If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman"
wrote: "Fern5827" wrote in message ... You approve of the F word, then, and the C word? I do, absolutely. Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline" and "love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and unaware. YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend people that torture children, and even those that kill children. YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch. A trip to a local CPS office and a hundred hours of volunteer work, preferably with the Protective Service unit, where the tortured babies come into the protective care, might do you a world of good. It might even turn you into a real human being instead of an unfeeling plant, ****. Kane http://www.gliph.com/video/fhistory.swf Sherman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
Kane wrote:
[snip] : YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend : people that torture children, and even those that kill children. : YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? : Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch. In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort of people with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue. But the antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum of history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side. Over a dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of US states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We antispankers don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle of the culture wars. Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength. Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil while the prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal smear campaigns which few lurkers took seriously. Now that the mud slinging is so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates here than I used to, although I still check in from time to time. It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't need to behave as if we are losing and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for lack of anything more cogent to offer. Chris |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On 17 Jan 2004, Kane wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman" wrote: "Fern5827" wrote in message ... You approve of the F word, then, and the C word? I do, absolutely. Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline" and "love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and unaware. YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend people that torture children, and even those that kill children. YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? Gotta give it to you, Kane. Is this how your parents raised you? Need I reminded you and everyone that you were "never-spanked"! ;-) Doan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
Oops! Sound like Chris having trouble controlling his dog! :-) Doan On 19 Jan 2004, Chris wrote: Kane wrote: [snip] : YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend : people that torture children, and even those that kill children. : YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? : Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch. In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort of people with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue. But the antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum of history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side. Over a dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of US states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We antispankers don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle of the culture wars. Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength. Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil while the prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal smear campaigns which few lurkers took seriously. Now that the mud slinging is so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates here than I used to, although I still check in from time to time. It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't need to behave as if we are losing and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for lack of anything more cogent to offer. Chris |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 08:00:21 -0800, Doan wrote:
On 17 Jan 2004, Kane wrote: On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:07:25 GMT, "Sherman" wrote: "Fern5827" wrote in message ... You approve of the F word, then, and the C word? I do, absolutely. Those persons that get caught up in being offended at silly things like the use of rude words by others are in denial of the true obscenities: the torturing of children and calling it "discipline" and "love" when it is nothing but terror, pain, and humiliation and the obscene actions of a brute against someone smaller, weaker, and unaware. YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend people that torture children, and even those that kill children. YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? Gotta give it to you, Kane. Thank you. Your appreciation is long overdue. And thank you for not snipping the attributed remarks by me. When it comes to The Plant and it's history here supporting brutality toward children by their parents it deserves as much exposure as possible. I thank you and The Plant thanks you. And all children thank you. Is this how your parents raised you? Yes. My parents raised me to not settle for liars and child abusers and apologists to get away with it unscathed and unexposed. Need I reminded you and everyone that you were "never-spanked"! ;-) Since you don't know, that's hardly a threat, now is it? R R R R R Need I "reminded" (sic) you and everyone that you were spanked and it's turned you into a slimey little weaseling liar? And a public masturbator? And since you claimed you were spanked seems one of us is Doananating and that's not Kane. {:-] Doan Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:40:59 -0800, Doan wrote:
