Being a 21st Century Pro-Spanker

Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957 studied the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to land on Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced deadline came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked if they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE! Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998), where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957 studied the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to land on Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced deadline came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE! Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998), where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one that would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when they just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence proffered and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if fact
they did so.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he pointed out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere, just back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating. All you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered to the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
.... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus & Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
.... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like: == 1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3) Time-out
....
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3 authors

A Definition of Spanking
.... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
.... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these
....
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
.... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
.... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked looks at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25 authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
.... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
.... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger correlation for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
...............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the four were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into the next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS IN PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source you could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking away from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE" but in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply disturbed sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957 studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

LOL! Are you still claiming that you have a copy of the Embry study?
And who are the three persons that you claimed to have sent copies
to? ;-)

Doan


On 17 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE! Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998), where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one that would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when they just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence proffered and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if fact
they did so.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he pointed out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere, just back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating. All you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered to the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus & Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like: == 1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3) Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3 authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked looks at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25 authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger correlation for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the four were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into the next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS IN PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source you could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking away from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE" but in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply disturbed sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957 studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

Doan wrote:
LOL! Are you still claiming that you have a copy of the Embry study?

Sure. LOL! Not that that is relevant. You having one is.

You said you wanted to debate Embry and challenged me. I invited you to
prove you had a copy, then I would be happy to. So far, dancing is all
yah got, "Alina." Or is it "Aline?"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group
http://tinyurl.com/9lq8w

A visit to the threads and discussion from the link above will show you
are a liar.

I don't debate dancers. Thanks anyway.

And who are the three persons that you claimed to have sent copies
to? ;-)

What has that to do with debating Embry? I sent one to "Alina." She
loved it.

Didn't she tell you? R R R R .... we debated it backchannel for weeks.
0;-

I thought you and she were in an e-mail exchange.

Or would this exchange between us, you attributed in my posted reply,
help explain what you are and how you operate?

http://tinyurl.com/d5c5t

R R R

Go away little boy. Dancing around the edge of the debate, issuing
"dares" gives a very clear picture, along with defending a plagiarist,
of what you are and how you operate.

A little kid. And I dare you to prove otherwise. R R R R


Doan

You can't answer The Question, and you can't prove you have the Embry
study.

What's to debate?

I don't dance the spastic monkey dance, thanks. But it's fun watching
you do it.

If, and when you grow up, come on back and challenge me again on the
Embry study, and be prepared to answer my questions for proof the first
time I ask them, or be marked as still retarded and locked into about
age 7 in your psychological development, child.

You still don't have it, and I know you don't because I am, outside of
the author, the only one that has a copy.

0;-

On 17 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked
if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are
any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE!
Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998),
where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one that
would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't
honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off
screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when they
just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is
evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying
debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a
dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying
bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence proffered
and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if fact
they did so.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he pointed
out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere, just
back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the
others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating. All
you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered to
the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this
claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus &
Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like: ==
1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3)
Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child
to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was
found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3 authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the
child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked looks
at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room
3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25
authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking
to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger correlation
for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the four
were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into the
next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS IN
PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source you
could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking away
from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying
even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE" but
in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply disturbed
sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957
studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to
land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced
deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a
strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a
belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose
further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable
actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will
happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more
convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

LOL!

Doan


On 18 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan wrote:
LOL! Are you still claiming that you have a copy of the Embry study?

Sure. LOL! Not that that is relevant. You having one is.

You said you wanted to debate Embry and challenged me. I invited you to
prove you had a copy, then I would be happy to. So far, dancing is all
yah got, "Alina." Or is it "Aline?"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group
http://tinyurl.com/9lq8w

A visit to the threads and discussion from the link above will show you
are a liar.

I don't debate dancers. Thanks anyway.

And who are the three persons that you claimed to have sent copies
to? ;-)

What has that to do with debating Embry? I sent one to "Alina." She
loved it.

Didn't she tell you? R R R R .... we debated it backchannel for weeks.
0;-

I thought you and she were in an e-mail exchange.

Or would this exchange between us, you attributed in my posted reply,
help explain what you are and how you operate?

http://tinyurl.com/d5c5t

R R R

Go away little boy. Dancing around the edge of the debate, issuing
"dares" gives a very clear picture, along with defending a plagiarist,
of what you are and how you operate.

A little kid. And I dare you to prove otherwise. R R R R


Doan

You can't answer The Question, and you can't prove you have the Embry
study.

What's to debate?

I don't dance the spastic monkey dance, thanks. But it's fun watching
you do it.

If, and when you grow up, come on back and challenge me again on the
Embry study, and be prepared to answer my questions for proof the first
time I ask them, or be marked as still retarded and locked into about
age 7 in your psychological development, child.

You still don't have it, and I know you don't because I am, outside of
the author, the only one that has a copy.

