A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 19th 04, 12:47 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about



a123sdg321

On 18 Feb 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson wrote:
[snip]
: He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
: so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as "a
beating witha flat object."


Chris


And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention of causing physical pain,
but not injury, for purposes of correction and control."
Is Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)

Doan


  #12  
Old February 19th 04, 05:52 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:47:39 -0800, Doan wrote:



a123sdg321

On 18 Feb 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Greg Hanson wrote:
[snip]
: He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
: so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines "spanking" as

"a
beating witha flat object."


Chris


And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention of causing physical

pain,
but not injury, for purposes of correction and control."
Is Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)


"Spanking?" Really. I would have thought he said CP. Oh well. yah
learn something new everyday.

Given that Chris, believe it or not, knows there are other
dictionaries, my bet is he also knows there are many words and
definition for "spanking"the point being he listed the one in
question.

I gave you dozens yesterday. And another dictionary agreeing with
Odam's.

How does that equate with Chris not also agreeing with Straus?

You'll clarify for us, or be known for a rotten lying
scoundrel...right...you aren't are you?

Day 6 to February 25th 8AM

Doan


I'm just a twitter with anticipation. Excited you'll actually follow
through...yawn and you'll debate instead of play, finally, like
that's going to happen.

6

{:-

Kane
  #13  
Old February 19th 04, 06:12 AM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

Greg wrote
: He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
: so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Chris wrote
Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines
"spanking" as snip


How does it define BLOODBATH?

Doan wrote
And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention
of causing physical pain, but not injury,
for purposes of correction and control."
[Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)


Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss).
Way to go, Doan.
  #14  
Old February 20th 04, 12:59 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

On 18 Feb 2004 21:12:47 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Greg wrote
: He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
: so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Lie.

The line between each is unknowable, hence any part can be called a
bloodbath, as in injuries to many....in this case children. And it IS
a bloodbath when one looks at the stats of parents claiming they were
just "disciplining by spanking."

Chris wrote
Odham's Dictionary of the English Language defines
"spanking" as snip


How does it define BLOODBATH?


It doesn't, liar.
Mixing subjects to confuse issues is frequently the tactic of moral
cretins. It's what YOU do constantly.

Doanerator runs a close second.

You run a subject off to yourself to whine, he's just a noisy child
seeking attention by diversion and noise.

Doan wrote
And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention
of causing physical pain, but not injury,
for purposes of correction and control."
[Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)


See, what did I say? A typical diversionary lie. Posting one
definition does not mean the poster is denying any or all others.

How sickly immoral of you two bratty children to pretend it does as an
argument against someone as honest and moral as Chris.

Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss).


Strauss may have mispoke. I haven't gone to the source in a long time,
but he either said, or obviously meant, corporal punishment.

And the statement would be correct if he was defining what happens
when one uses spanking....it is the use of "a" physical force in
precisely that way.

To pretend that either definition negates the other, Odam or Straus is
a blazingly obvious example of the moral disability you and Doan labor
under.

It's twisting Straus out of context to twist Chris's simple dictionary
citation out of context. Way to go Baad Boyz.

Way to go, Doan.


Sure is. Expose yourself yet again, Droany, and you too, circle
jerker.

Little boys in the bushes, making noises, and exposing themselves
because they think that the people looking at them are doing anything
but laughing and shaking their heads in derision.

Does it excite you, Greegor?

Kane
  #15  
Old February 20th 04, 03:56 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
On 17 Feb 2004 01:50:51 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

No, I think I'll write something first, before the lies and balogna
come rollin' down the river.

I'll offer some actual resources, data, clarifications of the role of
CPS, in other words the truth:

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/

You might want to get with the program and actually read something.

According to The Plant I NEVER offer any data and It offers tons of
it. Oddly all we see from It and you are opinion pieces more often
calculated to increase circulation by sensationalizing.

Here, on the website above, is the opening page to the resources I've
quoted and cited so many times and the more intelligent of you have
tried to lie.........BUT ARE NOT AMONG THE MISSING IN THIS NG....the
truth beat their butts, as it always does.

Before you get too carried away with claims about the perpetrators of
child fatalities and abuse you might want to have a quick peek at:

http://tinyurl.com/2ft2s

This quote seems rather telling about your bogus nonsense:

"No matter how the fatal abuse occurs, one fact of great concern is
that the perpetrators are, by definition, individuals responsible for
the care and supervision of their victims. In 2001, one or both
parents were involved in 83 percent of child abuse or neglect
fatalities. (The other 17 percent of fatalities were the result of
maltreatment by nonparent caretakers.) In almost one-third (32
percent) of fatalities, the mother alone was found to be responsible.
These percentages are consistent with findings from previous years."

