David Moore, step DOWN ...

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.
Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from
Florida, stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.
Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?
This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!
Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.
Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!
Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at
all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to
establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words
of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was
put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested,
2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved
that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll
and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated
to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of
number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the
name of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White
test showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say.

"Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN
conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for
when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for
Molestation.



If XC leads to y then C is m

If XC leads to Y then C is n

Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls.

And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested.







To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive
replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool.

I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman
of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to
know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the
SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is
NOT likely to have been molested.

LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!"

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.
Kane wrote
I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that
crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off
that cross he had you nailed so securely to.
Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research?
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire
deprived. My apologies.

Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together?
The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the
master debater, from the central region.

And and answers thusly:

Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you
are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo.

I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme
Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children
LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones!
All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's
blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that
the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was
molested, and vice versa.

While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what
his claim IS.

Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you.

He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that
the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption.

High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest.

Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so.

ROFL!
I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences
and have this moment of jollity and comic relief.

I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me.

Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will.

R R R R R R R R R

Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this
Homage to his great analytical skills.

Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud:

Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers
sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents.

You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind
of dumb puds they are.

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one!
And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding
with you, and telling the truth will increase it.

Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you
used and agreed with you? ;-)

You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it."

Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An
attempt to deceive.

I am not saying anything but what I said. I said that you told the
truth. "Method" doesn't matter to the point made.

I said you sometimes lie, mostly in fact. If you do it again then you
become the usual boorish child you aspire to be most of the time. Not
worth replying to. Truth gets you attention.

If you disagree don't ask a question. Say how you disagree.

Otherwise, yawn it's the same old tricks of lying by questioning to
divert, mislead, and deceive. You were not asking for clarification.
That's a deception of yours.

Thats why this will not be accepted as an opening to have a discussion.

Deception, I'm gone. Honest discussion without resorting to this or any
other kind of deceptive ****, and I'll be happy to treat you civilly and
more.

Tsk. And tah for now.


Doan

No, I did not say that Correlation and the X leads to Y was the only
conclusion that could be drawn. But when you have a choice, as the title
provided, you look further support for a cause meaning existed anywhere.

post hoc ergo proctor hoc, as to my being right. Silly science used a
proof is poor science indeed.

I deliberately created silly science out of silly science, as one cannot
do otherwise.

There is a slight chance Ken understood and described the test and
outcome and the correlation claimed, but I doubt it, given his record so
far.

If he was right, I am right. If he is not one or more of the elements
would be wrong thus the entire premise would be wrong.

I doubt it would be a tight enough result to trust it even for field
trials with human subjects under actual case circumstances.

All it would give would be a correlation and a statistic, thus a a
probability, not proof of molest or not proof of molest.

It could be part, but only part, of an investigation, couple with other
valid investigative techniques.

It's almost not worth bothering with. Though for actual interviewing
with older children, say six up to early teens, where children can be
shy about naming or pointing to their own body parts, a model would be
useful.

Not as proof the child was molested but in HOW they were molested.

And yes, though I don't pretend to expertise in SAC dolls...I already
told Ken I do have, I do know enough to discuss the use and techniques,
concepts and possible appropriate uses failure intelligently.

The heavy lifting has to be left up to social scientists at this point
and the research has been poor, including, I believe, the one Ken refers
to. He WANTS it to be good science. Because it gave the outcome he wanted.

Personally I'm always thrilled almost beyond speaking to find my own
biases disproved. It's fun to learn new stuff, and very boring to keep
recycling the old, no matter how "proven" it may appear to be.

On the rare instances you have come close it's always been refreshing.

But I find your propensity to manipulate my comments, even to the point
of lying about what I have claimed, and leaving out my corrections
totally unproductive to debate.

And I'm sorry to say you have proved to be totally untrustworthy when
I've asked you, and thought you agreed to debate, and began lying again,
almost in the next breath.

