What makes no-spank so unstable?

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:
You are a proponent of assault children. If you ever do it hope you end
up in jail with inmates that have in fact been assaulted by parents.
Might finally wake you up, child.

Kane

Hahaha! You were the one that ADMITTED to assaulting your kid!

I also pointed out it was a turning point for me and no further
instances occurred.

Did you misread my comments above, and can't figure out any other way
out of being the putz that you are?

Will you spank your children?

Will you spank them if it's against the law?

Doan

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more
and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline
in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look
otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent
victimization.

Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994!

A slight upward trend in an overall downward decline since 1973. Like I
said, 3 decades. Downward. Use the entire span. Now you are OBVIOUSLY
lying, as no one in their right mind could miss the entire chart end to
end from 30 years back.. Or could you be THIS stupid?

Hahaha! So we have spanked our kids the most in 1994?


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR!

Apparently you can't read charts, either. Check what I actually said and
what the chart shows.

It did NOT rise to previous levels and that was part of a continuing
downward trend. Just how stupid ARE you Doan.

Starting in 1973 about 44 per 1000, in 1981 a slight rise to 46, with
dips along the way. 86 a dip to 41, then a short sharp increase in 91,
close to the 81 levels, and a steep decline from there to 2004 of only
about 20 per thousand.

So what does this have to with spanking, STUPID?

This does not include children under 12 either.

I HOPE NOT! ;-)

Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend.

You notice I said "trend" and not 30 years.

Yup! "trend" as you said. ;-)

National Child Abuse Statistics
Child Abuse Fatalities by Year

In 2003: 1,500 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (4.11)

In 2002: 1,400 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.84)

In 2001: 1,300 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.56)

In 2000: 1,356 children as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.72)

In 1999: 1,396 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.82)3

In 1998: 1,144 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.13)3

In 1997: 1,221 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.35)3

In 1996: 1,185 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.25)

In 1995: 1,215 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.33)


Oops! More lies:

Yes, you certainly don't ever run out of them. This is NOT a rate chart
and includes abuses that are NOT violent crimes.

* There have been substantial and significant increases in the
incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence
study was conducted in 1986.

Where's the rate per K?

See above!

* Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and
neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2.
This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or
neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986.

Neglect is not a "violent crime" for data collection purposes. You are
in my field of expertise, Doan. And wrong.

* Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected
children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled,
sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and
emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2
levels.

Emotional abuse is not listed as a violent crime anywhere. Nor is neglect.

* The total number of children seriously injured and the total number
endangered both quadrupled during this time.

Notice it says total number seriously injured? I said abuse. And abuse
is more than just serious injury. Just how stupid are you.

With out the rate this means little.

Source:
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national

Rates, dummy. Rates.

Here is the 12 - 17 age violent crime victim rates. There is a current
upswing. Cause unknown at this time. I suspect changes in reporting
method....just as the DOJ chart you offered shows...they have switched
over during this time period and are mixing two methods.

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
"Child stats" is drawing their figures from FBI-DOJ data.

"According to reports by victims, in 2003 the serious violent crime
offending rate was 15 crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17, totaling
375,000 such crimes involving juveniles. While this is higher than the
rate in 2002, it is a 71 percent drop from the 1993 peak."

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/i...timization.cfm
"Violent Crime Victimization
View as PDF (Best for Printing)

Headline

Violent crime victimization among adolescents has declined by more than
half since the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, the victimization
rate declined for adolescents ages 12 to 15 from 118.6 per 1,000 to 49.7
per 1,000. For youth ages 16 to 19, the rate declined from 123.9 per
1,000 to 45.9 per 1,000. (See Figure 1) "

There some nice breakouts that do indeed strongly support my claim that
something significant are happen in the lives of these children that is
reducing violence rates so drastically.

I contend it's more and more children being treated respectfully. In
fact the teens being point out here would be among the first
beneficiaries of the reduction in school paddlings starting many years
back.

And those NUMBERS of child abuse victims you want to count.....

http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm
"More than 60 percent of child victims experience neglect. Almost 20
percent are physically abused; 10 percent are sexually abused. (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children &
Families, Child Maltreatment 2002 — 2004)"

So you have to reduce the NUMBER by 60%, hysterical dancing screeching
monkeyboy.

Yup! and only 20% were due to physically abused, STUPID!


Doan

Next stupid claim please.

The proof is when you look into the mirror, STUPID! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more
and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline
in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look
otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent
victimization.

Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994!
A slight upward trend in an overall downward decline since 1973. Like I
said, 3 decades. Downward. Use the entire span. Now you are OBVIOUSLY
lying, as no one in their right mind could miss the entire chart end to
end from 30 years back.. Or could you be THIS stupid?