Poor Plant and Whore, seems they forgot that part of what I do, and
have since 1956 through 1960 in the military, and in business since,
and since 1976 about child welfare from county to state to national
level. Yah never really want to bring up claims you haven't researched
when you address me, you bozos.


Hmmm... I think anyone with a bit of common sense could've drawn the same
conclusions... and those conclusion are available from a number of other
sources as well but the site you post has a built in bias. They are in the
adoption business.

Except for a few valid stand-alone statistics.. they offer nothing more
than to promote a child fatality review process to help identify risk
factors that may assist prevention professionals, such as those engaged in
home visiting and parenting education, to prevent future deaths. A committee
of monday morning quarter-backs being well paid to do report what many
others have already done... and prbably better paid, too.

Their conclusion are self-serving, inflamatory, and obviously biased. It
lumps parents tgether with primary care-givers and uses undefinable, or at
the very least, subjective terms such as 'maltreatment' to bolster their
cause. Then there are acts of commission as well as ommission and says
nothing about intent.








But then if you did you couldn't plant your heads firmly so far up
your cloaca's and ignore the truth for your bogus claims.

Oh, and by the way, in that 17% of caretakes above? That percentage
also includes relative caregivers...kinship care....of about 30% of
the 17%....so tell me again about all those non-related foster parents
that are killing child compared to the bio production units and
relatives that are? And 32% of the total killed by their own mothers?

Dear me, I think you just drove a bit deeper into the dark territories
and are lost.

Between you yahoos, the politicos, and the
media in a couple of years we'll see the
old blood bath of children come back. The
data will show more deaths, more neglect,
more abuse, because NON of you will face
the truth of substance abuse and parental
failure and viciousness.


Fern! He's admitting that the tide is turning!


It's an "admission" when I point out the facts? Like YOU or The Plant
have the least grasp of what is going on? Or would tell the truth if
you had the facts?

R R R R R R

What he overlooks


I overlook nothing. I've researched for years and been the bane of CPS
in those instances where they truly screw up. I also note when it is
NOT in their purview and do NOT blame them in that case, as both you
yahoos do.

is that the "bloodbath" he
is describing


I reflect the researched FACTS as they are known. Something you dweebs
seem all to unfamiliar with.

is just part of his rabid
pipedream delusion and the harm done BY CPS
far outweighs


vapid false propaganda put out mostly by the losers that beat,
neglected, and killed their children and are not banned together in
denial and friendly loserhood.

what little good they stumble
onto with their abject incompetence.


No, I'm not "overlooking" a thing. You are just lying.
And there is no solution in what you and your little venomous leeches
propose.

Around here,


Around where, you block, your neighborhood, your city, your county,
your state? Where?

deaths in foster/adoptive care
outnumber deaths at the hands of blood parents
and live-in boyfriends.


Well, I should hope that's true, as there are many more blood parents
than foster/adoptive parents, and as for boyfriends, it would be
interesting to see the actual rates....(which I know and will supply
on request).

I appreciate the long hours of research and the mountains of data you
have produced to support your claims. I guess my newsreader, or usenet
lost some more posts....seems I can't find your cited proof.

Would you mind resending....after all, all that work lost...what a
shame that would be.

Non Fatal abuse
is epidemic in foster adopter homes.


I don't see any stats to back that up. I do see nationally, from
commonly used sources on national abuse reporting, that you are full
of Argentian Folliclarity. .

His bitter complaining


The only bitter complaining I do here about you is that you attempt to
lead needful parents that come to this ng for help into your snares of
misdirected rage...and away from the need to direct their energy at
what they CAN do to get their children back.

I notice also my bitterness at The Plant and friends being willing to
sacrifice these families....INTO LOSING THEIR CHILDREN...for The
Cause.

What I am even MORE bitter about is YOUR willingness to have them join
you as a loser to ease your own guilt or diguise it by you all sitting
around and chanting "Gee, Ain't it Awful" when you are lying.

You would sacrifice the children of these families just so YOU can
appear right. I am bitter you are sick enough to do what you did and
what you do.

about our success


You would brag about your "success?" I invite anyone reading to
google on your name in your addy for browser accessed archives of your
"success" and that of the little girl and her mother.

is a plea to have Sympathy for the Devil.


R R R R R... What "success" would that be...the right of parents to
kill and maim their children that you support?