No, we are out of debate. Pleasant or unpleasant chats are all you get.
I won't continue to be suckered forever as I struggle to operate
factually and in honesty against a determinedly dishonest man, Doan.
Enough. You win by cheating.

Trust noting, always test. You've been tested enough. You are
untrustworthy to a fault. Don't even pretend you actually wish to debate
again.

Kane
Quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.



Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search

As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right?

Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags".

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37
seconds)
Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm
Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the
.... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any
validity or ...
www.allencowling.com/false15.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
IPT Journal - "Child Hearsay Vs The Confrontation Clause: Can The ... -
4:01pm
The second problem with the use of SAC dolls is that there are no
published ... The dolls totally lack scientific validity; for years, all
attempts by ...
www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_4_2.htm - 116k - Cached - Similar
pages
one - 4:31pm
He reacted strongly to the SAC(CR)'s ?doubts as to the validity of the
findings of Bradford Hill and Doll. I find it difficult to understand on
what ...
www.denialdelay.org.uk/one.htm - 95k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF]
Page 1 46 Ohio St. 3d 108, *; 545 N.E.2d 1220, **; THE STATE OF ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
play with the SAC dolls n8 in a sexually precocious. manner, heard Cynthia
use slang terms for ... cases still may have some limited validity but the
rule ...
briefcase8.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/Boston.pdf - Similar pages
essays research papers -- Summer Of 17th Doll Review
Year 12 Literature SAC Summer Of The Seventeenth Doll ... the invalidity
of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions of this ...
www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=87655 - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
ASIS International: Glossary - S
The warrant is made valid for only a certain limited period of time. ...
sexually anatomically correct (SAC) doll - a doll with parts that
represent ...
www.asisonline.org/library/glossary/s.xml - 110k - Cached - Similar pages
Mackenzie,L
The gene coding for the SAC has not yet been identified. ... Validity of
self-reported injuries as a result of a fall was less accurate (71%
agreement; ...
lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Mackenzie,L - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF]
Emphasis Type="Italic"Uvitellina indica/Emphasis n. sp ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
are considered here as valid, although DOLLFUS. (1948) considers the
latter as a subgenus of ... sac shaped, enclosed in a cirrus sac;
ejaculatory ...
www.springerlink.com/index/X529156830437443.pdf - Similar pages
[PDF]
Emphasis Type="Italic"Echinoparyphium elegans/Emphasis (Looss ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
we suggest that the position of the cirrus sac rela-. tive to that of the
acetabulum is not a valid criterion. for the differentiation of species.
....
www.springerlink.com/index/T88N620T24134651.pdf - Similar pages
[ More results from www.springerlink.com ]
Phys. Rev. A 48, 1573 (1993): Staliunas - Laser Ginzburg-Landau ...
Equation (2) is valid near the laser threshold: the derivation of the ...
A F2A (12) and correspondingly for the LGLE: a=
[(DOll(r)-Dth)(1+i[3)+i42(r)]A +id ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.48.1573 - Similar pages

Result Page:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next

Doan

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.
Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from
Florida, stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.
Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?
This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!
Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.
Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!
Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at
all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to
establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words
of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was
put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested,
2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved
that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll
and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated
to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of
number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the
name of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White
test showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say.

"Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN
conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for
when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for
Molestation.



If XC leads to y then C is m

If XC leads to Y then C is n

Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls.

And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested.







To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive
replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool.

I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman
of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to
know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the
SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is
NOT likely to have been molested.

LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!"

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.
Kane wrote
I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that
crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off
that cross he had you nailed so securely to.
Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research?
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire
deprived. My apologies.

Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together?
The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the
master debater, from the central region.

And and answers thusly:

Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you
are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo.

I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme
Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children
LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones!
All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's
blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that
the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was
molested, and vice versa.

While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what
his claim IS.

Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you.

He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that
the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption.

High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest.

Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so.

ROFL!
I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences
and have this moment of jollity and comic relief.

