If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Droananator BESTS Kane Again was The Kane9 Kan't Dance continues.....WAS.... Alternate methods of discipline
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote:
LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any details on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-) Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the number of the page where the demographics begins in the study. Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can. I'm not the one hungry to move on to the Embry study...I've got all the time in the world....you are...to avoid the embarrassment you have over NOT being able to answer The Simple Question you claim parents can, if they just "make up their own minds." If you have something about the Embry study you wish to share, in the spirit of more and better information for parents...you know, the one's you say should inform themselves when making spanking decisions, why are you withholding it? And why are you not getting any takers on your offer to send a copy to "ANYONE that asks"? Or do I have to say the magic Dronanator mantra, "I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU" to kick your conscience into gear over those dear parents you wish to assist? You ARE keeping them waiting, you know. Not me. I've shared the study with many over the years. How many have you shared it with so far? R R R R R R R R R What a poor sad simp you are, Droananator. Do you really think anyone can't figure out you and your ethical impairment, tootsweet? Puleeeeze. Doan It's really all up to you. You can share it all or in bits, but you don't have to question me to do so. Why do you pretend that I'm the hold up when it doesn't matter a whit to your sharing your discovery with the world? Hey, as long as I don't answer, and I can't and be known for keeping my word and the honor bound person I am, (remember, you have three criteria for to debate to begin for me) you can put anything out there and make any claims you wish and I cannot refute with what I know from the study. I'm stuck, Doananator. Locked up by my own promise and challenge to you, and YOU don't know how to take advantage of it....or, more simply and more likely, you don't have the study at all. So you can stop pretending now, and dodging by insisting I have to respond to your questions. Nothing is stoping you from posting the Embry study, is it? Well, is it? Give'm hell, Droananiser. Yah got's the old codger on the ropes. R R R R R Kane On 9 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:30:40 -0800, Doan wrote: NOT!!!!!! Well, folks, you didn't really expect a compulsive, posting history proven, dodging weasal to actually do the simple thing of telling the truth, did you now? As Doan why he didn't, when he claimed to have the study before, just tell me the past number I asked for directly from the study? It would have been no concession of information I could have used to prove I had the study if I didn't......yet, somehow he just couldn't bring himself to answer....pride I guess....yeah, that's it. Pride. He's too "proud" to do simple things such as I've asked. Yet HE is the one mounting the Embry Study debate challenge. It's hard to understand how he would create such a strong and powerful trap for himself when he can walk right out of it so simply. If you have him figured out, let me know. I still have a puzzle or two beyond the issue of his being betrayed by his parents, as he's revealed already. On 6 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:54:08 +0000 (UTC), "Sheepshanks" wrote: Snipping the story of parent and child that inspired yet another dodge from the Doananator, publically that is, you' can read below................... My comment is first...just so you can sort the attributions accurately.... Dr. Dennis Embry did some work with toddler street entry back about 25 years ago. Funny! Why are you avoiding the details of this study? Here is the claim Funny! Why are you avoiding the requirements and criteria for debate on this study. First you have to answer The Question honestly, as it was asked, not as you reworked it. Secondly you have to clear up childish "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" schoolboy nonsense that you used to dodge the question when I flattened your bogus answer. Then you have to prove you have the Embry study in question. Just answer my simple and non fact revealing question. What page do the demographics begin on? It's not the least difficult. Why are you avoiding?. that were posted by Chris Dunga and parroted by you: Pointless evasion. You haven't met the debate standards yet. "Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention." Yes, I do believe that was a quote of Dr. Embry. I don't recall him saying THIS study was the soul source of his thinking. I have read the study and found there data to support such a claim. There also may not be any data to support that the moon is made of green cheese. Dr. Embry is free to comment on THIS study, as well as OTHERS he has done, including OTHER observations of similar events and behaviors. You don't know, and I DO KNOW that he has done extensive continuous, and extremely valuable, in a practical public works planning sense, work on this and related issues and has many valuable thoughts and insights on how children and adults learn. Basically you make a mockery of his valuable work. I won't permit that. That is one of the reasons I will not debate you on YOUR usual shakey bit by tortuous bit breaking down of the study under question...as you have done with others over the years. UnnnUnnng...no way, Jose. Can you or Chris post the data to support such claim? I dont' know if Chris has the data. I don't recall