When Kane talks bloodbath, you have to
remember that he IS Commander McBragg,
and likes to exaggerate where it suits him.


When Kane talks bloodbath you have to remember he's been studying this
issue for 30 years and more. He's seen the streams of drunks,
druggies, insane, and all around vicious parents doing things to their
children beyond belief.

The recent article about the mother in Texas directing the on camera
action with vivid descriptions of the raping molestation of her own
daugther by the child's step father was tame compared to the things
I've found in child abuse cases.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4045899/

I recall that The Plant posted that the rate of substanciated sexual
abuse of children was down. When I protested the methodology a little
buddy of It came to the rescue...that buddy has been missing for
months now.

I proceeded to produce more information that discredited the claim of
reduction in sexual abuse of children...as very likely bogus count
based on factors other than actual numbers of molestation, and
suddenly dead silence around here....NO comeback, nothing...but The
Plant from time to time would once again claim there is no need for
CPS because sex abuse was declining....(for one thing, ignoring that
the population is growing rapidly so all population based incident
ratios likely go down for a time until reporting catches up to the
census) and here's the info I offered in refutation:

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjbu...1_1/page5.html


This article does a good job of explaining why sexual abuse has been on the
decline. For example...

"One possibility is that reporting behaviors have changed. For example,
there could be an increased reluctance to report child sexual abuse because
of a so-called child abuse backlash. Some researchers who have analyzed
media coverage of child sexual abuse have found a more skeptical attitude
toward the topic in the 1990's (Beckett, 1996; Myers, 1994). According to
these researchers, the dominant message of recent publicity about child
sexual abuse has been that false allegations are frequent, that many
innocent people are being unfairly stigmatized, and that professionals are
being overly zealous in reporting possible cases of sexual abuse."

This stuff we've been saying for years.... and then this...


"Additional explanations for the decline in substantiated cases of child
sexual abuse include events that could be occurring after a report is made
to a CPS agency. It may be that fewer reports of sexual abuse are being
investigated or that fewer investigations are being substantiated. A
reduction in the number of investigations of alleged sexual abuse could be
due to changes in the type of cases CPS agencies accept as falling within
their jurisdiction. More and more of these agencies may be excluding certain
types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual abuse or abuse that
involves adolescent victims or offenders. CPS agencies may also be requiring
that more or better quality information be available before a report is
investigated."

Please note.. and I quote, "More and more of these agencies may be
excluding certain types of cases, such as extrafamilial child sexual abuse
or abuse that involves adolescent victims or offenders."

Another point many rant about... and CPS is finally begining to recognize.

And lastly, "For example, many CPS agencies have added a structured
decisionmaking component to their investigation procedures (English and
Pecora, 1994). It is possible that with greater structure, fewer cases meet
the criteria for substantiation than would have if the investigator had used
his or her clinical judgment. More cases in which sexual abuse did not in
fact occur may be getting screened out."

Seems that subjective interpretation has been limited
and the critera for substantiation radiacally changed resulting in a more
positive screening process.

What is demonstrated in your article.. was the earlier existance of vast
inconsistanices, improper screening, subjective interpretation, and
recognization that peer sex and even extrafamilial child sex is viewed
differently.

The public fought back... back-lash is it called. Even those charged with
mandatory reporting saw the injustices that resulted.

Your article give me hope that the tides are changing.. for the better. CPS
is being tamed.

bobb










Am I, and others in this ng, going to be treated to more silence on
issues of substance, and more lies? Of course we are....it's an
historical truism with you KCPS yahoo whining slobs.

He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,


Yes, suspending children to beat with objects, making young women
stripe to be beaten in church, as The Plant defends as a Liberty
Interest of parents, certainly isn't beating...no sirree, just a
little low level spanking.

By they way, can YOU define where "low level legal spanking" crosses
over into abusive injurious "BEATING," before one has reached the
beating stage...not after the fact?

Show us the line.

So much for "legal."

so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


From a google search on [child fatalities abuse]

http://tinyurl.com/2b33p

Heres' a list of organizations and folks that seem, like me, to think
there might be just a wee problem:

http://www.seanet.com/~duff/ire/kidsourc.htm

I tend to think of children being killed and maimed as something of a
bloodbath. I also think of the parents that come here that you yahoos
lead astray as something of a bloodbath.

You don't seem to think so though, do you?

Recently when stats revealed a drop in crime here,
Police did something laudible when they did not
claim they had caused it, and instead cited the
natural ebb and flow of such things.