0;-

On 17 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked
if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are
any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE!
Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998),
where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one that
would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't
honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off
screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when they
just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is
evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying
debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a
dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying
bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence proffered
and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if fact
they did so.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he pointed
out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere, just
back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the
others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating. All
you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered to
the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this
claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus &
Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like: ==
1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3)
Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child
to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was
found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3 authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the
child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked looks
at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room
3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25
authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking
to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger correlation
for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the four
were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into the
next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS IN
PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source you
could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking away
from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying
even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE" but
in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply disturbed
sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957
studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to
land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced
deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a
strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a
belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose
further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable
actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will
happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more
convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

Dancing won't releave the sweating...didn't you know that? LOL!


Doan wrote:
LOL!

Doan


On 18 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan wrote:
LOL! Are you still claiming that you have a copy of the Embry
study?

Sure. LOL! Not that that is relevant. You having one is.

You said you wanted to debate Embry and challenged me. I invited
you to
prove you had a copy, then I would be happy to. So far, dancing is
all
yah got, "Alina." Or is it "Aline?"


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group
http://tinyurl.com/9lq8w

A visit to the threads and discussion from the link above will show
you
are a liar.

I don't debate dancers. Thanks anyway.

And who are the three persons that you claimed to have sent
copies
to? ;-)

What has that to do with debating Embry? I sent one to "Alina." She
loved it.

Didn't she tell you? R R R R .... we debated it backchannel for
weeks.
0;-

I thought you and she were in an e-mail exchange.

Or would this exchange between us, you attributed in my posted
reply,
help explain what you are and how you operate?

http://tinyurl.com/d5c5t

R R R

Go away little boy. Dancing around the edge of the debate, issuing
"dares" gives a very clear picture, along with defending a
plagiarist,
of what you are and how you operate.

A little kid. And I dare you to prove otherwise. R R R R


Doan

You can't answer The Question, and you can't prove you have the
Embry
study.

What's to debate?

I don't dance the spastic monkey dance, thanks. But it's fun
watching
you do it.

If, and when you grow up, come on back and challenge me again on
the
Embry study, and be prepared to answer my questions for proof the
first
time I ask them, or be marked as still retarded and locked into
about
age 7 in your psychological development, child.

You still don't have it, and I know you don't because I am, outside
of
the author, the only one that has a copy.

0;-

On 17 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When
asked
if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives
are
any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE!
Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina
(1998),
where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger
relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive
Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of
children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one
that
would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer
the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't
honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off
screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when
they
just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is
evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying
debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a
dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying
bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence
proffered
and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if
fact
they did so.



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he
pointed
out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere,
just
back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did
indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the
others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating.
All
you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered
to
the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this
claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus &
Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out
4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like:
==
1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3)
Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child
to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was
found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3
authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking
to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the
child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent
the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a
much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking
to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked
looks
at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the
room
3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25
authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1)
Talking
to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of
privileges
All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger
correlation
for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused
to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the
four
were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into
the
next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS
IN
PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my
offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You
lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source
you
could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded
with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking
away
from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying
even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE"
but
in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate
with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your
stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply
disturbed
sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you
got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957
studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to
land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced
deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a
strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in
his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the
most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a
belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose
further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable
actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will
happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more
convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a
new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

And lying won't RELIEVE your sweating... didn't you know that? LOL!

Doan

On 18 Apr 2005 wrote:

Dancing won't releave the sweating...didn't you know that? LOL!


Doan wrote:
LOL!

Doan


On 18 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan wrote:
LOL! Are you still claiming that you have a copy of the Embry
study?

Sure. LOL! Not that that is relevant. You having one is.

You said you wanted to debate Embry and challenged me. I invited
you to
prove you had a copy, then I would be happy to. So far, dancing is
all
yah got, "Alina." Or is it "Aline?"


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group
http://tinyurl.com/9lq8w

A visit to the threads and discussion from the link above will show
you
are a liar.

I don't debate dancers. Thanks anyway.

And who are the three persons that you claimed to have sent
copies
to? ;-)

What has that to do with debating Embry? I sent one to "Alina." She
loved it.

Didn't she tell you? R R R R .... we debated it backchannel for
weeks.
0;-

I thought you and she were in an e-mail exchange.

Or would this exchange between us, you attributed in my posted
reply,
help explain what you are and how you operate?

http://tinyurl.com/d5c5t

R R R

Go away little boy. Dancing around the edge of the debate, issuing
"dares" gives a very clear picture, along with defending a
plagiarist,
of what you are and how you operate.

A little kid. And I dare you to prove otherwise. R R R R


Doan

You can't answer The Question, and you can't prove you have the
Embry
study.