him ever claiming he did, nor doing any more than quoting Dr. Embry. And that is his choice, one way or another. It's not Chris you orginally challenged. Is there some reason you want more people involved? Such as further obscuring the study and any discussion by having more people and their comments to use for bolt holes and manufactured lies and evasions? I'll bet it is....that's what you have done here for years. Besides, the VERY SMALL sample size of this study That's funny you should say that. Instead of simply saying the number to prove you have the study, and asking me for OTHER information that would be nonrevealing of contents, like I asked YOU, you keep just repeating this silly mantra. Fishing....lots of fishing...but then that is your style and has been since I first spotted your nonsense on this ng. No real contribution to the folks that you say should make up their own mind, just cherry picking what can be questioned, and avoiding ALL the rest that refutes you that is not easily debated. would make any claim suspect! I think you should suspect your mother of mating with pigs. You are certainly an example of a fine little porker. Can't speak for Chris. I am bound by my promise to debate you when and if you can meet the standards for the debate I requested. I keep my promised and challenges...always. Haven't you noticed yet? And do remember, frantic wallowing thrashing child, I DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE YOU, but merely responded to YOUR disire to dodge The Question by the insistance that I DID NOT HAVE THE STUDY....which of course was another bogus dodge on your part. As yet, not only have you not meet two criteria, but in the third you have refused to respond to simple requests that would clearly prove you have the study. Instead you make simple assumptions anyone could make by things he's said publically about the study and the fact it's a 25 year old study and not likely to have had a large subject demographic. In fact, the nature of the study, observational and survey (now you KNOW I have it) precludes a very large study group size. But that's something I'll be happy, should you ever do as you are told and behave like something other than a savage child too much spanked, and met the criteria. I don't care if you do or not. There are others I'll happily share and debate the material with back channel or face to face, since I know some of the posters here personally. Over the years I've discussed it with collegues then put it away. I had to do some digging in my old five drawer for it. A poster here has offered to send a copy of the study to anyone that posts him and asks for it. You'll get a great deal of understanding about the efficacy or lack thereof of the use of punishment, along with no punishment with non-punitive alternatives, and teaching this age group. ... and more especially about diminishing street entries of small children. And who is this poster, Kane? ;-) Could it be me and anyone who wants a copy can just email me at ? Of course. Are you suggesting I'd try one of YOUR stupid dodges and try to hide something or avoid something that was posted the same day in the same newsgroup. Boy you really are a confused and obstinate child. You could have won this encounter long ago and saved your ass as well as your face, but you have the two confused. Had I been the one meeting the challenges I've given you I would have wiped up the floor with "me" in about three simple posts. You are too stupid to know how to use fact in your favor, even if it disagrees with your position. What a silly twit. Why couldn't you make the same offer since you claimed to have a copy? Because I chose not to, given that it's not I challenging the study, and it's you on the dodge. I find it funny you claimed all this time to have it, but only a few days ago had the guts to offer it up to the public. You've got a website. Post it twit, and you have met ONE out of three criteria. Or send it to someone I'd trust, LaVonne, Chris, anyone you think I would trust and I will let them tell me the answer to the simple question I asked you and you HAVE REFUSED STEADILY TO ANSWER. What page do the demographics begin on in the Embry study...you know, the one's you claim to be looking at and declaring them, "Small." I wonder what the reason is that you can't write 4 or 12 or 32 or 2 or 1. Too much face lost? Too much embarrassment? Or to much of your lying? You seem extremely focused, desperate even, to open a debate on the study without proving you have it. Fishing for clues, willing to "debate" on point by point that someone else reveals, all the while not revealing that you DON'T HAVE THE STUDY, LITTLE LIAR. And everyone here can see you don't. Why haven't your buddies, surely they would ask for the study, get it from you and then answer one or two simple questions that would NOT give me any vital information I could debate, but would prove the existance of the study outside of the good Dr. Embry's files, and my desk... Hey, the blasted thing is piling up. I'll have to bring it to the top again. Let's see, my dig. camera is on the top, with the cable next to it, then a small pad with notes on a contract I'm working on, then an ancient address book that I'd better dump before my wife starts asking about the femal entries.... R R R R ...., and there it is, just the corner of a napkin in the way.... Yep, "Reducing the Risk of Pedestrian Accidents to Preschoolers by Parent Training and Symbolic Modeling for Children: An Experimental.....well, let's say it's time for your to finish the title, little boy, and the first page footnotes....four of them. ....By the way, who was the principle investigator? Nothing....you have nothing. And you have, by your games, made it