Historical Perspectives on Corporal Punishment

Greegor wrote to LaVonne:
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?

Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.

Greg wrote
LaVonne: YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.

LaVonne wrote
Of course I did. And my point was to strongly counter a point made by
one poster that racism rarely existed 75 year ago as it does today.
Nothing politically correct or incorrect about it -- simply a fact. In
many states in 1931 black children had to attend segregated public
schools. Black people, adults and children were required to sit at the
back of the bus. Black people had to eat in "colored" restaurants and
use public restrooms designated for the coloreds. Hotels could legally
refuse to rent a room to anyone who was Black. Not only was racism
alive and well 75 years ago, it was protected by law. Laws have changed.

Greg wrote
But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)

LaVonne wrote
And my race (whatever it may be) is relevant how?

Greg wrote
You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)

LaVonne wrote
And whether or not I am related by blood would be relevant how?

Greg wrote
You adopted them you already said.

LaVonne wrote
And if this were true, it would be relevant how?

The same way it was relevant when YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)

LaVonne wrote
Irrelevant, off topic, diversionary, and quite frankly, none of your
business. Say, how's that research hypothesis, null hypothesis and
research design coming along? Just asking, since you claimed you had a
hypothesis, yet wrote one that would have earned a failing grade for a
freshman research review paper.

Greg wrote
Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?

LaVonne wrote
I think that are totally irrelevant and inappropriate. My credentials
and my race (whatever it may be) somehow makes the research on child
development, discipline, and spanking invalid? My credentials and my
race (whatever it may be) discredits my views on parenting and spanking
that is solidly grounded in both experience and research? Whether or
not my girls are birth children is somehow related to what I have posted
about spanking and CPS, and also invalidates my experience and several
decades of published research? And the same goes for whether or not I
believe I was abused as a child?
These are totally ridiculous questions meant to do nothing but harass.

Greg wrote]
Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?

LaVonne wrote
I think your questions are meant to do nothing but harass,

I can understand how you might FEEL THAT WAY,
but then YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

LaVonne wrote
and the idea that somehow whatever race I am,
or the racial composition of my family

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!
Did you intend to use a ""sacred cow"" statement
that was ""untouchable"" to fend off any challenge?

LaVonne wrote
invalidates my posts or presents a conflict
of interest is ignorant, disgusting, and racist.

Not when you're WHITE!
AND, YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?

LaVonne wrote
Absolutely not. The idea of questioning my race

Nice try, except you're WHITE!

or the racial/biological makeup of my family because you disagree with my posts
and have no way to counter with actual research or information is
deplorable. And irrelevant. And meant to harass.

When somebody figures out your psychology,
background or motivations, you think they are
HARASSERS, of course, Professor!

LaVonne wrote
Look what you did
with the information I posted about my girls. You ignored the post to
which I was responding, the reason I provided the information I did, and
the point that was being debated. You took the information out of
context for your personal bandwagon, and used it for personal
harassment. You are not an honest debater.

ROFL! The fact you don't want to admit to your
personal and ulterior motives makes YOU dishonest!

LaVonne wrote
I have posted what I have about my professional credentials to help
provide evidence that I am qualified for the position that I hold, and
that I am educated and trained in the fields of special education and
child development, and in the dissemination of research.

So enough, Greegor. You can continue to post your questions. This ng
is not moderated. My race and the race or biological make-up of my
family is none of your business, unless I choose to make it so.

But YOU DID! YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.

I ignored your point BECAUSE your soap boxing
about the black experience had NOTHING to do
with this message thread!

You are a WHITE BREAD Minnesota ULTRALIBERAL
who adopted two black babies and even mentioned them
to prove some point particularly because you thought
it would not be questioned. Liberals are under considerable
fire lately for their use of "SACRED COW" arguments like that.

NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, when it served you,
but you never disclaimed this when you were making
comments colored by your personal bias!

Certainly the question about whether you think you
were abused as a child would blatantly pertain to
discussions about child abuse and spanking!

The fact that you STILL don't see these issues as
relevant or important to disclaim worries me
considerably considering you Profess to be
some kind of expert on research!

The cross racial adoption thing merely illustrates
just how extreme your liberalism really IS.
The ultimate in "liberal brownie points"!

Minnesota basically had to OUTLAW cross racial
adoptions because they had ultraliberals lined
up around the block wanting cross racial adoptions!

But I would warn you against trying to cash in on
your LIBERAL BROWNIE POINTS in regard to
"I adopted two black babies!" and expecting to
have the final word because of the ""SACRED COW""
the race card entails!

Please note that my complaints are not about race,
but about your USE of it as political currency.