What's to debate?

I don't dance the spastic monkey dance, thanks. But it's fun
watching
you do it.

If, and when you grow up, come on back and challenge me again on
the
Embry study, and be prepared to answer my questions for proof the
first
time I ask them, or be marked as still retarded and locked into
about
age 7 in your psychological development, child.

You still don't have it, and I know you don't because I am, outside
of
the author, the only one that has a copy.

0;-

On 17 Apr 2005 wrote:


Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:
This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When
asked
if
they
have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives
are
any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE!
Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina
(1998),
where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger
relation
than any of
the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive
Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of
children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan

The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one
that
would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer
the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't
honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off
screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when
they
just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is
evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying
debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a
dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying
bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence
proffered
and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if
fact
they did so.



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he
pointed
out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere,
just
back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.

You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.

And you are fool for such display in public. :-)

And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did
indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.

Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.

Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.

But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the
others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating.
All
you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered
to
the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this
claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus &
Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out
4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like:
==
1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3)
Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child
to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was
found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3
authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking
to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the
child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of
these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent
the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a
much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking
to
the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges
All
of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked
looks
at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the
room
3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25
authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1)
Talking
to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of
privileges
All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger
correlation
for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused
to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the
four
were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into
the
next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS
IN
PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my
offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You
lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source
you
could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded
with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking
away
from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying
even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE"
but
in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate
with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your
stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply
disturbed
sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you
got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-









On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957
studied
the behavior
of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to
land on
Earth as
predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced
deadline
came and
went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of
disconfirming
evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you
disagree and he
turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your
sources. Appeal to
logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a
strong
conviction,
especially if the convinced person has some investment in
his
belief. We are
familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which
people
protect their
convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the
most
devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a
belief.
Suppose an
individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose
further
that he has
a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable
actions
because of
it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,
unequivocal and
undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will
happen?
The individual
will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more
convinced
of the truth
of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a
new
fervor about
convincing and converting other people to his view."

Dance monkey.

Kane,

Doan states that no one has provided scientific evidence of the
effectiveness of "non-cp alterenatives." I have provided numerous
references as well as numerous alternatives, over and over again. So
have others on this ng.

After provided the information and the research more times than I can
count, and having Doan ignore the information, I choose to ignore Doan.
This is also true of others on this ng.

What Doan perceives as a "DEAFENING SILENCE" is simply individuals
refusing to waste any more time repeating the same things over and over
to an individual whose sole purpose on this ng appears to be harrassment.

LaVonne

wrote:
Doan THE CHILDISH LIAR wrote SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARRASSMENT,
RATHER THAN ANY REAL DESIRE TO DEBATE:

This more aptly described the anti-spanking zealotS. When asked if

they

have any scientific evidence that their non-cp alternatives are any
better, all they can do is response with a DEAFENING SILENCE! Even
when confronted with the evidence in Straus & Mouradina (1998), where
non-cp alternative like:

1) Talking to the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room
3) Time-out
4) Removal of privileges

All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation

than any of

the other variables."

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal

Punishment by

Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."

Behavioral

Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Doan


The issue has been dicussed repeatedly, and YOU are the one that would
not carry the debate forward, Doan. It's really that simple.

You are a liar, a fool, and stupid to boot. You cannot answer the
simplist questions on this issue honestly because you aren't honest.
I've proven that repeatedly, "Alina"

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e643d6?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=11#3b5afa8e0 7e643d6
http://tinyurl.com/8jo94

In fact instead of debating, you simply DARE, an obvious false
harrassing attempt. When anyone does debate you you go off screaming "I
dare you I dare you" and "you didn't answer my claim"..when they just
did. You insist the must accept defeat, when no such defeat is evident
by your sad little charades.

"
Doan Nov 15 2002, 11:26 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
From: Doan - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:21:09 -0800
Local: Fri,Nov 15 2002 11:21 pm
Subject: Spanking Debate
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

I will glad to take you on, Lady Cathy. Wanna give
me a try? ;-)

Doan
"

You're a phony. The only thing you are good at is destroying debate,
just as you did with my challenge on the Embry study. You are a dodger
and that is ALL you are, simply repeating your endless lying bleating.

"Silence," eh? Load of lying crap from you.

Endless dodging with ad homs. Refusal to accept evidence proffered and
months later, just like now, claiming no would debate, when if fact
they did so.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2a1e7c?q=%22+2)+Sent+the+child+to+the+room%22+&rnum=22#5ef87f3ae 62a1e7c
http://tinyurl.com/a9qqp

YOU wanted to debate Gowtch's mixing up of studies. When he pointed out
he had of course mixed them up...where did you go? Nowhere, just back
to the harrassment.

This was you vicious little reply:

"
Try reading the the RIGHT study, Ivan.