Stats you aren't providing. And the natural ebb invariably is followed
the natural flow, have you ever noticed? So did the police department
cut back? Were they reduced in budget? That would have been smart, eh?

They similarly don't want to be blamed when
the natural variations go the OTHER way.
It was refreshing to see.


It would be refreshing to see you apply that to your bogus claims
about CPS then. You forgot that, didn't you, little couch growth?

I suspect Kane would have to exaggerate a
few deaths into a "bloodbath" to justify more
funds and would take credit for the other side
of the natural wave, asking for more funds.


Well, I do confess, I do not minimze by the use of terms like "a few
deaths" and I do understand data and statistics and correlations.

And I do understand chronological scope when looking at policy
setting.

YOU little twits always confine yourself to a blinders on snapshot of
a few events over a short period of time. I look at decades and
trends, and I'm here to tell you that when that ebb comes it is
followed by a flow, time after time over decades.

Hence it makes sense to not count on cutbacks as cures, or the level
of funding during a downturn (the case for the past 10 years) being
sufficient for what is obviously coming.

But talking "sense" to the senseless is rather naive of me, don't you
think?

However sigh, I'm endlessly optimistic and I HAVE actually seen
fools such as you and The Plant wake up and smell the coffee instead
of each others hindquarters.

Kane



  #16  
Old February 20th 04, 04:06 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation...

"It is also important to keep in mind that although changes in CPS attitudes
and policy may at least partially account for the decline in substantiated
cases, these changes alone clearly do not represent the entire picture. The
parallel decline in reports of child sexual abuse suggests that other
factors, occurring before a case even reaches a child protective agency,
must also be affecting the overall decline."

Please note the free admission that there have been changes in CPS attitude
and policy. I asked the question in earlier posts.. why has the population
of foster kids dropped by as much as 50 percent in recent years? I now have
by answer. Thanks, Kane.

If anyone needs to wonder why groups like this exist this single citation
provides a lot of answers. CPS, under recently, was out-of-control. Hyped
by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of
public support they were seen as an agency that could do no wrong. Too bad
for all the families they helped to destroy along the way.



bobb




  #17  
Old February 21st 04, 12:27 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

"bobb" wrote in message ...
Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation...


You should have, to be honest, posted the entire page.

"It is also important to keep in mind that although changes in CPS attitudes
and policy may at least partially account for the decline in substantiated
cases, these changes alone clearly do not represent the entire picture. The
parallel decline in reports of child sexual abuse suggests that other
factors, occurring before a case even reaches a child protective agency,
must also be affecting the overall decline."

Please note the free admission that there have been changes in CPS attitude
and policy.


"free admission?" When has this information not been available and
when has CPS proceeded for more than a few years without changes in
policy and attitude?

Making a point by NOT making a point? Brilliant.

I asked the question in earlier posts.. why has the population
of foster kids dropped by as much as 50 percent in recent years? I now have
by answer. Thanks, Kane.


You're welcome....did you forget the article also says, a great deal
of it is coming from underreporting that could very likely be leaving
children unprotected....and YOU WEINERS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT CPS
MISSING CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING KILLED?

Yah can't have it both ways unless you are an immoral brick, bobb.

If anyone needs to wonder why groups like this exist this single citation
provides a lot of answers.


Yeah. You are a pack of immoral stupid mindless twits that don't see
the significance of, and use by politicos, the swing of the pendulum.
At both ends it costs...families at one extreme and children at the
other and YOU, bobberino, are celebrating the swing into the end zone
for children.

And count on it, it will come back WAAAAY past ASFA this next rebound,
as ASFA did CAPTA...and I'd bet with a slightly shorter time lag.

CPS, under recently, was out-of-control.


You bought the media hype and and now the anti CPS folks hype, and
your own garbaged filled mind, full of misinformation and predjudice.

Hyped
by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of
public support they were seen as an agency that could do no wrong.


They were no such thing. This current viewpoint you think is a biggie
was around in 76 when I first had a confrontation with CPS and has
continued unabaited with NO time CPS was considered a good thing by
the general public. It has been the convenient whipping boy (while
trying to do a nearly impossible terrifying job) the entire time. IT's
used by everyone with their own little ax to grind and hide the sparks
from since my first encounter, and probably long before.

Too bad
for all the families they helped to destroy along the way.


Playing to the gallery. You have really become one of the makers of
the problem.

bobb


Congrats bobb, you get to have company in your happy little mudpuddle
with the other ignorant pigs. Give us another shot of your smug mug.