Don't you really think that whether or not you think
you were abused as a child is a valid issue when
you propagandize about spanking or child abuse?

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote to LaVonne:
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?

Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?

Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.

Greg wrote
LaVonne: YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.

LaVonne wrote
Of course I did. And my point was to strongly counter a point made by
one poster that racism rarely existed 75 year ago as it does today.
Nothing politically correct or incorrect about it -- simply a fact. In
many states in 1931 black children had to attend segregated public
schools. Black people, adults and children were required to sit at the
back of the bus. Black people had to eat in "colored" restaurants and
use public restrooms designated for the coloreds. Hotels could legally
refuse to rent a room to anyone who was Black. Not only was racism
alive and well 75 years ago, it was protected by law. Laws have changed.

Greg wrote
But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)

LaVonne wrote
And my race (whatever it may be) is relevant how?

Greg wrote
You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)

LaVonne wrote
And whether or not I am related by blood would be relevant how?

Greg wrote
You adopted them you already said.

LaVonne wrote
And if this were true, it would be relevant how?

The same way it was relevant when YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

That is not an answer to her question.

"The same way," would be HER relevance. Which she has stated. All you
are saying is that you agree with her, but you appear to be harranger
her for what YOU agree with then.

Greg wrote
DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)

LaVonne wrote
Irrelevant, off topic, diversionary, and quite frankly, none of your
business. Say, how's that research hypothesis, null hypothesis and
research design coming along? Just asking, since you claimed you had a
hypothesis, yet wrote one that would have earned a failing grade for a
freshman research review paper.

Greg wrote
Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?

LaVonne wrote
I think that are totally irrelevant and inappropriate. My credentials
and my race (whatever it may be) somehow makes the research on child
development, discipline, and spanking invalid? My credentials and my
race (whatever it may be) discredits my views on parenting and spanking
that is solidly grounded in both experience and research? Whether or
not my girls are birth children is somehow related to what I have posted
about spanking and CPS, and also invalidates my experience and several
decades of published research? And the same goes for whether or not I
believe I was abused as a child?
These are totally ridiculous questions meant to do nothing but harass.

Greg wrote]
Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?

LaVonne wrote
I think your questions are meant to do nothing but harass,

I can understand how you might FEEL THAT WAY,
but then YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Of course she did. And your questions have taken on a harassing tone.

Do you deny this?

Later in this post we see you do exactly that, making accusations that
you cannot know she is guilty of, but you make them nonetheless.

LaVonne wrote
and the idea that somehow whatever race I am,
or the racial composition of my family

YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

So what

Did you intend to use a ""sacred cow"" statement
that was ""untouchable"" to fend off any challenge?

What is this sacred cow you are ranting about?

LaVonne wrote
invalidates my posts or presents a conflict
of interest is ignorant, disgusting, and racist.

Not when you're WHITE!
AND, YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

What does her race have to do with YOU using it to harass?

Greg wrote
Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?

LaVonne wrote
Absolutely not. The idea of questioning my race

Nice try, except you're WHITE!

You have no way of knowing that. Why do you make accusations you have
not proven?

or the racial/biological makeup of my family because you disagree with my posts
and have no way to counter with actual research or information is
deplorable. And irrelevant. And meant to harass.

When somebody figures out your psychology,
background or motivations, you think they are
HARASSERS, of course, Professor!

No, she is correct. You cannot debate and counter by using facts, actual
research and information, so you focus on this kind of harassment.

LaVonne wrote
Look what you did
with the information I posted about my girls. You ignored the post to
which I was responding, the reason I provided the information I did, and
the point that was being debated. You took the information out of
context for your personal bandwagon, and used it for personal
harassment. You are not an honest debater.

ROFL! The fact you don't want to admit to your
personal and ulterior motives makes YOU dishonest!

Admit? To what? Your accusations?

You, Greg, have refused to answer questions I asked for years. Do you
wish to apply this same measure to you that you do to her then?

LaVonne wrote
I have posted what I have about my professional credentials to help
provide evidence that I am qualified for the position that I hold, and
that I am educated and trained in the fields of special education and
child development, and in the dissemination of research.

So enough, Greegor. You can continue to post your questions. This ng
is not moderated. My race and the race or biological make-up of my
family is none of your business, unless I choose to make it so.

But YOU DID! YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

No, the choice is hers how and when she brings it up.

I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.

I ignored your point BECAUSE your soap boxing
about the black experience had NOTHING to do
with this message thread!

What soap boxing? No facts to offer, Greg?

You are a WHITE BREAD Minnesota ULTRALIBERAL
who adopted two black babies and even mentioned them
to prove some point particularly because you thought
it would not be questioned.