You're an idiot. Thanks for playing.


And you are fool for such display in public. :-)


And, for the curious . . . yes, this study did indeed
demonstrate that the more a child is subjected
to corporal punishment, the worse his/her
cognitive development tends to be.


Actually, Straus & Paschal (1998) showed that it is the verbal
interaction
between parents and child not spanking, per se.


Another great reason to never, never, hit your
kids.


But you can "pat" them or "spank" them when appropriate. ;-)

Doan "

What "debate" do see there, Doan?

Your and three or four others in your pack of hyenas, and the others
now are among the missing, attacked Gowtch instead of debating. All you
could find to discuss was his technical error. Like it mattered to the
issue under discussion.

In each of the following instances you were replied to on this claim
you say there has been nothing but silence,




Sponsored Links
Child Room
Find Quality, Name Brand Furniture
Great Selection and Fantastic Value FurnitureFIND.com

Unique Wall Art For Kids
Original, Custom Paintings
Art for Girls, Boys, and Babies www.londonbridgechildren.com

See your message here...

Spanking Debate Challenge
... These are are the non-cp that were looked at in Straus & Mouradian
(1998): 1) Talking
to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4)
Removal ...
Oct 23 2002, 7:19 am by abacus - 318 messages - 20 authors

Literature request, my readings so far
... this study also looks at non-cp == alternatives like: == 1)
Talking to the
child calmly == 2) Sent the child to the room == 3) Time-out
...
Jan 4 2003, 6:19 pm by Doan - 296 messages - 18 authors

Doan again misquoting research
alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to
the room
3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was found
to have a ...
Mar 16, 8:48 pm by - 4 messages - 3 authors

A Definition of Spanking
... This study looked at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Apr 24 2002, 7:09 pm by doan - 40 messages - 12 authors

One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin
... Straus & Mouradian (1998) showed us that: 1) Talking to the child
calmly 2) Sent
the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these
...
Jun 6 2004, 9:20 pm by Doan - 30 messages - 8 authors

New Research: Negative effects of spanking
Here is the quote again: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the
child to the
room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges "was found to have a much
stronger ...
Jun 3 2004, 10:56 pm by Doan - 15 messages - 5 authors

The Deafening Silence ( About the sound of a whipping)
... In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they found that: 1) Talking to the
child calmly 2)
Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of
these ...
Jan 13, 12:52 pm by Doan - 25 messages - 7 authors

Non-Spanking Clearly Preferable
... the people on this newsgroup that this study also looked looks at
non-cp alternatives
like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time ...
Apr 18 2002, 8:02 am by Richard Steven Walz - 324 messages - 25 authors

Fern Reveals Herself.... was Anti-social kids & what MH ...
... This study also looks at non-cp alternatives like: 1) Talking to
the child calmly
2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All
of ...
Mar 13 2004, 10:24 am by Doan - 9 messages - 6 authors

Why Misbehaviour Follows Spanking
... that Straus & Mouradian(1998) foudn even stronger correlation for
non-cp alternatives:
1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3)
Time-out ...
Apr 25 2002, 1:22 pm by doan - 265 messages - 25 authors
..............

And all you can find to talk about is the dead end. You refused to
respond, for instance, to my pointing out that three of the four were
themselves "punishments" and that this carries the debate into the next
obvious level.

WHAT I GOT FROM YOU WAS A COMPLETE LONG SILENCE THAT STILL IS IN PLACE.


Months of dancing and in fact a lying cheat, "Aline" on my offer to
debate the Embry study if you'd simply prove you had it. You lied
repeatedly. I know you don't have it because the only source you could
get it from was the author, who I know and have corresponded with.

You are a clown dancing about the edges of the issue, ducking away from
any engagement on the issues that disprove your nonsense, lying even
about others that have in fact maintaine no "DEAFENING SILENCE" but in
fact do not wish to entertain a child and would prefer debate with
grown ups that have something to say worth listening to.

Your bull**** is over, Doan. No one is going to play your stupid
childish self serving games. You are obviously a deeply disturbed sick
little ****ant and likely because of the poor parenting you got.

Enjoy your public masturbation.

0:-








On 16 Apr 2005, Chris wrote:


Leon Festinger and a team of social scientists in 1957 studied

the behavior

of members of a UFO cult under duress when aliens failed to land on

Earth as

predicted. Some in the cult dropped out when the announced deadline

came and

went; others redoubled their conviction in the face of

disconfirming

evidence. Festinger wrote:


"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you

disagree and he

turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your

sources. Appeal to

logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong

conviction,

especially if the convinced person has some investment in his

belief. We are

familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people

protect their

convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most

devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief.

Suppose an

individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further

that he has

a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions

because of

it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence,

unequivocal and

undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen?

The individual

will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced

of the truth

of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new

fervor about

convincing and converting other people to his view."