This is funny! It can only come from a "never-spanked" boy. ;-) From a boy that dances about making foolish challenges he can't back up, yet, it's very funny indeed, and clear proof my claims are correct. You hapless twits are very much on the run. Or hadn't you noticed that all yah got is this babbling dance about? Run coward, run. R R R R R Doan Kane On 19 Jan 2004, Kane wrote: On 19 Jan 2004 05:24:02 GMT, Chris wrote: Kane wrote: [snip] : YOU, Asshole, are a ****ing smelly **** precisely because YOU defend : people that torture children, and even those that kill children. : YOU ARE A ****ING SMELLY ROTTEN ****....got that? : Grow the **** up, you family and child hating bitch. In most cases, this sort of verbal abuse is the last resort of people with losing positions who have nothing left with which to argue. Bull****, Chris. It's a common response to viciousness on the part of others. Grow the **** up. The abusive obscenity isn't in my words, it's in the actions of these cretins. But the antispank position is not a losing position. We have the momentum of history on our side, and virtually all the science on our side. Over a dozen countries have banned the practice entirely with more in the pipeline. It has been banned in all but a dwindling minority of US states' school systems, and US public opinion in favor of spanking continues to erode according to public opinion polls. We antispankers don't need to engage in obscene rants. We are winning this battle of the culture wars. Yep. Just a few hardcore nitwits left. Resorting obscenities and personal attacks is a sign of weakness rather than a sign of strength. Bull****, Chris. Grow up. There is more than one way to express opinions that are valid. Alt.parenting.spanking was more effective back in the old days when the antispankers were polite and civil while the prospankers threw obscene tantrums and launched endless personal smear campaigns which few lurkers took seriously. "more effective" how, Chris. Notice whose gone missing? All that are left are a few holdouts that are themselves ****ing nutcases. Loosen up. Your tight ass blather is embarrassing to you and to anti spankers in general. Now that the mud slinging is so prevalent on both sides I have less interest in the debates here than I used to, although I still check in from time to time. Your problem. Do you think The Question was just mud slinging? It's simple. Antispankers are winning everywhere. We don't need to behave as if we are losing Please defend, logically (not emotionally, as you are doing), your argument that swearing and vulgar personal attacks equates with acting as though we are losing? That's prissy assedness of the worse kind. I'm PROVING that the crudest of us, the most uncouth, can still respond to the needs of children and the truth about their vulnerablity and the damages done by brutes to them. and must resort to vulgar personal attacks for lack of anything more cogent to offer. YOU want to try and answer The Question? How's THAT for "cogent?" Get off your high horse. The ng doesn't belong to you. And years of argument in the same, quasi polite (you were as brutal as I in YOUR way) "debate" wound down, spiraled down into a few clever little ****ed up nitwits using the same tired logical phallacies and lies to frustrate ANY FURTHER ARGUMENT. I broke the stalemate and you know it if you could think about it outside your prissy assed sensibilities. Frankly I consider "polite" debaters as phony balognies. They are exactly, if they are any good, as brutal and vulgar as I am...they just use camoflaging tactics. I find that offensive. And those that do it habitually, offensive and silly. I am talking about YOU, Chris. If you didn't notice. What happened to YOU is not going to blamed on me or anyone else that argues more crudely. YOU ran out of opponents other than the deceitful liars..nice work, actually. You left the field for people like me to deal with Doananators, and little piggy O's of the world. I did. When you've convinced (which I'm not at all willing to admit you did) the polite debaters to change their child beating ways the rest are still there, babbling away. I leave'em reeling, and for some folks, more especially the ones preempted by the abuses THEY suffered as children, shock is the only way to get to them. How'm I doin' eh? Chris Your prissy assed criticism isn't the least welcome, but you are free to peddle it of course, if it makes you feel superior and better than us. ****in' effete twits **** me off more than most...I have more respect for the assholes that debate in favor of child abuse honestly...if I can find them. **** off. Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:
On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote: toto wrote in message . .. On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine" wrote: Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your child in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with blind acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out of another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing time-out. Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their child beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in situations where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank and those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of spanking the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger, it's quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long as I have the power, I can hit too. That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows that taking toys away from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!! Here is a summary of the study: Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression... [Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA 1997 Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental Spanking on Children's Aggression (Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA ) Objective: --------- To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model to the study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model in which the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to spanking. Design: ------ Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in the National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several family and child factors including children's baseline aggression. Main Outcome Measures: --------------------- Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems Index at the 5-year follow-up. Results: ------- Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change in chi square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights for children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more fights for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white. Regression analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of increased aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in single-mother families (P =.05, F test). Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward.... LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage??? I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have the Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you would mail it to anyone that requested it. No shows on that, eh? I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which is it? :-) And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I gave you? Tsk, little coward, tsk. The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-) R R R R R So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would. And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your master, has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-) So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response to YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big boys? Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-) I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in! There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little feller like you. Canada has banned spanking???? ;-) And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply posting your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not? But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't you meet your burden of proof? :-0 You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder. I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan, running away from debating me? ;-) Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge on the Embry Study. Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment component of it and can't even tell me what the sample size is. What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-) Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you now? The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-) Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a copy. Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one. Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked. Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the number of? Why haven't you answered me on the sample size? R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R Stupid little Kane9! :-) When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have lied all this time about having it. Why did you lied about the punishment component? You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all these years of practice to. {- Why did you lied about the punishment component? I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my students to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not to embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright I'll change the objects but retain the context. Why did you lied about the punishment component? I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up the offer. What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-) Kane 9 Kan't! :-) Doan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another child killed in kincare
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:28:54 -0800, Doan wrote:
On 3 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On 3 Feb 2004 13:25:51 -0800, (doan) wrote: toto wrote in message . .. On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:46:07 GMT, "I Spank Mine" wrote: Nothing worse than someone who puts you down for spanking your child in public for totally unacceptable behavior, then watches, with blind acceptance, as their little Julie or Tommy knocks the hell out of another child, trashes a display and gives them a ****ing time-out. Interesting because I don't see parents *watching* as their child beats up other children. Most parents I know intervene in situations where a child is fighting (that includes both parents who spank and those who don't spank, btw). The reaction, however, of spanking the child for fighting with another child strikes me as totally unproductive since it simply teaches that if you are bigger, it's quite ok to hit. After all mommy and daddy hit me, so as long as I have the power, I can hit too. That is not what Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) found! It depends on the context, which you ignored. Using your logic, it then follows that taking toys away from your children teaches them that IT IS OK TO ROB!!! Here is a summary of the study: Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression... [Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA 1997 Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental Spanking on Children's Aggression (Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA ) Objective: --------- To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model to the study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model in which the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to spanking. Design: ------ Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in the National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several family and child factors including children's baseline aggression. Main Outcome Measures: --------------------- Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems Index at the 5-year follow-up. Results: ------- Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P =.05, change in chi square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights for children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more fights for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white. Regression analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of increased aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in single-mother families (P =.05, F test). Yoooooohooooo...toooooodleeeeeedooooooo...over here coward.... LOL! Unlike you, I don't hide behind fake email address and hurling obscenites. Calling other women "smelly-****" is showing courage??? Dodger. All I asked is for you to answer a couple of simple questions. You immediately went to a non related issue. Coward. I notice you are ignoring even my simple request to prove you have the Embry study, that you claimed so boisterously to have, and that you would mail it to anyone that requested it. No shows on that, eh? I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which is it? :-) Ah, please show by my not replying that that "proved" you had the Embry study? Still not going to include the information from the page number I questioned you on, right? RIGHT! R R R R R And no shows on telling me what was on that page whose number I gave you? Tsk, little coward, tsk. The one that hide behind fake email address is the real coward! :-) See, wadddidItellyah? No answer to the question. Are all the folks that post anonymously cowards then? I've checked out a few of your buddies. You'd be surprised who is using a fake, but very real looking name, and posting through