She mentioned something she thought would not be questioned?

Just why ARE you questioning it?

Liberals are under considerable
fire lately for their use of "SACRED COW" arguments like that.

You made more assumptions. You have no proof.

YOU have advanced "liberal" agenda concepts in these ngs, Greg. I
pointed them out to you.

NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents

She did not such thing. She discussed ABUSIVE AND NEGLECTFUL parents,
never "bio-parents" in general. I doubt she has any more slack for
abusive foster and adoptive parents than abusive bio parents.

and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You couldn't be running a scam here, for YOUR agenda, could you Greg?
R R R R R R

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!

You know the particulars of the adoption of her children, do you?

Do you assume all adoptions are of children in the custody of the state?
Never heard of private adoptions, have you?

But you'll ASSUME, won't you?

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, when it served you,
but you never disclaimed this when you were making
comments colored by your personal bias!

What would her personal bias have to do with anything that YOUR personal
bias would not be equally questioned for?

Certainly the question about whether you think you
were abused as a child would blatantly pertain to
discussions about child abuse and spanking!

Nope. Her "thoughts" are not the question in reasoned debate.

The fact that you STILL don't see these issues as
relevant or important to disclaim worries me
considerably considering you Profess to be
some kind of expert on research!

Her "thoughts" are relevant to 'research?'

Research on what? Research without her permission and harassing her to
participate?

Yes, you sure don't know much about research, Greg. 0:-

The cross racial adoption thing merely illustrates
just how extreme your liberalism really IS.
The ultimate in "liberal brownie points"!

That's an ugly accusation, and foul in terms of unethical behavior, Greg.

Minnesota basically had to OUTLAW cross racial
adoptions because they had ultraliberals lined
up around the block wanting cross racial adoptions!

They did? Please show us this outlawing with proof.

But I would warn you against trying to cash in on
your LIBERAL BROWNIE POINTS in regard to
"I adopted two black babies!" and expecting to
have the final word because of the ""SACRED COW""
the race card entails!

"Warn" her? Are you some kind of guardian of society these days, Greg?

Please note that my complaints are not about race,
but about your USE of it as political currency.

But Greg that IS about race, since you are USING Race to accuse her of
things you have no way of knowing to be true or not.

Don't you really think that whether or not you think
you were abused as a child is a valid issue when
you propagandize about spanking or child abuse?

No, you aren't harassing.....R R R R R R

Have you noticed that you feel perfectly justified in not answering
questions posed to you about YOUR past, Greg?


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 (or someone else)

LaVonne: Why is Kane so fervently ""helping"" you?

Does he think you incapable of answering yourself?

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne: Why is Kane so fervently ""helping"" you?

Because I find the issues interesting and worth discussing.

Does he think you incapable of answering yourself?

Did Doug think you incapable of answering for yourself when he
interposed his comments when I was discussing issues with YOU?

You seem to have a constant problem with standards for others being
different than standards for you.

In other words, you are self centered arrogant ****ant of a fool and liar.





--
"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 (or someone else)

Pehaps because he thought your ridiculous comments were more worthy of
response than I did. You do get tiresome.

You took my post, slaughtered it with cuts, and responded incompletely
dishonestly based on what you chose to include. Every time you do this
discredit yourself. Fine by me.

You have said some very disturbing things, even more disturbing than in
your previous posting history. I suggest anyone reading this thread who
cares about Greegor's posting and accusations go back and reread the thread.

My race is in question, and since you have decided that I am "WHITE" --
I have no credibility. And since you have decided that I am "WHITE"
and raised 'BLACK" children, those children must be adopted (I do have a
husband, you know). And here's what you say about adoption:

"NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!"

Individuals who adopt children are a beneficiary of CPS evil deeds?
What would you like the future of children to be, when they are in the
hands of biological parents who are unfit to parent? Remember my post
about Jordan, "Better Dead that Foster Care?" Perhaps the title of the
thread should have been "Better Dead at the Hands of a Biological Parent
than being Fostered or Adopted." And she is dead, burned to death at
the hands of her biological father and his girlfriend. And what would
you like a woman to do when she cannot adequately raise a child? Kill
the child rather than place the child for adoption?

Not all biological parents are good parents. Not all foster parents are
good parents. Not all adoptive parents are good parents. But to
continue to pretend that children are always better off with biological
parents, even when the result is death, is pathological.

There was a time when your posts were humorous in their ridiculousness,
but were useful in making a point. You have now crossed the line into
racisim and pathological behavior. I see no reason to respond to more
of your posts. I can only hope that you are not raising children.