I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me.

Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will.

R R R R R R R R R

Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this
Homage to his great analytical skills.

Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud:

Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers
sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents.

You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind
of dumb puds they are.

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one!
And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding
with you, and telling the truth will increase it.

Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you
used and agreed with you? ;-)

You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it."

Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An
attempt to deceive.

Exactly! I attempt to deceive by acting just LIKE YOU! We are now
agreeing that I am, by imitating you, a LIAR! Q.E.D!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:
(snip)

Could you tell me what SAC dolls are, Ron?

Thanks,

Doan

Sure, love to.

http://www.amamantafamily.com/Amaman...ls_history.htm

http://www.amamantafamily.com/anatom..._doll_uses.htm

There is as usual some controversy concerning the use of SAC dolls, but its
rarely about the dolls themselves but the training and conclusions of the
professional using them. I find them distasteful myself, but can see the
validity of their use in many areas. I don't buy all that the links above
try and sell you on, but then again I am a Traditionalist where child
rearing is concerned.

Ron

Thanks, Ron. I will look them up. What do you mean by a "Traditionalist"
in child rearing? Don't tell me you spanked you kids, Ron? You are
a child-abusing bully, Ron!

I see you are terrified Ron and I might be reasonable in debate, Doan.

Why is that I wonder. );-]

You going to drop me a line with non-spank in it and suggest that Ron
thinks I'm a rapid accuser of spanking parents?

With Ron you'd have to prove it. And even then he'd maintain his
position of not engaging in the debate.

As I would with him.

So, little child, you are ****ed.

Doan

And boring. And the worst sin of all in debate, and social relations,
obvious.

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.
Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from
Florida, stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.
Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?
This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!
Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.
Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!
Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at
all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to
establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words
of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was
put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested,
2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved
that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll
and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated
to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of
number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the
name of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White
test showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say.

"Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN
conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for
when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for
Molestation.



If XC leads to y then C is m

If XC leads to Y then C is n

Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls.

And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested.







To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive
replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool.

I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman
of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to
know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the
SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is
NOT likely to have been molested.

LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!"

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.
Kane wrote
I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that
crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down off
that cross he had you nailed so securely to.
Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research?
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire
deprived. My apologies.

Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed together?
The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the
master debater, from the central region.

And and answers thusly:

Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you
are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo.

I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme
Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children
LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones!
All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's
blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that
the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was
molested, and vice versa.

While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what
his claim IS.

Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you.

He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that
the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption.

High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest.

Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so.

ROFL!
I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences
and have this moment of jollity and comic relief.

I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me.

Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will.

R R R R R R R R R

Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this
Homage to his great analytical skills.

Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud:

Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers
sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents.

You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind
of dumb puds they are.

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane

Kane is RIGHT on this one!
And here's proof that lying will reduce my interest in corresponding
with you, and telling the truth will increase it.

Are you saying that I am lying when I used the same method of proof you
used and agreed with you? ;-)
You ignored "and telling the truth will increase it."

Your question is in the form of a supposition that creates a lie. An
attempt to deceive.

Exactly! I attempt to deceive by acting just LIKE YOU! We are now
agreeing that I am, by imitating you, a LIAR! Q.E.D!

Quid latine dictim sit, altum videtur.

yawn



Doan

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.

I find this SOOOO exciting!

I bet NOT!

You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?

You simply ASTOUND me Kane! You REALLY do! It just few over your head
at warp factor 23.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

IF you are a FUKKKKKKKKKKING IDIOT yes!

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.

IF you are a drolling FOOL, I'd suppose somebody as totally SIMPLE
minded as you might do just that!

And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.

Only for a MORON.

Do you have a link to this information as prime source?
Or even a scientific or professional periodical (I'm not even insisting
on the peer reviewed research itself)?

Yes But I am NOT sharing it with you! I alread have with others.

This, Ken, is your big chance.