Kane
  #18  
Old February 21st 04, 06:54 AM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

Greg wrote (about Kane)
He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Kane wrote
Lie.


OK, your "bloodbath" is a lie.

The line between each is unknowable,


One requires BLOOD to have a bloodbath!

hence any part can be called a
bloodbath, as in injuries to many


In other words, you LIED.

....in this case children. And it IS
a bloodbath when one looks at the
stats of parents claiming they were
just "disciplining by spanking."


Even black and blue is no "bloodbath".
To call it that is a LIE and demagoguery.

Face it, Dude, you're getting caught
up in the zeal of your radical CAUSE!
Your ideology is not bound by facts.

Chris wrote
Odham's Dictionary of the English
Language defines "spanking" as snip


Greg wrote
How does it define BLOODBATH?


Kane wrote
It doesn't, liar.


Some more thinking error?
How did my question in general terms LIE?
Why does this dictionary not define BLOODBATH?
Are you SURE that it doesn't?

Mixing subjects to confuse issues is
frequently the tactic of moral
cretins. It's what YOU do constantly.


I did all that with my question?
Man that question must have hit the mark.

Doanerator runs a close second.


You run a subject off to yourself


Without YOUR permission?
Kane, you've got ISSUES, man.

to whine, he's just a noisy
child seeking attention by
diversion and noise.


Are you gonna spank him in the grocery store?
What if somebody calls the Gestapo?


Doan wrote
And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention
of causing physical pain, but not injury,
for purposes of correction and control."
[Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)


See, what did I say?


Did you wet yourself with your mature excitement?
All I heard was: blah blah Strauss blah blah.

A typical diversionary lie.


I much prefer your variety of lies.
You are the expert liar.

Posting one definition does not mean
the poster is denying any or all others.


Is this like the sound of one hand clapping?

How sickly immoral of you two bratty
children to pretend it does as an
argument against someone as honest
and moral as Chris.


As opposed to your atheist MORALITY?
You are a paragon of morality indeed!

How can we but aspire to your moral greatness?

Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss).


Strauss may have mispoke.


He did that a lot I think.

I haven't gone to the source in
a long time, but he either said,
or obviously meant, corporal punishment.


Could we have it in the original Straussian?
Interpretations vary.

And the statement would be correct if snip!


IF? About Strauss' intent? Reaching for STRAWS!

he was defining what happens when one uses
spanking....it is the use of "a" physical
force in precisely that way.

To pretend that either definition negates
the other, Odam or Straus is a blazingly
obvious example of the moral disability
you and Doan labor under.

It's twisting Straus out of context to
twist Chris's simple dictionary
citation out of context. Way to go Baad Boyz.


Yes, it's a conspiracy, Kane.
We have perverted all dictionaries.

I feel ever so much put in MY place.
How about you, Doan? Are you all broken up?
How EVER did anybody get along before we
had you to lead us out of the wilderness?

Way to go, Doan.


Sure is. Expose yourself yet again,
Droany, and you too, circle jerker.


Your maturity has me just all busted up.

Little boys in the bushes, making
noises, and exposing themselves


To take a whiz on your shoes?

because they think that the people
looking at them are doing anything
but laughing and shaking their
heads in derision.


Yeah, yeah, Bad humor can be as
liberating as flying without a net,
but why are we talking about this?

Does it excite you, Greegor?


I enjoyed messing your shoes.

Kane

  #19  
Old February 21st 04, 09:41 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!

On 20 Feb 2004 21:54:25 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Greg wrote (about Kane)
He describes low level legal spanking as BEATING,
so you know his "bloodbath" is a delusion.


Kane wrote
Lie.


OK, your "bloodbath" is a lie.

Only if three parent caused deaths per day on average is not a
bloodbath by your estimation.

I'd say parents killing their kids at the rate of 3 per day
qualities...actually it runs higher but I rounded down.

The line between each is unknowable,


One requires BLOOD to have a bloodbath!


Last I checked, unless they were drained, those three kids every day,
week in and week out, year in and year out had blood.

I haven't even got to parent cause injuries by abuse and neglect.

As I said, it's a blood bath...as in children are bleeding, both
physically and psychologically (as the little girl was) and dying
sufficient to my measure of a "blood bath" and you help it go on with
your partially ignorant lies and your knowing lies. .

hence any part can be called a
bloodbath, as in injuries to many


In other words, you LIED.


I beg your pardon? How could I be lying if children are dying? How
could I be lying if children are being injured by their parents?