LaVonne



Greegor wrote:
LaVonne: Why is Kane so fervently ""helping"" you?

Does he think you incapable of answering yourself?

Greegor wrote to LaVonne:

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.


Kane wrote

You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?


Greg wrote

Don't you mean Political Correctness?


Kane wrote

No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.


Greg wrote

LaVonne: YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.


LaVonne wrote

Of course I did. And my point was to strongly counter a point made by
one poster that racism rarely existed 75 year ago as it does today.
Nothing politically correct or incorrect about it -- simply a fact. In
many states in 1931 black children had to attend segregated public
schools. Black people, adults and children were required to sit at the
back of the bus. Black people had to eat in "colored" restaurants and
use public restrooms designated for the coloreds. Hotels could legally
refuse to rent a room to anyone who was Black. Not only was racism
alive and well 75 years ago, it was protected by law. Laws have
changed.


Greg wrote

But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)


LaVonne wrote

And my race (whatever it may be) is relevant how?


Greg wrote

You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)


LaVonne wrote

And whether or not I am related by blood would be relevant how?


Greg wrote

You adopted them you already said.


LaVonne wrote

And if this were true, it would be relevant how?


The same way it was relevant when YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote

DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)


LaVonne wrote

Irrelevant, off topic, diversionary, and quite frankly, none of your
business. Say, how's that research hypothesis, null hypothesis and
research design coming along? Just asking, since you claimed you had a
hypothesis, yet wrote one that would have earned a failing grade for a
freshman research review paper.


Greg wrote

Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?


LaVonne wrote

I think that are totally irrelevant and inappropriate. My credentials
and my race (whatever it may be) somehow makes the research on child
development, discipline, and spanking invalid? My credentials and my
race (whatever it may be) discredits my views on parenting and spanking
that is solidly grounded in both experience and research? Whether or
not my girls are birth children is somehow related to what I have posted
about spanking and CPS, and also invalidates my experience and several
decades of published research? And the same goes for whether or not I
believe I was abused as a child?
These are totally ridiculous questions meant to do nothing but harass.


Greg wrote]

Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?


LaVonne wrote

I think your questions are meant to do nothing but harass,


I can understand how you might FEEL THAT WAY,
but then YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

LaVonne wrote

and the idea that somehow whatever race I am,
or the racial composition of my family


YOU BROUGHT IT UP!
Did you intend to use a ""sacred cow"" statement
that was ""untouchable"" to fend off any challenge?

LaVonne wrote

invalidates my posts or presents a conflict
of interest is ignorant, disgusting, and racist.


Not when you're WHITE!
AND, YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote

Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?


LaVonne wrote

Absolutely not. The idea of questioning my race


Nice try, except you're WHITE!


or the racial/biological makeup of my family because you disagree
with my posts
and have no way to counter with actual research or information is
deplorable. And irrelevant. And meant to harass.


When somebody figures out your psychology,
background or motivations, you think they are
HARASSERS, of course, Professor!

LaVonne wrote

Look what you did
with the information I posted about my girls. You ignored the post to
which I was responding, the reason I provided the information I did, and
the point that was being debated. You took the information out of
context for your personal bandwagon, and used it for personal
harassment. You are not an honest debater.


ROFL! The fact you don't want to admit to your
personal and ulterior motives makes YOU dishonest!

LaVonne wrote

I have posted what I have about my professional credentials to help
provide evidence that I am qualified for the position that I hold, and
that I am educated and trained in the fields of special education and
child development, and in the dissemination of research.


So enough, Greegor. You can continue to post your questions. This ng
is not moderated. My race and the race or biological make-up of my
family is none of your business, unless I choose to make it so.


But YOU DID! YOU BROUGHT IT UP!


I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.


I ignored your point BECAUSE your soap boxing
about the black experience had NOTHING to do
with this message thread!

You are a WHITE BREAD Minnesota ULTRALIBERAL
who adopted two black babies and even mentioned them
to prove some point particularly because you thought
it would not be questioned. Liberals are under considerable
fire lately for their use of "SACRED COW" arguments like that.

NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, when it served you,
but you never disclaimed this when you were making
comments colored by your personal bias!

Certainly the question about whether you think you
were abused as a child would blatantly pertain to
discussions about child abuse and spanking!

The fact that you STILL don't see these issues as
relevant or important to disclaim worries me
considerably considering you Profess to be
some kind of expert on research!

The cross racial adoption thing merely illustrates
just how extreme your liberalism really IS.
The ultimate in "liberal brownie points"!

Minnesota basically had to OUTLAW cross racial
adoptions because they had ultraliberals lined
up around the block wanting cross racial adoptions!