What? To waste more time?

Don't muff it.

I'm sending this to a listserve for researchers that is hosted by
Cornell U. that includes people such as Straus and David Finkelhor,
Professor at University of New Hampshire.

This could be Big Ken, really big.

I am sure they are aware of it Kane. Since it isn't exactly a new study.
It's is also the platform by wich almost EVERY state has rejected the SAC
dolls as evidence. Do you have a CLUE as to the "White" protocol?

You draw truly IDIOTIC conclusions from evidence placed in front of you.
In this case all that was really established is that the things you get from
SAC dolls are unreliable data. YOU want to draw granite level conclusions.
YOUI rather NEED a black and white world. But then, that's because you
function in life as an absolutist.

Do you know WHO runs the Cornel LIST?????? A DIM clue?

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.

Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?

This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!

You'd expect an IDIOT to find HARTD evidence within a false field. IF he
has an IQ in the LOW teens!

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.

Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!

BRILLIANT isn't he?

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.


SIGH

I wonder how many times Kane's momma dropped him on his head from that
tall building?

"0:-" wrote in message
...


Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.

Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida,
stupid.

You are doing a great job of kicking your own ass, you need NO outside
help. Never took a course in statistical analysis have you? Here is a CLUE -
YALE CHILD STUDIES CENTER!!!!!!

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual
molested
kids gave the lowest.

Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?

This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!

Okay, watch, dummy.

Okay.

Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all.
I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish
what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

No - weenie - ALL I pointed out that the STUDIES prove is the
UNRELIABILITY of the SAC Dolls in proving their common interpretation. As
expected your reading skills and cognitive skills SUCK Kane. YOU being the
little dogmatic asshole that you ARE want to draw rigid conclusions from
anything placed in front of you. The studies as I posited them stand ONLY
for the premise that the RESPONSES one associated with the "WHITE PROTOCOL"
are unreliable as to PROVING that abuse did occur. The entire issue is well
beyond your ability to understand.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of
The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put
to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd
known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids
gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times

Do you know what the "WHITE PROTOCOL" is? Let's forget for a moment
that YOU draw a completely INVALID conclusion from the data. But being the
RIGID asshole and dumbass you are, that's to be expected that you'd take the
information where no man has gone before.

They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that
high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

No Kane I did NOT say that, and that ABSURD conclusion is something that
only people like YOU woudl draw.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and
nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to
LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

WHOA - I didn't say that. Neither did the authors of the study I
referred to say that. The data stands ONLY from the propsition that the
protocol is INVALID! Only some weak minded MORON would take ot to the region
in outer space YOU do.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,


No - let "X" equal your IQ.

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.

Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from Florida,
stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to
have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned
was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual
molested
kids gave the lowest.

Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no abuse,
right?

This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!

Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.

Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!

Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at all.
I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to establish
what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words of
The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was put
to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested, 2nd
known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested kids
gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7 times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved that
high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll and
nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated to
LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of number
of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the name
of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White test
showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

It AIN'T unresolved issue Kane. The law REJECTS their use in courts!


To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

Kan you are truly an ILL man.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the SAC
doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is NOT
likely to have been molested.


The "KANE" test. It is 100% in YOUR mind Kane.

"Doan" wrote in message
...

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane


Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ls&btnG=Search

As you can see, I have 23,000 thousands proof that Kane is right?

Read them and weep you "****-sucking", "assholes" and "scumbags".

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 23,000 for validity SAC dolls. (0.37
seconds)
Anatomically Correct Dolls in False Allegation Cases - 2:49pm
Although the sexually anatomical dolls, SAC Dolls, are widely used in the
... of the dolls with children have failed to produce evidence for any
validity or ...