That IS a blood bath and YOUR booties are red with it.

....in this case children. And it IS
a bloodbath when one looks at the
stats of parents claiming they were
just "disciplining by spanking."


Even black and blue is no "bloodbath".
To call it that is a LIE and demagoguery.


Dimwit, black and blue means bruised. What substance makes bruised the
color they are and where is that substance supposed to be contained
but no longer is...given the clearn sign by virtue of the bruise?

I'm not lyin, you're just minizin, and i'm signafyin' on yo lazy ass
butt.

Face it, Dude, you're getting caught
up in the zeal of your radical CAUSE!


Not hardly pilgrim. I'm caught up in stopping it. YOU are caught up in
denying so you have an excuse consider yourself a victim.

Your ideology is not bound by facts.


Would you like to dispute with me that three children a day in the US,
on average year in and year out die at the hands of their
parents....substantiated and tallied by a US crime reporting agency?

And that there are even more abuses caused by parents that cause the
children to bleed both internally and externally?

Or would you prefer to play minimize and deny on the scale of The
Plant?

How bad does it have to get for YOU to label it a bloodbath for
children at the hands of their own parents?

Let's take three a day. You expand that number until you'll accept
it's a blood bath.

Me, one a year is, and it only takes the blood of one child for it to
be a "bath" for them.

Possibly you are unfamiliar with the "bath" concept and would prefer,
as you know the medium better, a "blood shower?"


Chris wrote
Odham's Dictionary of the English
Language defines "spanking" as snip


You snipped the actual quote thus removing any chance fo the reader to
determine if "bloodbath" was a claim of the poster.

Greg wrote
How does it define BLOODBATH?


Why would you ask a question on an issue the poster hasn't postulated?

In formal debate this would be known as the logical fallacy, False
Analogy. Assuming because on thing resembles another, conclusions
drawn from one also apply to the other.

Spanking isn't a bloodbath. It's a sad world of pain, fear, and
humiliation for children to endure because they can't escape without
losing big time. I'm reminded of a little girl that no long has her
mother an....well, never mind.

Kane wrote
It doesn't, liar.


Some more thinking error?
How did my question in general terms LIE?


Why lie by throwing in "general terms?"

A lie, according to some sources, is any attempt to deceive by
commission or omission. Not a falsehood, but a misdirection. You just
a Doany.

Why does this dictionary not define BLOODBATH?


I don't know that is doesn't. Do you? If not then you are lying and
claiming something you cannot know. Go, look in the dictionary. See it
defines blood bath or if it doesn't and get back to us. It will help
you at least fake honesty for a time.

Are you SURE that it doesn't?


No. And I didn't claim that it did, so as a Doaner, you are batting Oh
for Zero, tiny couch croucher.

Let me give you a real example of a "thinking error."

It would be to assume that the poster was saying "spanking" was a
blood bath.

Did the poster so state? If not then you are thinking in error.

Now if the poster child abuse of children is a blood bath in this
country.....well, you get the point, don't you?

The thinking error in this instance can also be expanded to assuming
you wouldn't be caught at such simply minded diversionary tactics.

Plainly then: you are a liar.

Mixing subjects to confuse issues is
frequently the tactic of moral
cretins. It's what YOU do constantly.


I did all that with my question?


All what?

My claim in that paragraph is that you mixed the subjects, one was
spanking, but coming from left field with another...."bloodbath" that
had no connection in the posters statement.

Man that question must have hit the mark.


Yes, right in the center of the manure pile. You never miss. It's all
the crouching couch time.

Doanerator runs a close second.


You run a subject off to yourself


Without YOUR permission?


I don't give or refuse permission. You are free to do as you wish, and
you do, except that you are a prisoner of yourself, and your damaged
and flabby ego. You spend all your time trying to shore it up.

Kane, you've got ISSUES, man.


Yes. I not only dislike, but intend to neutralize, those that torture
children and call it discipline....naked forced cold showers of little
gilrs by strangers qualifies in my book. Or were you her step father?

to whine, he's just a noisy
child seeking attention by
diversion and noise.


Are you gonna spank him in the grocery store?


As you know I'm not a physical spanker. Verbal and psychological?
You'll have to watch and guess.

What if somebody calls the Gestapo?


Can't. It went out in '45.

Doan wrote
And Straus, in his studies, defined it as:
"the use of physical force with the intention
of causing physical pain, but not injury,
for purposes of correction and control."
[Does] Chris no longer believe in Straus??? ;-)


See, what did I say?