But I would warn you against trying to cash in on
your LIBERAL BROWNIE POINTS in regard to
"I adopted two black babies!" and expecting to
have the final word because of the ""SACRED COW""
the race card entails!

Please note that my complaints are not about race,
but about your USE of it as political currency.

Don't you really think that whether or not you think
you were abused as a child is a valid issue when
you propagandize about spanking or child abuse?

Ron,

Greegor's cut and slash jobs are notorious. You certainly said nothing
about racism. And while there are issues where we disagree, I suspect
we both have more agreement than disagreement when it comes to the
treatment of children.

I weanted you to know that I never believed your were racist, or said
anything about racism. This is all Greegor, and his repeatedly cut and
paste from a variety of previous posts that he believes make a
statement. And they do. A dishonest statement!

LaVonne

Ron wrote:

Please note here that Ron has said NOTHING about racisim.

Not one dam thing. So please, attribute this to the proper persons.

Ron

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...

LaVonne wrote

My children are African-American and female. Seventy five years ago
they couldn't vote or even drink out of a drinking fountain designated
for "whites." And it wasn't all that long ago that my little girls
could have been sold at a public auction like cattle.

LaVonne: I am assuming "your children" were adopted.
Your political naivety just doesn't smack of the black experience.

You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.

While I have been more directly accusing you of academic naivety,
the usual failing of academia, the "ivory tower" syndrome, etc..

You wrote a "history" so warped and twisted by YOUR AGENDA
that you really are more of a CON ARTIST than an oracle of knowledge.

It was POLEMICS, political rhetoric cast as ""education"".

Ron quite successfully refuted about EVERY item.

LaVonne:
Please explain how, in discussions about
child protection and spanking, it would be
so inappropriate for us to know whether or
not you think you think you were abused as a child?

LaVonne wrote
I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.

Did you have a right to do that,
to counter some internet "point"?
Is that good parenting?
Does that make THEM feel good?

THEN when I criticize you for using them
in that way, you say I am racist??

-----------------------------------------------------------



Carlson LaVonne wrote:
Pehaps because he thought your ridiculous comments were more worthy of
response than I did. You do get tiresome.

You took my post, slaughtered it with cuts, and responded incompletely
dishonestly based on what you chose to include. Every time you do this
discredit yourself. Fine by me.

You have said some very disturbing things, even more disturbing than in
your previous posting history. I suggest anyone reading this thread who
cares about Greegor's posting and accusations go back and reread the thread.

My race is in question, and since you have decided that I am "WHITE" --
I have no credibility. And since you have decided that I am "WHITE"
and raised 'BLACK" children, those children must be adopted (I do have a
husband, you know). And here's what you say about adoption:

"NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!"

Individuals who adopt children are a beneficiary of CPS evil deeds?
What would you like the future of children to be, when they are in the
hands of biological parents who are unfit to parent? Remember my post
about Jordan, "Better Dead that Foster Care?" Perhaps the title of the
thread should have been "Better Dead at the Hands of a Biological Parent
than being Fostered or Adopted." And she is dead, burned to death at
the hands of her biological father and his girlfriend. And what would
you like a woman to do when she cannot adequately raise a child? Kill
the child rather than place the child for adoption?

Not all biological parents are good parents. Not all foster parents are
good parents. Not all adoptive parents are good parents. But to
continue to pretend that children are always better off with biological
parents, even when the result is death, is pathological.

There was a time when your posts were humorous in their ridiculousness,
but were useful in making a point. You have now crossed the line into
racisim and pathological behavior. I see no reason to respond to more
of your posts. I can only hope that you are not raising children.

LaVonne



Greegor wrote:
LaVonne: Why is Kane so fervently ""helping"" you?

Does he think you incapable of answering yourself?

Greegor wrote to LaVonne:
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.


Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?


Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?


Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.


Greg wrote
LaVonne: YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.


LaVonne wrote
Of course I did. And my point was to strongly counter a point made by
one poster that racism rarely existed 75 year ago as it does today.
Nothing politically correct or incorrect about it -- simply a fact. In
many states in 1931 black children had to attend segregated public
schools. Black people, adults and children were required to sit at the
back of the bus. Black people had to eat in "colored" restaurants and
use public restrooms designated for the coloreds. Hotels could legally
refuse to rent a room to anyone who was Black. Not only was racism
alive and well 75 years ago, it was protected by law. Laws have
changed.

Greg wrote
But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)


LaVonne wrote
And my race (whatever it may be) is relevant how?


Greg wrote
You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)


LaVonne wrote
And whether or not I am related by blood would be relevant how?