anonymous remailers and proxies...tsk there little boy, tsk. R R R R R So you've gone back to your usual Doananism of screwing with the interpretations of studies, eh? I suspected you would. And you are showing that you are stupid! Even Chris Dugan, your master, has publicly called you stupid and you didn't even know it! :-) Which should prove to others (you are beyond normal thinking and will never get it) that I am not the subject of anyone. Chris doesn't get to tell me what to do, or did you fail to notice that in your mad scramble for something, anything, that would distract for your childish challenges and loudmouthed, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and then not replying when I asked you to follow through. So tell us, Doananator, why have you backed down from my response to YOUR OWN CHALLENGES....as in "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" like a silly little boy in the school yard thinking he can bluff the big boys? Because the burden of proof is on you, as you said Kane9! ;-) I am going after your master, Chris Dugan. Get him in! Nope. The burden of proof is not on me and that isn't what I said on any of the issues we are discussing. The Embry Study, the claims about "never-spanked" and most of all, The Question you failed to answer honestly. When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty. The Canadian court was honest though....they said that "reasonable" standards don't cut it as they are not precisely definable enough for law or for parents to use as a guideline. Do you disagree with the Canadian courts? There's nothing to answering The Question honestly. Canada even rejected your answer. All you have to do is get honest about how parents can determine where that abuse "speed limit" and "no left turn" sign are, right? Easy as pie I'd think, for a smart little feller like you. Canada has banned spanking???? ;-) The usual Doananistic Dodge. I said nothing about a ban. We were discussing the limits on spanking where it passes into abuse. But for your edification, they have greatly reduced the freedom to spank by now reducing the LIMIT considerably and more precisely than YOU have. Isn't that sad for those of you that need spanking as an excuse for your emotional crippling as a child? I'm so sad for you. So, are you going to point out where I said they banned spanking? Please do. I think you are losing it pretty badly. Your clever ploys and dodges and gimmicks are giving out on you. I'm even sadder for you. Look at what it's revealing about you to people that come here to answer The Question for themselves. And you could so easily prove your DOUBLE DARE YAH by simply posting your proof on my comments you claim about being spanked or not? But the burden of proof is on you, using your logic. Why don't you meet your burden of proof? :-0 Two reasons. All you've done with your "burden of proof" old ploy is try the same bull**** you always do. You made a claim about me. You challenged me to say one way or the other if you were correct. Does that sound to YOU like the burden is on ME? I made no claim one way or the other about what I said or didn't say. I simply asked you to put up. You are poor at bluffing. I noticed that about you from way back in your posting history. Your idea of bluffing is setting up an elaborate distraction then running off from whatever issue you knew you were loosing the debate over. You've done it here twice at the first level and now once at the second level on one of the first level challenges YOU created on the dodge. It's all about the inability to answer The Question. First you claim you did answer it, then you try to dodge by bringup up other challenges, then you dodge on the challenges you brought up. No one is fooled, Doananator. Least of all me. I've dealt with cons for years. You are a panty compared to most of them. You seem kind of tonguetied, little boy. Why IS that I wonder. I am still here, always have. Why is your master, Chris Dugan, running away from debating me? ;-) I have no idea. But I do it's just another Dodge. I didn't ask you to debate Chris. I asked you to respond to the very challenges YOU made, and you haven't. Again and again. Now why would you suddenly bring up Chris as a criteria for YOU and I to discuss three issues, shortly after he remonstrated with me for my language? Hmmm....other than seeing it as an opportunity for another dodge? You are child dealing with a grownup, Doan, and you are a foolish damaged child. You can thank your parents for your inability to debate honestly, for the propensity to dodge rather than meet challenges. You were spanked too much for you. They exceeded the limit for you, an individual child, and it shows rather badly. You are terrified of them and the loss of their approval so you'll do anything, no matter how stupid, how dishonest, how callously thoughtless, to protect yourself from facing the truth about them. Which brings up back to the subject of your weasely cowardly dodge on the Embry Study. Which you have demonstrated that you were wrong on the punishment component of it The "wrong" you claim is nothing more than a disagreement with Embry at the time of the study, and his views now. I doubt he would so vigorously use the word "punishment" after years of watching his own results as he went on to further the concept of teaching over forcing. There is an age range he still feels the "instruction" component is less satsifactory on, but he takes no apparent stand on the cure for that problem, and it's an age range, not a kind of child and he tested kids of all manner of demographics including developmental problems. and can't even tell me what the sample size is. What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-) You, as usual, confuse "can't" with "won't" because I will not debate the study with you until YOU prove you have it, you have followed through on your childish "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" challenge, and you answer The Question honestly and fully as it was asked, not as you tried to rephrase and reshape it. No loose ends, Doan. If Chris made a mistake with you it was allowing you full rein in your sick distractions and dodges. I won't. Now YOU, on the other hand, have set no restrictions on me for debate, other than your continual dancing about. So when I ask YOU to produce something from the study, some so simple as to be rediculously easy, YOU CAN'T PRODUCE. You remember: the page content of the numbered page I queried you on? The subject of the page is sufficient to satisfy ONE of the three criteria for debate. What's holding you up? And why hasn't anyone asked you to mail them