If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

On 7 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.

YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)

About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.

LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym!

Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
analysis of your posting history.

I didn't call anyone a "smelly-****"! ;-)

We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your
ass.

Yup! When I have to go to the bathroom. It's then that I see you face.
;-)

R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think.

Except the ignoranus kane0!


0:-

Why are you shouting?

Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their
heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-)

So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then?

Yes. It's the recommended non-cp alternative according to the
anti-spanking zealotS. ;-)

It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you
spankers say it is. R R R R R R.

Nope! It's where "reasonable" people say it is. Have you checked Canada?

What a child you are.

What an ignoranus you are.

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
LOL! The lying Kane0 got caught and can't handle the truth.

YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! ;-)

About you? Sure I can. Tell us about you. Read your own posts outloud.

LOL! What do you want to know about me? I don't hide behind a pseudonym!

Look at what you defend and what you attack. Do a little statistical
analysis of your posting history.

I didn't call anyone a "smelly-****"! ;-)

We can always count on you to signal clearly when you have exposed your
ass.

Yup! When I have to go to the bathroom. It's then that I see you face.
;-)

R R R R R R to bad child. Others can read and think.

Except the ignoranus kane0!


0:-

Why are you shouting?

Because the anti-spanking zealotS have their fingers in the ears, their
heads under the sand and pretending that they are the emperors. ;-)

So tell us this "TRUTH" you are yelling then?

Yes. It's the recommended non-cp alternative according to the
anti-spanking zealotS. ;-)

It's like "The Question," isn't it droany? The line is where ever you
spankers say it is. R R R R R R.

Nope! It's where "reasonable" people say it is. Have you checked Canada?

Sure. Show us where it says they have identified the line that cannot
be crossed over.

Be as precise as they were. 0:-



What a child you are.

What an ignoranus you are.

Doan

On 4 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

You're right I did edit some of what you wrote. I took out items that
were irrelevant to what I wished to ask you or comment on. For example
the URL you provided for online parenting classes. It was unnecessary
for me to quote the URL, it would have been redundant as I had not
comment on the URL in question.

Your accusation was that I did not respond to your questions.

When I removed my comments that triggered your
comments/questions/rebuttal leaving your comments "lonely and dangling"
I did so that those reading along didn't have to sift through 300lines
of dialogue to catch up to what we are talking about, and I presumed
that you would know/remember what our conversation was about. Perhaps
I presumed wrongly.

I don't have a problem with someone snipping my remarks. I do if they
refer back to them for information or claiming I did or didn't say
something.

As for you quoting the Embry study again...you cannot accuse me of
dodging because I had already stated I would not be baited into a long
drawn out discussion on a teeny tiny report from 25yrs ago.

It is not a teeny tiny report. It's a longitudinal study of
considerable scientific rigorously applied research methods. It
explored, for the first time in all research before, and possibly
since, a direct observation of applied methods of parenting on one
subject. A near perfect field study to my mind.

13 subjects is not teeny tiny? ;-)

Each of the 33 subject families were described in depth, each child
also. The simple method of teaching rather than using CP to try and
create a child response by pain aversion was elegant and refined as no
other study had ever attempted.

LOL! Of course, you know that beccafromlalaland doesn't have the Embry
study yet, right Kane? So you can just spout your BS and she wouldn't
know it, right Kane? Tell her many of those children were spanked and
how many times they were spanked, Kane. Go ahead, Kane! Make my day!
;-)

And the basics of social science research accepted methodology has not
changed all that much in 25 years. Standards and analysis are still
much the same.

LOL!

You may do what you wish, but making value comments on a study you have
not seen is unacceptable judgement of that study.

And that also applies to you! ;-)

Doan

To answer your question regarding who is responsible for the lack of
available parenting classes in my area. The State and Federal
government. There is no funding.

The Federal government is not allowed to withhold funding to one state
while funding another for the various grants and programs. If your
state doesn't have them someone there is not doing the relatively
simple work to apply for them.

Hence, I have no answer to YOUR problem beyond what I already offered,
and why I asked you questions sometimes rather than answer. I did not
have enough information to give a credible answer to you. I do not
believe I asked evasive questions, hence your rhetorical question that
in fact accused me of dodging was uncalled for.

My comment "see above" in response to your question "How are they not
encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
publicized enough?" was to save myself time typing out the answer
because i had just answered it above. You have a knack for asking the
same questions several ways trying to get different answers so you can
trip people up with their words.

That is untrue. You are projecting Doans most common methods on me.