Greg wrote
You adopted them you already said.


LaVonne wrote
And if this were true, it would be relevant how?


The same way it was relevant when YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)


LaVonne wrote
Irrelevant, off topic, diversionary, and quite frankly, none of your
business. Say, how's that research hypothesis, null hypothesis and
research design coming along? Just asking, since you claimed you had a
hypothesis, yet wrote one that would have earned a failing grade for a
freshman research review paper.


Greg wrote
Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?


LaVonne wrote
I think that are totally irrelevant and inappropriate. My credentials
and my race (whatever it may be) somehow makes the research on child
development, discipline, and spanking invalid? My credentials and my
race (whatever it may be) discredits my views on parenting and spanking
that is solidly grounded in both experience and research? Whether or
not my girls are birth children is somehow related to what I have posted
about spanking and CPS, and also invalidates my experience and several
decades of published research? And the same goes for whether or not I
believe I was abused as a child?
These are totally ridiculous questions meant to do nothing but harass.


Greg wrote
Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?


LaVonne wrote
I think your questions are meant to do nothing but harass,


I can understand how you might FEEL THAT WAY,
but then YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

LaVonne wrote
and the idea that somehow whatever race I am,
or the racial composition of my family


YOU BROUGHT IT UP!
Did you intend to use a ""sacred cow"" statement
that was ""untouchable"" to fend off any challenge?

LaVonne wrote
invalidates my posts or presents a conflict
of interest is ignorant, disgusting, and racist.


Greg wrote
Not when you're WHITE!
AND, YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?


LaVonne wrote
Absolutely not. The idea of questioning my race


Nice try, except you're WHITE!


or the racial/biological makeup of my family because you disagree
with my posts
and have no way to counter with actual research or information is
deplorable. And irrelevant. And meant to harass.


When somebody figures out your psychology,
background or motivations, you think they are
HARASSERS, of course, Professor!

LaVonne wrote
Look what you did
with the information I posted about my girls. You ignored the post to
which I was responding, the reason I provided the information I did, and
the point that was being debated. You took the information out of
context for your personal bandwagon, and used it for personal
harassment. You are not an honest debater.


ROFL! The fact you don't want to admit to your
personal and ulterior motives makes YOU dishonest!

LaVonne wrote
I have posted what I have about my professional credentials to help
provide evidence that I am qualified for the position that I hold, and
that I am educated and trained in the fields of special education and
child development, and in the dissemination of research.


So enough, Greegor. You can continue to post your questions. This ng
is not moderated. My race and the race or biological make-up of my
family is none of your business, unless I choose to make it so.


But YOU DID! YOU BROUGHT IT UP!


I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.


I ignored your point BECAUSE your soap boxing
about the black experience had NOTHING to do
with this message thread!

You are a WHITE BREAD Minnesota ULTRALIBERAL
who adopted two black babies and even mentioned them
to prove some point particularly because you thought
it would not be questioned. Liberals are under considerable
fire lately for their use of "SACRED COW" arguments like that.

NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, when it served you,
but you never disclaimed this when you were making
comments colored by your personal bias!

Certainly the question about whether you think you
were abused as a child would blatantly pertain to
discussions about child abuse and spanking!

The fact that you STILL don't see these issues as
relevant or important to disclaim worries me
considerably considering you Profess to be
some kind of expert on research!

The cross racial adoption thing merely illustrates
just how extreme your liberalism really IS.
The ultimate in "liberal brownie points"!

Minnesota basically had to OUTLAW cross racial
adoptions because they had ultraliberals lined
up around the block wanting cross racial adoptions!

But I would warn you against trying to cash in on
your LIBERAL BROWNIE POINTS in regard to
"I adopted two black babies!" and expecting to
have the final word because of the ""SACRED COW""
the race card entails!

Please note that my complaints are not about race,
but about your USE of it as political currency.

Don't you really think that whether or not you think
you were abused as a child is a valid issue when
you propagandize about spanking or child abuse?

Greegor wrote:
LaVonne:
Please explain how, in discussions about
child protection and spanking, it would be
so inappropriate for us to know whether or
not you think you think you were abused as a child?

Could you be more obtuse?

R R R R



LaVonne wrote
I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.

Did you have a right to do that,
to counter some internet "point"?

"Right?" YOU have the audacity to talk about a "right" Greg?

That's rich when you constantly lie and cite obvious propaganda sites
instead of authentic research.

Is that good parenting?

We are "parenting" here?

Well, if you insist.

Go to your room and don't come out until you can behave civilly and
honestly, Greegie.

Does that make THEM feel good?

Them?

Her daughters?