Hahaha! So we have spanked our kids the most in 1994?

The behavioral outcome effects of spanking often don't take place for
many years. 0:-

Just how stupid are you?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR!
Apparently you can't read charts, either. Check what I actually said and
what the chart shows.

It did NOT rise to previous levels and that was part of a continuing
downward trend. Just how stupid ARE you Doan.

Starting in 1973 about 44 per 1000, in 1981 a slight rise to 46, with
dips along the way. 86 a dip to 41, then a short sharp increase in 91,
close to the 81 levels, and a steep decline from there to 2004 of only
about 20 per thousand.

So what does this have to with spanking, STUPID?

You forgot already? It's a the top of this post and presumably what your
first, and continuing responses are addressing. He

"We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and
more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year
decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it
look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to
violent victimization.

This does not include children under 12 either.

I HOPE NOT! ;-)

Which reduces your claim that violent crimes against children has gone up.

Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend.
You notice I said "trend" and not 30 years.

Yup! "trend" as you said. ;-)

Yep...and numbers don't reflect trends. Not if you leave out the
variable "population." RATES are what DO reflect trends more accurately
if charted.

National Child Abuse Statistics
Child Abuse Fatalities by Year

In 2003: 1,500 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (4.11)

In 2002: 1,400 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.84)

In 2001: 1,300 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.56)

In 2000: 1,356 children as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.72)

In 1999: 1,396 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.82)3

In 1998: 1,144 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.13)3

In 1997: 1,221 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.35)3

In 1996: 1,185 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.25)

In 1995: 1,215 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.33)

"Died" is only one form of violence to children.

You seem to be struggling to keep up here, Doan.
Why is that I wonder?


Oops! More lies:
Yes, you certainly don't ever run out of them. This is NOT a rate chart
and includes abuses that are NOT violent crimes.
* There have been substantial and significant increases in the
incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence
study was conducted in 1986.
Where's the rate per K?

See above!

"Died" is not the only form of violence crime with child victims. You
seem to be completely losing track now. You used to be able to build
your lies without totally ignoring the poster's statement.

You must be slipping.

* Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and
neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2.
This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or
neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986.
Neglect is not a "violent crime" for data collection purposes. You are
in my field of expertise, Doan. And wrong.

* Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected
children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled,
sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and
emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2
levels.
Emotional abuse is not listed as a violent crime anywhere. Nor is neglect.

* The total number of children seriously injured and the total number
endangered both quadrupled during this time.
Notice it says total number seriously injured? I said abuse. And abuse
is more than just serious injury. Just how stupid are you.

With out the rate this means little.
Source:
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national
Rates, dummy. Rates.

Here is the 12 - 17 age violent crime victim rates. There is a current
upswing. Cause unknown at this time. I suspect changes in reporting
method....just as the DOJ chart you offered shows...they have switched
over during this time period and are mixing two methods.

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
"Child stats" is drawing their figures from FBI-DOJ data.

"According to reports by victims, in 2003 the serious violent crime
offending rate was 15 crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12?17, totaling
375,000 such crimes involving juveniles. While this is higher than the
rate in 2002, it is a 71 percent drop from the 1993 peak."

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/i...timization.cfm
"Violent Crime Victimization
View as PDF (Best for Printing)

Headline

Violent crime victimization among adolescents has declined by more than
half since the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, the victimization
rate declined for adolescents ages 12 to 15 from 118.6 per 1,000 to 49.7
per 1,000. For youth ages 16 to 19, the rate declined from 123.9 per
1,000 to 45.9 per 1,000. (See Figure 1) "

There some nice breakouts that do indeed strongly support my claim that
something significant are happen in the lives of these children that is
reducing violence rates so drastically.

I contend it's more and more children being treated respectfully. In
fact the teens being point out here would be among the first
beneficiaries of the reduction in school paddlings starting many years
back.

And those NUMBERS of child abuse victims you want to count.....

http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm
"More than 60 percent of child victims experience neglect. Almost 20
percent are physically abused; 10 percent are sexually abused. (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children &
Families, Child Maltreatment 2002 ? 2004)"

So you have to reduce the NUMBER by 60%, hysterical dancing screeching
monkeyboy.

Yup! and only 20% were due to physically abused, STUPID!

Which means, just as I claimed, the rate of violence to children has
gone down. For you see, the population of children has not changed, or
it has gone UP. The rate, if you remove all those children NOT victims
of violence crime (as the data shows above) then you have automatically
reduced the rate against the total population of children.

Doan
Next stupid claim please.

