you never taken a college course in
critical reasoning?

The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT
in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED!

I did not say that. You are lying right now. I argued with the idea
that it was a punishment study.

On the other hand..........

The Embry Study does indeed have page numbers you refuse to give. YOU
are lying that you have the study.

You really DO need to study language a bit more.

You and I disagreed on the MEANING of the study, not the content,
Droany the Dumb.

But then as long as you can keep this going you don't have to answer
The Simple Question, nor answer for screaming, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE
DARE YOU" (now THAT is funny), nor proving you have had the study all
along.

You've completely blown the last one, you know. This holding out on
something so simple as coming up with a page number, a totally
harmless answer to a simple question, has branded you a liar for
certain.

Or possibly you have a reason for not answering such a simple
question?

............tap...................tap............. .......tap....yea,
like I'm going to get an answer to THAT question.

What ever it takes to drive off your opponent, eh, Droananator?

No one could see you avoiding that simple questionn and NOT think you
a liar.

Some, compulsive liars themselves, might admire you for it, but we ALL
know what you are doing....dodging, with lies and evasions.

You don't want to debate Embry if you DO have the study because you
KNOW what you are looking at, vis a vis spanking punishment vs
non-spanking alternatives...and it scares the **** out of yah, and you
can't answer The Question, and you know that your silly daring is just
childish nonsense.

Your only game is to stall. And you have run out of tactics other than
to run off to another ng and try to strike up a debate there....which
you once again demonstrated your weasel tactics at.

Enjoy.

You can go to bed tonight and giggle to yourself that you were just
"playing with" Kane.

Doan........

..........should get his hand out of his pants.

Kane