the study and have it and can produce the answer for you? You do have friends here don't you? Aren't there those that would happily refute me if they could? If not, why not, Doananator? Why you have me nailed if you answered that question, wouldn't you now? The sample size, Kane9 Kan't! ;-) The subject of the page, Doananator Dancing? You are stalling, just as you have on the other two issues. Of course you are stalling while you frantically try to find a copy. Hey, they are available. And you claim to have one. Yup! And I will mail a copy to anyone that asked. Gee, why hasn't anyone asked? Because they know you don't really have it. Or are they afraid that if they got it what they might find about the Embry Study that would blow their little dreams of child controlling out of the water? Not only are YOU a coward, Doananator, but so are they. Why haven't you answered my question about the page I gave you the number of? Why haven't you answered me on the sample size? Because YOU created this challenge, Doananator. It's up to YOU to provide proof, not I. Who brought up The Embry Study in the course of our exchange on The Question? Was it moi? I don't think so, but you are free to prove it was and then I'll give you the sample size, and even the categories and characteristics of the sample individuals. R R R R, cowardly Doananiser. R R R R R Stupid little Kane9! :-) How stupid am I considering that you are nervously dodging and dancing as fast as your little bow legs will carry you? R R R R R YOU made all the challenges, Doan, after The Question, you couldn't and won't answer. Yet there you are, unwilling to answer a single challenge. All I've said to you is, "go ahead and prove your challenges." All YOU'VE done is Doananate by asking yet ANOTHER question. I'm still on my first question and waiting. You are piling yours up like the straw and fish they are. Such a child. When you finally get a copy we'll all still wonder why you have lied all this time about having it. Why did you lied about the punishment component? What "lied" was that, Doananator? This ploy isn't going to work any better than the rest you've tried. You challenged me on the Embry Study. I said I'd fill your dance card when you proved you had it, when you cleared up the challenges you posed with your "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" and you still haven't presented your dance card to me properly. How impolite and rude you seem. You are so lousy at bluffing I can hardly believe it. After all these years of practice to. {- Why did you lied about the punishment component? Why did you beat your wife? Stop being silly, boy. I didn't "lied" about punishment. I have followed Embry's work for years and am especially impressed by his New Zealand work. He is not an advocate of punishment. The fact he used the word in his study to describe something that I do NOT consider PUNISHEMENT, doesn't make me a liar. You've about beat that one to death. How many more Herrings are you going to throw out there? Enough to think that I'll give in to utter disgust with your duplicitiousness and lies as Chris did and give up? Forget it. I'll be here hectoring you until every twit filter in the world has been activated on our postings addy's. And still, you won't answer The Question, and the "I DOUBLE DARE YOU" challenge, nor prove that you have the Embry study. You'll be throwing out the herring and I'll be happily watching you prove what you are by your doing so. I'm thinking about responding positively to a request to teach some critical thinking skills. If I decide to do it, and I'm surely tempted, I'm going to pull a number of your posts and ask my students to do an analysis on their content, of course anonomously so as not to embarrass you too much. And of course out of respect for copyright I'll change the objects but retain the context. Why did you lied about the punishment component? Why do you lie about my comments on the punishment component? Are you assuming I don't have the study? All you have to do is come up with the answer to what is on that page I queried you about and you got me. Right? Especially if you answer the other two issues and I have to then debate the study with you, or run like a coward with my tail between my legs? No? You'd pass up such an opportunity just to dance away from such simple to answer issues? Tsk. I think you are a coward. I KNOW why your are, and I know how badly you want to stay away from the Embry study EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE IT. If you've seen it you know you are not going to be able to fudge it or misinterpret it so easily as you did other studies you've lied about. I'll get back to you with their reports, should I decide to take up the offer. What is the sample size, Kane9 Kan't? ;-) Stop the dancing, Doananator. I know it to the letter. I told you no debate until YOU answer my reponses to your challenges. Simply dancing away with yet another questions isn't going to work with me, and not with any reader that get's what you are up to. Kane 9 Kan't! :-) Doan Doananator publically exposes himself again. I don't respond to childish dares, Doanieboy. Answer civil questions about YOUR challenges to me first, then I'll answer your pile of questions very quickly. About fast enough to take your head right off your shoulders. Tell yah what. I'll make a single concession in the ongoing hope of honesty from you: You tell ME what page the demographics of the sample group begin on and I'll tell you the sample size and characteristics, in detail. Hell, get it within one page either way and I'll play. You could guess right, who knows. Let your buddies who were too cowardly to ask you for the study, or that know you don't have it, to help you guess. If ANY of them get it right on the money, I'll answer your "size" question and with the demographic characteristics, all of them including the parents. Deal? Bet you weasel. Or are we going to be treated to yet another Doananism Dance? ............Doan is a coward and it's pretty plain he is stalling for the arrival of his copy of the study. Or still searching. You don't have the study, coward. And if you do get it you still have two other issues to clear up before I'll fully engage in debate on the study. Run coward, run. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Various MD crimes (obvious ones) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | May 17th 04 04:48 PM |
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 105 | November 30th 03 05:48 AM |
A Plant's Motivation? | Kane | Spanking | 44 | October 16th 03 01:51 PM |
'Horrible' Home | Kane | General | 1 | July 16th 03 02:29 AM |