The proof is when you look into the mirror, STUPID! ;-)

Not unless you are standing next to me, "proven stupider than usual in
this post."

R R R R R

Doan

Doan loses yet again, but declares himself the winner. Just like the
child he still is.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and
more
and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline
in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look
otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent
victimization.

Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994!
A slight upward trend in an overall downward decline since 1973. Like I
said, 3 decades. Downward. Use the entire span. Now you are OBVIOUSLY
lying, as no one in their right mind could miss the entire chart end to
end from 30 years back.. Or could you be THIS stupid?

Hahaha! So we have spanked our kids the most in 1994?

The behavioral outcome effects of spanking often don't take place for
many years. 0:-

Just how stupid are you?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR!
Apparently you can't read charts, either. Check what I actually said and
what the chart shows.

It did NOT rise to previous levels and that was part of a continuing
downward trend. Just how stupid ARE you Doan.

Starting in 1973 about 44 per 1000, in 1981 a slight rise to 46, with
dips along the way. 86 a dip to 41, then a short sharp increase in 91,
close to the 81 levels, and a steep decline from there to 2004 of only
about 20 per thousand.

So what does this have to with spanking, STUPID?

You forgot already? It's a the top of this post and presumably what your
first, and continuing responses are addressing. He

"We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and
more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year
decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it
look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to
violent victimization.

This does not include children under 12 either.

I HOPE NOT! ;-)

Which reduces your claim that violent crimes against children has gone up.

Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend.
You notice I said "trend" and not 30 years.

Yup! "trend" as you said. ;-)

Yep...and numbers don't reflect trends. Not if you leave out the
variable "population." RATES are what DO reflect trends more accurately
if charted.

National Child Abuse Statistics
Child Abuse Fatalities by Year

In 2003: 1,500 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (4.11)

In 2002: 1,400 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.84)

In 2001: 1,300 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.56)

In 2000: 1,356 children as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.72)

In 1999: 1,396 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.82)3

In 1998: 1,144 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.13)3

In 1997: 1,221 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.35)3

In 1996: 1,185 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.25)

In 1995: 1,215 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.33)

"Died" is only one form of violence to children.

You seem to be struggling to keep up here, Doan.
Why is that I wonder?


Oops! More lies:
Yes, you certainly don't ever run out of them. This is NOT a rate chart
and includes abuses that are NOT violent crimes.
* There have been substantial and significant increases in the
incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence
study was conducted in 1986.
Where's the rate per K?

See above!

"Died" is not the only form of violence crime with child victims. You
seem to be completely losing track now. You used to be able to build
your lies without totally ignoring the poster's statement.

You must be slipping.

* Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of
abused and
neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the
NIS-2.
This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or
neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986.
Neglect is not a "violent crime" for data collection purposes. You are
in my field of expertise, Doan. And wrong.

* Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and
neglected
children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly
doubled,
sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical
neglect, and
emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2
levels.
Emotional abuse is not listed as a violent crime anywhere. Nor is
neglect.

* The total number of children seriously injured and the total
number
endangered both quadrupled during this time.
Notice it says total number seriously injured? I said abuse. And abuse
is more than just serious injury. Just how stupid are you.

With out the rate this means little.
Source:
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national
Rates, dummy. Rates.

Here is the 12 - 17 age violent crime victim rates. There is a current
upswing. Cause unknown at this time. I suspect changes in reporting
method....just as the DOJ chart you offered shows...they have switched
over during this time period and are mixing two methods.

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
"Child stats" is drawing their figures from FBI-DOJ data.

"According to reports by victims, in 2003 the serious violent crime
offending rate was 15 crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12?17, totaling
375,000 such crimes involving juveniles. While this is higher than the
rate in 2002, it is a 71 percent drop from the 1993 peak."

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/i...timization.cfm
"Violent Crime Victimization
View as PDF (Best for Printing)

Headline

Violent crime victimization among adolescents has declined by more than
half since the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, the victimization
rate declined for adolescents ages 12 to 15 from 118.6 per 1,000 to 49.7
per 1,000. For youth ages 16 to 19, the rate declined from 123.9 per
1,000 to 45.9 per 1,000. (See Figure 1) "

There some nice breakouts that do indeed strongly support my claim that
something significant are happen in the lives of these children that is
reducing violence rates so drastically.

I contend it's more and more children being treated respectfully. In
fact the teens being point out here would be among the first
beneficiaries of the reduction in school paddlings starting many years
back.