Just as now, and throughout the thread, when you gave me more
information requested I answered your questions more fully and did NOT
use that information to "trip" you "up with" your "words."

If you think so, point it out. If true have have most abject apologies
I only have come back at your with some harshness when YOU appeared to
be playing the "Doan Game" with me. A harassing false insinutation
like, "Dodging?"

I split up one very long paragraph of yours so I could comment on
individual portions in the hopes that it would be less confusing. But
I see you were confused by it. Perhaps you should carefully read next
time.

Perhaps I should. And that I did when you accused me of "Dodging?" We
both know that was an accusation in a rhetorical form.

Upon reading your prior posts and my responses I found NO instances
where I had failed to answer you as fully as was possible, nor did I
ask any questions that were not calculated to gain more information so
I could give an answer...which I then did IF you tendered the
information asked for.

I did it again in this post, without any attempts to 'trip' you up with
your own words.

You keep saying that you responded to

"The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.

The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law."

I have read and reread your posts...and you did NOT answer these
questions. If you feel you did, perhaps you can do a little copy and
paste yourself in your next messege and point them out to me.

I don't even need to go back. I can tell you from memory, and in a most
recent post to you pointed them out yet again.

To your first question I answered by pointing out that I would put
requirements in the law to provide for services to the accused. I made
that very clear.

To our second question I answered that the charges and penalties should
be taken from state statutes currently used to prosecute child abuse
NOW.

I assume you are intelligiant enough to figure out which portions of
your extensive butt cover....erm clarification of your prior posts I am
responding to...but I've been wrong before.

You are simply using harassing language to accuse me of what I have not
done. Why would answering your questions then or now be "butt
cover.....?"

You came back at me accusing me of dodging. I have pointed out to you
my prior posts responding to the specific questions you said I did not
respond to. Is that "butt cover.....," to point those out to you when
you asked me to?

Or did you wish to make an accusation and I NOT respond in defense of
my post's contents?

Let's see it again, shall we?

Here is yesterday's post to you answering all your questions in full,
using citations and links back to my messages, and quoting the exact
words I used back then. And they WERE answers to your two questions
above.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...338b2ba?hl=en&

Why are you still denying that I answered you when the proof is right
in front of your eyes?

Here is a requote of my original posted comments to your questions from
my message cited above as to link:

"One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes. "

That actually answers both your questions.

One cannot get a parent to be trained if they do not want to...so
obviously, along with the list of sources I know are available
elsewhere (I cannot solve YOUR local problem so don't ask me to and
it's NOT a dodge for me to so state), the answer to your question is
that there must be enforcement.

As to how to force that? That's your second question, what penalty or
punishment would the law apply. "The only legal action would be child
protection statutes." is my answer.

And as I said, I'm not going to list all the states statutes. And that
too is NOT dodging.

If you want an exact answer, as you seemed to for your "lack of
resources in my state," response, and since I do NOT know your state of
residence, then who could I be dodging not to have an answer beyond
what I gave?

--
beccafromlalaland

You are looking more and more like you simply wish to pick a fight, and
you are an admirer of Doan and his shoddy sick little tricks.

Why are you stating falsely that I did not answer your questions?

You may not like my answers, but they are answers and fair and as
accurate as they can be under the limitations of your information to me
at each step our our posted exchanges.

When you told me more, I answered more fully.

Kane

Doan wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
......snip the childish evasive nonsense.........

No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.

Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
you do.

You haven't.

Hence your ploys go nowhere.

Let me know when you are ready to answer my questions that prove you
have the study.

Submission of bits and pieces you have picked up from other
people/sources are insufficient.

The only proof will be correct answers to my questions on what is on
which page, or similar.

Your childishness is noted. You are boring.

Kane

On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
.....snip the childish evasive nonsense.........

No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.

Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
you do.

LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me. You would rather debate
with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland. That
way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught! Watch what
you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
.....snip the childish evasive nonsense.........

No, Doan. You can't seem to remember the sequence of events. The ball
is in YOUR court to prove YOU have the study.

Because I'm not the least interested in "debating" you until you prove
you do.

LOL! Of course you don't dare to debate me.

Where did I say I don't' dare to debate you? I'm responding to YOUR
daring me to debate you. I simply won't until you prove you have the
study I have.

Why did you excise the content?

You would rather debate
with someone who don't have the study, like beccafromlalaland.

I don't recall offerring to debate her. I invited her to get the study.
She said you were making her familiar with the study. Aren't you going
to send her the study? 0:-

That
way you can LIE without being afraid of getting caught!

Now how could I do that if you have the study? In fact, how could I do
that if she has the study? You won't give it to her?