My bet is if they were the least interested in what you post you'd be a
source of amusement.

You certainly are to me.

THEN when I criticize you for using them
in that way, you say I am racist??

She used them to make a point about race as it WAS used, Greg. Past
tense. YOU want to use in the present to harass, nothing more.

Do you think that all people that adopt are using their children if they
mention them in any context?

If so, why?

Is THIS why YOU wouldn't marry your fiance' and adopt her child?

0:-


-----------------------------------------------------------



Carlson LaVonne wrote:
Pehaps because he thought your ridiculous comments were more worthy of
response than I did. You do get tiresome.

You took my post, slaughtered it with cuts, and responded incompletely
dishonestly based on what you chose to include. Every time you do this
discredit yourself. Fine by me.

You have said some very disturbing things, even more disturbing than in
your previous posting history. I suggest anyone reading this thread who
cares about Greegor's posting and accusations go back and reread the thread.

My race is in question, and since you have decided that I am "WHITE" --
I have no credibility. And since you have decided that I am "WHITE"
and raised 'BLACK" children, those children must be adopted (I do have a
husband, you know). And here's what you say about adoption:

"NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!"

Individuals who adopt children are a beneficiary of CPS evil deeds?
What would you like the future of children to be, when they are in the
hands of biological parents who are unfit to parent? Remember my post
about Jordan, "Better Dead that Foster Care?" Perhaps the title of the
thread should have been "Better Dead at the Hands of a Biological Parent
than being Fostered or Adopted." And she is dead, burned to death at
the hands of her biological father and his girlfriend. And what would
you like a woman to do when she cannot adequately raise a child? Kill
the child rather than place the child for adoption?

Not all biological parents are good parents. Not all foster parents are
good parents. Not all adoptive parents are good parents. But to
continue to pretend that children are always better off with biological
parents, even when the result is death, is pathological.

There was a time when your posts were humorous in their ridiculousness,
but were useful in making a point. You have now crossed the line into
racisim and pathological behavior. I see no reason to respond to more
of your posts. I can only hope that you are not raising children.

LaVonne



Greegor wrote:
LaVonne: Why is Kane so fervently ""helping"" you?

Does he think you incapable of answering yourself?
Greegor wrote to LaVonne:
You seem more like an extreme ultraliberal who adopted two black
babies because of the "liberal brownie points" they can claim.


Kane wrote
You haven't any morals or ethics at all, do you, Greg?


Greg wrote
Don't you mean Political Correctness?


Kane wrote
No. Are you reading impaired as well as morally and ethically impaired?
Or do you believe that that's what morals and ethics are, simply
"Political Correctness?" [sic]
I've known a lot of white people that have adopted black and other
minority or mixed race babies. Their own kin.
I don't recall them trying to be politically correct.


Greg wrote
LaVonne: YOU brought up these black babies to prove a point.


LaVonne wrote
Of course I did. And my point was to strongly counter a point made by
one poster that racism rarely existed 75 year ago as it does today.
Nothing politically correct or incorrect about it -- simply a fact. In
many states in 1931 black children had to attend segregated public
schools. Black people, adults and children were required to sit at the
back of the bus. Black people had to eat in "colored" restaurants and
use public restrooms designated for the coloreds. Hotels could legally
refuse to rent a room to anyone who was Black. Not only was racism
alive and well 75 years ago, it was protected by law. Laws have
changed.

Greg wrote
But you're white as SNOW, right? (1)


LaVonne wrote
And my race (whatever it may be) is relevant how?


Greg wrote
You have no blood relationship to them, right? (2)


LaVonne wrote
And whether or not I am related by blood would be relevant how?


Greg wrote
You adopted them you already said.


LaVonne wrote
And if this were true, it would be relevant how?


The same way it was relevant when YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
DO you believe you were abused as a child? (3)


LaVonne wrote
Irrelevant, off topic, diversionary, and quite frankly, none of your
business. Say, how's that research hypothesis, null hypothesis and
research design coming along? Just asking, since you claimed you had a
hypothesis, yet wrote one that would have earned a failing grade for a
freshman research review paper.


Greg wrote
Doctor LaVonne Carlson:
DO YOU really think these are unfair or
inappropriate questions given your presentations
about spanking and Child Protective Services?


LaVonne wrote
I think that are totally irrelevant and inappropriate. My credentials
and my race (whatever it may be) somehow makes the research on child
development, discipline, and spanking invalid? My credentials and my
race (whatever it may be) discredits my views on parenting and spanking
that is solidly grounded in both experience and research? Whether or
not my girls are birth children is somehow related to what I have posted
about spanking and CPS, and also invalidates my experience and several
decades of published research? And the same goes for whether or not I
believe I was abused as a child?
These are totally ridiculous questions meant to do nothing but harass.