Did you wet yourself with your mature excitement?
All I heard was: blah blah Strauss blah blah.


I didn't refer to Strauss. You are confusing me with Droany. HE
brought up Straus and those are his words....that you incorrectly
assinged to me by your statement that all you "heard was."

All I said was, "See, what did I say?" which you have thoroughly
isolated by inappropriate snippage so it makes no syntactic sense.

Yet another example of "thinking error." You trip yourself up
constantly in this and similar ways. The classic Droany.

A typical diversionary lie.


I much prefer your variety of lies.
You are the expert liar.


Please point to my lies? I don't.

Posting one definition does not mean
the poster is denying any or all others.


Is this like the sound of one hand clapping?


You find the logic inscrutible?

He

If I say you are carrying an apple that does not prove in any way you
are not carry more or other fruit as well.

And if you have an armload and I say you are carrying "an" apple, that
would be kind of stupid of me...accurate, but pointless.

This is exactly what happened when Droany tried to pretend that Chris,
but quoting Odam, was denying Straus. Pointless and in fact not even
accurate.

Does that help a little? Lay down. Apply a cool washcloth to your
brow. I know the hard work is heating up your brain.

How sickly immoral of you two bratty
children to pretend it does as an
argument against someone as honest
and moral as Chris.


As opposed to your atheist MORALITY?


Interestingly in the very few times I've encountered other athiests I
have found them exceedingly ethical by current standards. They tend
not to fool themselves with things such as situational ethics.

They do DISAGREE with some moral concepts others might hold but they
do that even with each other...as it is the human condition.

As for myself, I have had devote religious friends who are not only
astounded at the moral and ethical standards I hold to (I won't, for
instance, take a dime more than my stated fee for anything I do, and I
will not pad expenses or overcharge...and my word is my bond...as
Droany is learning, much to his irritation).

You are a paragon of morality indeed!


Absolutely . It is no mean feat in this day and age. Trying to compete
with people that will lie for any and all reasons puts a decided
handicap in the way of the moral person.

How can we but aspire to your moral greatness?


Don't bother. It's not learned from others very well. It's an inner
thing that grows out of having a change to develop empathy and the
accompanying conscience.

We can see by your posted evidence and the three years we've urged you
to see what you have done, and rectify it, that you lack both. That
said, when both are missing moral "greatness" is unlikely ...unless a
lightening strike or other shock to the system is applied.

I think in your case it's most likely you wouldn't wake up with any
less than castration.

Hoisting them by their own petard (Strauss).


Strauss may have mispoke.


He did that a lot I think.


You have no familiarity with Straus. You do not understand his studies
and reports. You are a social misfit and pariah as a gigolo. Thinking
isn't your venue. Whining your faux victimhood is your speciality an
reason for living.

I haven't gone to the source in
a long time, but he either said,
or obviously meant, corporal punishment.


Could we have it in the original Straussian?
Interpretations vary.


Sure. Look it up and read it to us. I don't do research on order
without a check, hammered, up front.

On demand this one would be $288.45, tax and shipping included.

Can I expect the check any time soon or has the cold weather put a
crimp in the refunding "business?"

And the statement would be correct if snip!


"Snip!?"

IF? About Strauss' intent? Reaching for STRAWS!


No, reaching for the portion you snipped so my meaning would be lost
to any reader.

Was I just showered then?

he was defining what happens when one uses
spanking....it is the use of "a" physical
force in precisely that way.

To pretend that either definition negates
the other, Odam or Straus is a blazingly
obvious example of the moral disability
you and Doan labor under.

It's twisting Straus out of context to
twist Chris's simple dictionary
citation out of context. Way to go Baad Boyz.


Yes, it's a conspiracy, Kane.
We have perverted all dictionaries.


By golly, couldn't have said any better myself.

Congrats.

And a conspiracy of two, is still a conspiracy of fools. You two get
very confused when you backchannel to combine forces for what YOU
think is this big battle.

Frankly, I'm falling asleep it's so boringing dull and unchallenging.
I miss the old days when intelligent folks went up against me. Why did
the run I wonder.

I feel ever so much put in MY place.


My bet is you do not. My bet is that you are still on that couch, in
that mobile home, taking keep from a women who has lost her
child...the one you were supposed to provide child care to for the
last three years.

If I actually did put you in your place you wouldn't even be posting
to me.

How about you, Doan? Are you all broken up?


Droan is sleeping and having bad dreams about next Wednesday morning.
He's working up a really resounding, "I don't care" and "You ran."

We've all seen it before.