I am enjoying Kane whipping the **** out of his straw dog. If I had
intended that one draw the IDIOTIC conclusion Kane draws from my reference
to a study that showed the UNRELIABILITY of the responses in using the Dolls
I would have included such a claim in my post. I didn't! Kane makes his
insane argument and now foams at the mouth trying to defeat his own stupid
argument. My point was that the researchers concludes only that the SAC
dolls were "UNRELIABLE" and not the absolutely INSANE place Kane has
traveled to. Let's Rename him JAMES TIBERIUS KANE! Of the Starship
Absurdity!

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Kane's slipped a cog and has various issues all mixed into a mental
stew.

Watch this poor mentally stewed old man kick our ass to and from
Florida, stupid.

Ken wrote:
I even gave an example where the use of SAC dolls according to the
"White Protocol" was put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known
to have
been molested, 2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was
learned was
that the NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of
respones
that according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual
molested
kids gave the lowest.

Kane's response:
I find this SOOOO exciting!
You do not see the possibility to change the correlation test to then
use LOW positive responses as an indicator of ACTUAL ABUSE? And high
responses as an indicator of the accused person's innocence, no
abuse,
right?

This is HILARIOUS! Since the test indicates falsely, use it IN
REVERSE!

Okay, watch, dummy.

Doubtless this confounds you, but it's quite simple. If you have
sorted
the target group to interview, and you KNOW a condition exists, in
one
and not the other, say X, and all or significant numbers
statistically
produce Y, then you KNOW that the Z, their responses, if consistent,
indicate X (molested or not molested).

So, those children who show fewer number of responses to the SAC doll
use interviews would most assuredly be the children that WERE
molested.
And those that showed higher numbers of responses would indicate a
positive indication of NOT having been molested.

Yep, Kane suggests using the test in REVERSE! That's OUR Kane!

Actually, Our Dip**** Greg, that is not really what I'm suggesting at
all. I suggesting we use the Pangborn Variation of SAC Doll use to
establish what HE claimed and apply it in the field. It's perfect.

Everybody, read out loud, but respectfully, because these are the words
of The KEN: "the use of SAC dolls according to the "White Protocol" was
put to the test. 3 groups of kids. First known to have been molested,
2nd known NOT to be and a control group. What was learned was that the
NON-abused kids gave the highest (significantly) number of response that
according to White indicate sexual abuse, while the actual molested
kids gave the lowest.." genuflect... mumble the Kendra absolution 7
times


They key here provided by Him blessed by his name as "Non-abused kids
gave the highest number of responses that someone else claimed indicate
sexual abuse...but of course now we know White was WRONG, but proved
that high responses come from, statistically, THE CHILDREN NOT MOLESTED.

Do you SEE what we have here, Greg? Do you, huh? Say something. Droll
and nod, anything to indicate that Ken has shown us by using, presumably
because he believes it, that HIGH reactively to SAC dolls is correlated
to LOW INCIDENCE OF MOLESTATION.

And of course he also said the converse it true....low incidence of
number of reactions correlates to HIGH PROBABILITY OF MOLESTATION.

It appears Ken has used what HE claims is a valid CAUSAL LOGIC TOOL to
look at this experiment he is describing to prove the SAC dolls don't
work. (I've asked for a link but he's being coy about that).

So let's assume Ken the research analyst is correct. Blessed by the
name of The Ken

Assume the child is C.

Let X equal SAC doll Test,

Let Y equal high reactivity to the dolls and

y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let M equal molested children, and n the non-molested.

Those are the outcomes of the test. Ken bbHn opines that the White
test showed that Y results in n and y results in M.

Have YOU ever seen a more elegant solution to this long standing
unresolved issue over SAC doll use?

Why the attorneys didn't think of it I cannot say.

"Your honor, esteemed members of the Jury, it has been SHOWN
conclusively (we call that causal) that my client cannot be guilty, for
when subjected to the SAC Doll Pangborn Variable Control Test for
Molestation.



If XC leads to y then C is m

If XC leads to Y then C is n

Let X equal SAC doll Test, Y equal high reactivity to the dolls.