Greg wrote
Do you seriously think that honest answers
to these questions are not appropriate to
judging the MOTIVATIONS and conflicts
of interest you may have regarding issues
you expound about?


LaVonne wrote
I think your questions are meant to do nothing but harass,


I can understand how you might FEEL THAT WAY,
but then YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

LaVonne wrote
and the idea that somehow whatever race I am,
or the racial composition of my family


YOU BROUGHT IT UP!
Did you intend to use a ""sacred cow"" statement
that was ""untouchable"" to fend off any challenge?

LaVonne wrote
invalidates my posts or presents a conflict
of interest is ignorant, disgusting, and racist.


Greg wrote
Not when you're WHITE!
AND, YOU BROUGHT IT UP!

Greg wrote
Don't you think that while your professional
credentials can be swung around to support
your positions, wouldn't some of these
background facts be of even MORE weight
in regard to your opinion and expertise?


LaVonne wrote
Absolutely not. The idea of questioning my race


Nice try, except you're WHITE!


or the racial/biological makeup of my family because you disagree
with my posts
and have no way to counter with actual research or information is
deplorable. And irrelevant. And meant to harass.


When somebody figures out your psychology,
background or motivations, you think they are
HARASSERS, of course, Professor!

LaVonne wrote
Look what you did
with the information I posted about my girls. You ignored the post to
which I was responding, the reason I provided the information I did, and
the point that was being debated. You took the information out of
context for your personal bandwagon, and used it for personal
harassment. You are not an honest debater.


ROFL! The fact you don't want to admit to your
personal and ulterior motives makes YOU dishonest!

LaVonne wrote
I have posted what I have about my professional credentials to help
provide evidence that I am qualified for the position that I hold, and
that I am educated and trained in the fields of special education and
child development, and in the dissemination of research.


So enough, Greegor. You can continue to post your questions. This ng
is not moderated. My race and the race or biological make-up of my
family is none of your business, unless I choose to make it so.


But YOU DID! YOU BROUGHT IT UP!


I choose to reveal the race of my girls to counter
a point that you twisted and disregarded.


I ignored your point BECAUSE your soap boxing
about the black experience had NOTHING to do
with this message thread!

You are a WHITE BREAD Minnesota ULTRALIBERAL
who adopted two black babies and even mentioned them
to prove some point particularly because you thought
it would not be questioned. Liberals are under considerable
fire lately for their use of "SACRED COW" arguments like that.

NO WONDER you spewed such negative puke
about biological parents and glowing comments
for the nitwit Child Protection agencies even when
they actually CAUSE HARM!

You are a BENEFICIARY of their evil deeds, an adopter!

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, when it served you,
but you never disclaimed this when you were making
comments colored by your personal bias!

Certainly the question about whether you think you
were abused as a child would blatantly pertain to
discussions about child abuse and spanking!

The fact that you STILL don't see these issues as
relevant or important to disclaim worries me
considerably considering you Profess to be
some kind of expert on research!

The cross racial adoption thing merely illustrates
just how extreme your liberalism really IS.
The ultimate in "liberal brownie points"!

Minnesota basically had to OUTLAW cross racial
adoptions because they had ultraliberals lined
up around the block wanting cross racial adoptions!

But I would warn you against trying to cash in on
your LIBERAL BROWNIE POINTS in regard to
"I adopted two black babies!" and expecting to
have the final word because of the ""SACRED COW""
the race card entails!

Please note that my complaints are not about race,
but about your USE of it as political currency.

Don't you really think that whether or not you think
you were abused as a child is a valid issue when
you propagandize about spanking or child abuse?



--
"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 (or someone else)

Kane wrote
Is THIS why YOU wouldn't marry your fiance' and adopt her child?

Do you honestly think it would be a good idea
to try to adopt in the middle of a CPS case?

While a fictional ""sex abuse history""
is maintained in the records?

Wouldn't that be a bad time to try for adoption?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Is THIS why YOU wouldn't marry your fiance' and adopt her child?

Do you honestly think it would be a good idea
to try to adopt in the middle of a CPS case?

You are ignorant of 'tense,' Greg?

While a fictional ""sex abuse history""
is maintained in the records?

Before the child was removed, Greg?

Wouldn't that be a bad time to try for adoption?

Now would be. Yes sir ee.

But back when you were the devoted step boyfriend, and domestic partner,
doing child care as you planned your lives together?

Can't help but be curious about why you did not marry then and adopt.

Oh well.

No law says you have to.

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 (or someone else)