How EVER did anybody get along before we
had you to lead us out of the wilderness?


Famously, I'm sure. NOt too long back folks could kill their children
out of hand with work, and beatings and no one would even blink.

Same with slaves, and very close to it...no, actually exactly that for
women.

Folks like me helped lead humanity up from that. Folks like you
decided to stay behind. Your time is over....you just haven't fallen
over yet.

Way to go, Doan.


Sure is. Expose yourself yet again,
Droany, and you too, circle jerker.


Your maturity has me just all busted up.


I try to amuse when it won't be insulting to the children and families
you and Droaner hurt by your biases and their expression here, and the
things you did to that family.

Little boys in the bushes, making
noises, and exposing themselves


To take a whiz on your shoes?


With the electric fence in between us? Sure, go ahead.

because they think that the people
looking at them are doing anything
but laughing and shaking their
heads in derision.


Yeah, yeah, Bad humor can be as
liberating as flying without a net,
but why are we talking about this?


Laughter and derison is "bad humor?"
Oh, YOUR bad joke...yes, it does take the edge off a long day of work
to come home and observe you doing what you two do best.

Does it excite you, Greegor?


I enjoyed messing your shoes.


I'm disgusted by the blood on yours.

Kane


....again.
  #20  
Old February 21st 04, 03:40 PM
bobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-****" and his mother approved!


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"bobb" wrote in message

...
Darn.. I should also post the last paragraph of your citiation...


You should have, to be honest, posted the entire page.

"It is also important to keep in mind that although changes in CPS

attitudes
and policy may at least partially account for the decline in

substantiated
cases, these changes alone clearly do not represent the entire picture.

The
parallel decline in reports of child sexual abuse suggests that other
factors, occurring before a case even reaches a child protective agency,
must also be affecting the overall decline."

Please note the free admission that there have been changes in CPS

attitude
and policy.


"free admission?" When has this information not been available and
when has CPS proceeded for more than a few years without changes in
policy and attitude?

Making a point by NOT making a point? Brilliant.

I asked the question in earlier posts.. why has the population
of foster kids dropped by as much as 50 percent in recent years? I now

have
by answer. Thanks, Kane.


You're welcome....did you forget the article also says, a great deal
of it is coming from underreporting that could very likely be leaving
children unprotected....and YOU WEINERS HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT CPS
MISSING CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING KILLED?


The sentence was a bit ambigious. Under reporting refers to reports never
made..... not investigating, or giving little little attention to reports
of minor allegations changes the picture. It's the people who are fed up
fighting off the authorities and calling for change. It's the people who
are willing to accept any inherent risk... or, better put, able to see there
is no risk involved. Either way, your citiation sums up, very nicely, the
error of CPS.


Either way, it's unfair to through in the idea that the subject child
would be at risk of becoming missing or killed. Absent strong indicators,
that I'm sure would not be ignored, the probability is almost non-existant.

bobb

Yah can't have it both ways unless you are an immoral brick, bobb.

If anyone needs to wonder why groups like this exist this single

citation
provides a lot of answers.


Yeah. You are a pack of immoral stupid mindless twits that don't see
the significance of, and use by politicos, the swing of the pendulum.
At both ends it costs...families at one extreme and children at the
other and YOU, bobberino, are celebrating the swing into the end zone
for children.

And count on it, it will come back WAAAAY past ASFA this next rebound,
as ASFA did CAPTA...and I'd bet with a slightly shorter time lag.

CPS, under recently, was out-of-control.


You bought the media hype and and now the anti CPS folks hype, and
your own garbaged filled mind, full of misinformation and predjudice.


Acutally, not so. Any such conclusions come from CPS data.... court
records.... government investigations... and citiations you provide.. which
I'm sure you'll say are accurate and without predjudice.

bobb



Hyped
by the media and often citing worse case examples they received a lot of
public support they were seen as an agency that could do no wrong.


They were no such thing. This current viewpoint you think is a biggie
was around in 76 when I first had a confrontation with CPS and has
continued unabaited with NO time CPS was considered a good thing by
the general public. It has been the convenient whipping boy (while
trying to do a nearly impossible terrifying job) the entire time. IT's
used by everyone with their own little ax to grind and hide the sparks
from since my first encounter, and probably long before.

Too bad
for all the families they helped to destroy along the way.


Playing to the gallery. You have really become one of the makers of
the problem.

bobb


Congrats bobb, you get to have company in your happy little mudpuddle
with the other ignorant pigs. Give us another shot of your smug mug.

Kane



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.