And let y equal low reactivity to the dolls.

Let m equal molested children, and n the non-molested.







To reiterate, the molested child tests the dolls by interacting low
numbers of times. He has been molested, not just because we know it
because that IS his reactions according to Ken. MAN is he brilliant.

The non-molested child tests the dolls by interacting a high number of
times. We know he's not molested and the outcome as Ken says, proves the
doll use showed consistence....we like to say correlation mmmmmmph, to
them not having been molested.

So, we now, if Ken is right, and at some future point we run positive
replications, with a positive peer review we have a tool.

I can hear it now. Johnny Cochran on "You HONOR, Ladies and gentleman
of the JURY, I know that you will go with the flow and show and grow to
know my client, Georgie Handsome, could NOT be guilty.

The seven year old female accuser has been evaluated -right after we
showered her- by the 'Pangborn Test Sac Doll Variation for Sexual
Molestation, or PTSDVATSM (not to be confused with, though it sometimes
is, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Via Sucking Monkeysbutts' and the
results were that the child had a high number of interactions with the
SAC doll. Hence, you know our Beloved KEN's boHhH formula shows both
Cccccause AND Ccccccorrelation that such an outcome means the child is
NOT likely to have been molested.

LAGOTJ, Set my GEORGIE FREEEEEEEE!"

It could be highly useful to replicate a few times, if possible, to
have a new model for proper use of dolls as interview tools.

Kane wrote
I sooo want you to have some success, and be able to lay down that
crown of thorns Moore placed upon your saintly head, and climb down
off
that cross he had you nailed so securely to.

Kane blended the Moore harassment crap into this research?

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to confuse the irony disabled, and satire
deprived. My apologies.

Point of order! Why are these two unconnected issued mashed
together?

The esteemed debater from the west side of the continent yield to the
master debater, from the central region.

And and answers thusly:

Because Ken is a lying piece of dried horse **** roasted by you and you
are going to eat him before I'm done with you, kiddo.

I would love to see the look on the face of a Judge or a State Supreme
Court as some Social Work idiot tries to explain how the children
LESS inclined to point at their ""parts"" are the abused ones!

All they have to do, my learned opponent, is read and believe Ken's
blessed be his name claim that there is a causal test that showed that
the more reactivity the less likely statistically the child was
molested, and vice versa.

While I kid around with you and the readers, kiddo, that IS exactly what
his claim IS.

Go and read it carefully, and have you mom explain it to you.

He made affirmative statements of what the test showed and that was that
the White Protocol is false and reversed the White assumption.

High numbers of reaction, statistical product -- no molest.

Low numbers product, high molest. Ken said so.


ROFL!

I know. Me too. Nice we could put aside our ethical conflict differences
and have this moment of jollity and comic relief.

I do so love 'debating' the brilliant ones you set up for me.

Now do something about that DIE! DIE! DIE! thing, if you will.

R R R R R R R R R

Just try to think about what Ken's thinking and feeling as he reads this
Homage to his great analytical skills.

Dear Ken, how to NOT be a dumb pud:

Well, start with not being one in the past. Then don't let strangers
sucker into thinking you can run a number for them on their opponents.

You brand yourself by your association with them as being the same kind
of dumb puds they are.

Now go thank Doan and Greg and be glad you have a way out of here.

If you can stop being a dumb pud and think of it.

Hint: try admitting you ****ed up and apologize.
Hint two: you might try cutting down on the adrenaline driven ranting.
It just might let your brain work again.


Kane


Kane is RIGHT on this one! Again, admitting that I have no clue on
on this issue, I attempted to do a google search on the validity
of SAC dolls (whatever that is). Here are the results:


Doan admitted that Kane is right on something?

Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, Uhhhhh, does not compute.


Sarcasm sails over you head does it RONNIE? Are you the "SCIENCE OFFICER"
on Captain James T. Kane's Star Ship Absurdity? Live long and prosper that
Spook!