And those NUMBERS of child abuse victims you want to count.....

http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm
"More than 60 percent of child victims experience neglect. Almost 20
percent are physically abused; 10 percent are sexually abused. (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children &
Families, Child Maltreatment 2002 ? 2004)"

So you have to reduce the NUMBER by 60%, hysterical dancing screeching
monkeyboy.

Yup! and only 20% were due to physically abused, STUPID!

Which means, just as I claimed, the rate of violence to children has
gone down. For you see, the population of children has not changed, or
it has gone UP. The rate, if you remove all those children NOT victims
of violence crime (as the data shows above) then you have automatically
reduced the rate against the total population of children.

Doan
Next stupid claim please.

The proof is when you look into the mirror, STUPID! ;-)

Not unless you are standing next to me, "proven stupider than usual in
this post."

R R R R R

Doan

Doan loses yet again, but declares himself the winner. Just like the
child he still is.

0:-

What's the matter stupid little boy. You stuck dumb by being so
fuggering dumb?

You have run your ****olla out here for years, the same kind of low
grade schoolboy bs that passes for "thought" that idiots use.

You are nothing but scum, boy.

Scum.

You have NO arguement, just bull****.

You indulge in word tricks when asked questions because they confound
and astound you.

You are stupid. A child. Dumb as a stump.

And a confirmed and constant liar.

When challenged you dodge and claim YOU challenged demanding the
callenger answer YOU as though you are anything more that a stupid
bull****ting asshole.

YOu have nothing now, you had nothing in the past. Your function, even
by your standards is nothing more than a annoying trouble maker.

You have NO arguments that support your position so all you do is attack
others argument. A coward, a fool, a lying little ****.

And that, DDT, is ALL YOU ARE.

And likely all you will ever be.

****off little ****.

And have a nice day.

Kane



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

Understanding no-spank is facilitated by realizing that the cockamamie
movement has nothing to do with children. That is why no-spanks can
never be persuaded. It doesn't matter how badly their children behave,
if they have any.

No-spanks believe they have a higher calling to impose absolute gender
equality. Trying to convert a no-spank is like trying to convince an
Islamic fanatic wearing a bomb to become a peaceable Christian!

wrote:
Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

wrote:
Non spanking parents have no clue.

Odd, their children seem to.

Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time.

Most went the other way. They didn't start as believing was better.

But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

It's logical to go from non-spanking to spanking? By what argument?

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

I know that all to well.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

Non-spanking equates to "spoiled rotten" how?

I have, for over fifty years. I know the answer. Spanked children are
either the WORST behaved, or they are sneaks. Acting out in other ways
they can't be caught at so easily.

Ever notice that the response to getting a speeding ticket or three
tends to have create a huge industry in Radar and Laser detectors?

Tell you anything?

Or do you think that only non-spanked children would be scofflaws?

Whenever I mention there are no un-spanked children in prison the
immediate response from spanking compulsives is to point out the
prisoners invariably report they were "beaten" not spanked.

Notice something odd about that response?

IT IS NOT RESPONDING TO MY STATEMENT.

Find me some un-spanked children who grew up to go to prison.
UN-SPANKED, NOT BEATEN AND NON-SPANKED... just neither beaten OR spanked.

I'm still looking for a study that has shown ANY children raised
entirely without spanking the ended up a convicted criminal. Especially
of the violent kind.

Know any?

0;-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

The point has been brought up in the group before. The debate actually has
nothing to do with spanking. I know non-spanking parents that do not act
like the no-spanks in this group. The no-spanks here are convinced that
they are somehow superior to the spanking parents, either intellectually, or
somehow mentally enlightened, or just overall better parents, none of which
is true.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

Jeremy James wrote:
The point has been brought up in the group before. The debate actually has
nothing to do with spanking. I know non-spanking parents that do not act
like the no-spanks in this group. The no-spanks here are convinced that
they are somehow superior to the spanking parents, either intellectually, or
somehow mentally enlightened, or just overall better parents, none of which
is true.

No such general claim has been made by posters here against all spanking
parents.

We do occasionally run into a fool, or idiot here that is a spanking
compulsive though.

It looks like you qualify for the latter group.

And continue with stupid statements such as that, instead of actually
debating the issues.

You see, child YOU just DID what you claim WE did.

You are attacking the poster(s) rather than the issues.

Do you think that a posting of research by any of us is in fact an
attempt to show our superiority?

Any thoughts, stupid? Like your take on the recently posted information
that a major international research effort turned up support for our
argument that in fact regardless of cultural norms corporal punishment
does result in poor social aggression outcomes?

0:-




wrote in message
oups.com...
Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Kane posted profuse and gratuitout profanity for
over a year in ascps on the world wide web.
Does this make him a role model?
An expert on behavior, qualified to advise others?