Watch what
you're saying or you will have to eat your "mistakes"! ;-)

Schoolboy childish threats again?

You mean I have to parse each sentence of the smallest possible tiny
flaw or you'll jump on it and scream "LIAR!"?

You are such child. I'll discuss the Embry study with anyone I wish to
Doan. I only promised I wouldn't with you until you had your own
copy....which you have repeatedly failed to prove.

0:-

Doan

It's not about CP for you Doan. It's about winning little childish
arguments about what "effect" means.

Childish nonsense.

Kane

On 3 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
to answer the second half.

The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.

You do by the way understand how incongruent that question is, don't
you?

I said, by emposing state states on child abuse that exist NOW. I'm not
going to list them all.

The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law.

I answered that and you are now doing what amounts to harrassment. Very
Doanlike harrassment.


Read the second half of my post.

I read it all, and answered it all, and responded in another posted
reply to this same message with more detailed information citations of
prior posts and all.

and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.

That makes no difference how the formatting is done. If it's missing,
it's missing because you left it out.

--
beccafromlalaland

Doan is pulling your chain and you are obeying. He must be pleased to
have created a little servant.

0:-

Kane,
Do you know how insulting this is? I hope you will wise up and
apologize to beccafromlalaland. It went far beyond harassment!
She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side.
DON'T BE STUPID!

Doan

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:

Kane
PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
program, 0.7 entries per hour.

What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.

Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
baseline rate.

Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~

Kane,
Are you claiming that the above statements are TRUE 100%? And that it
is not something you made up as you go along. Here is your chance to
rectify your "mistake", if any. ;-) I am just setting the stage in
case beccafromlalaland decides to do the inter-library loan and see
this study for what it is and not Embry according Kane. Go ahead, Kane!
Make my day! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
to answer the second half.

The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.

You do by the way understand how incongruent that question is, don't
you?

I said, by emposing state states on child abuse that exist NOW. I'm not
going to list them all.

The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law.

I answered that and you are now doing what amounts to harrassment. Very
Doanlike harrassment.


Read the second half of my post.

I read it all, and answered it all, and responded in another posted
reply to this same message with more detailed information citations of
prior posts and all.

and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.

That makes no difference how the formatting is done. If it's missing,
it's missing because you left it out.

--
beccafromlalaland

Doan is pulling your chain and you are obeying. He must be pleased to
have created a little servant.

0:-

Kane,
Do you know how insulting this is? I hope you will wise up and
apologize to beccafromlalaland. It went far beyond harassment!
She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side.
DON'T BE STUPID!

It's not insulting. It in response to her comments about my posting
that were inaccurate. Those where she claimed I had not responded to
her questions, and I had.

Who was insulted?

"Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it?

She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for
your bs.

I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else
that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from
this ng.

Doan

Stop being a child.

0:-

On 8 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane,

While you answered the first half of the questions I asked you failed
to answer the second half.

The one that addressed HOW you would propose stopping the offending
behavior without first TEACHING people how to stop.

You do by the way understand how incongruent that question is, don't
you?

I said, by emposing state states on child abuse that exist NOW. I'm not
going to list them all.

The One that asked what Punishment you propose for violating your
proposed law.

I answered that and you are now doing what amounts to harrassment. Very
Doanlike harrassment.


Read the second half of my post.

I read it all, and answered it all, and responded in another posted
reply to this same message with more detailed information citations of
prior posts and all.

and as for the "cutting and pasting" thing. Perhaps you should mosey
on over to the parentingbanter.com board and see that HERE your words
are actually neatly Quoted in highlighted text boxes.

That makes no difference how the formatting is done. If it's missing,
it's missing because you left it out.

--
beccafromlalaland

Doan is pulling your chain and you are obeying. He must be pleased to
have created a little servant.

0:-

Kane,
Do you know how insulting this is? I hope you will wise up and
apologize to beccafromlalaland. It went far beyond harassment!
She is a decent person who is also on the anti-spanking's side.
DON'T BE STUPID!

It's not insulting. It in response to her comments about my posting
that were inaccurate. Those where she claimed I had not responded to
her questions, and I had.

Who was insulted?

beccafromlaland!

"Far beyond harrassment?" What would you call it?

Exactly

She may be a decent person, but not a thinking one if she falls for
your bs.

I'm not stupid. You are if you think you can fool becca or anyone else
that isn't a little thug like some of your buddies that have run from
this ng.

You are STUPID!

Doan

Stop being a child.

STOP BEING AN ASS-HOLE!

Doan