appear you are a world class liar. Hell, even if you came up with answers to everything right now, everyone that can think would know you made a last snagged a last second of the game pass. You JUST got the study....maybe. How DO you manage to screw yourself so thoroughly and frequently, little ****ant twittering goober? And why did you LIED again about PUNISHMENT component used in the Embry study? You can post the paragraph where Dr. Embry mentions punishment. You won't of course. Or you wouldn't. And please explain how expressing my opinion that his particular tactic of having children sit and watch other children really amounts to punishment in the classic "pound their little butts" sense, that you and your spanking compulsives think is a "punishment." . Doan..anator .................the Dodger strikes out yet again. I decided you'll NEVER beat me as you have some, by your tactic of dragging it out and fulling the time usenet group with reams of evasive postings of babbingly twittery, like this very one......but, believe it or not there IS a way to beat me. AND YOU CAN'T DO IT. And it is so simple a child of 10 could use it against every challenge I've given you, easily. Doan, you are a liar. And that IS your problem with losing again and again. All the while screaming, "They ran away and I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU." Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Kane9 Kan't Dance continues.....WAS.... Alternate methodsof discipline
On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote: LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any details on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-) Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the number of the page where the demographics begins in the study. Love the logic. :-) "I told you I wouldn't". Does it sounds like somebody who avoiding to debate? OF COURSE it is! :-) Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can. Already have. The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED! Doan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Kane9 Kan't Dance continues.....WAS.... Alternate methods of discipline
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:46 -0800, Doan wrote:
On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote: LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any details on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-) Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the number of the page where the demographics begins in the study. Love the logic. :-) Love that you avoided yet another simple question, the page number. I'm perfectly willing to debate you on Embry if you simply do as you are told...answer The Question, resolve your silly, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" nonsense, and prove you have the Embry Study. You have done nothing, nothing at all, and yet you seem to think I must do as you insist, debate Embry without you meeting the criteria. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in your monkey ass. "I told you I wouldn't". Yes, that is a correct quote. On the other hand you NEVER set any criteria for debate on Embry, hence any holdup here is YOURS. Does it sounds like somebody who avoiding to debate? No, actually it sounds like someone that's got your number and then some. When you get honest, you get debate...........gonna be a long time isn't it? R R R R R OF COURSE it is! :-) Yep, if you have your way, a very very long time. I recall you pulling the numberous times in the past with others. Me, I don't fall for it. Put up, little Droany, put up. And answering your own question instead of being honest and letting your opponent answer for himself......? Tsk, Droany, tsk. Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can. Already have. Did you read the sentence? One is not a liar if they claim something out of ignorance, Droany. Have you never taken a college course in critical reasoning? The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED! I did not say that. You are lying right now. I argued with the idea that it was a punishment study. On the other hand.......... The Embry Study does indeed have page numbers you refuse to give. YOU are lying that you have the study. You really DO need to study language a bit more. You and I disagreed on the MEANING of the study, not the content, Droany the Dumb. But then as long as you can keep this going you don't have to answer The Simple Question, nor answer for screaming, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" (now THAT is funny), nor proving you have had the study all along. You've completely blown the last one, you know. This holding out on something so simple as coming up with a page number, a totally harmless answer to a simple question, has branded you a liar for certain. Or possibly you have a reason for not answering such a simple question? .............tap...................tap............ ........tap....yea, like I'm going to get an answer to THAT question. What ever it takes to drive off your opponent, eh, Droananator? No one could see you avoiding that simple questionn and NOT think you a liar. Some, compulsive liars themselves, might admire you for it, but we ALL know what you are doing....dodging, with lies and evasions. You don't want to debate Embry if you DO have the study because you KNOW what you are looking at, vis a vis spanking punishment vs non-spanking alternatives...and it scares the **** out of yah, and you can't answer The Question, and you know that your silly daring is just childish nonsense. Your only game is to stall. And you have run out of tactics other than to run off to another ng and try to strike up a debate there....which you once again demonstrated your weasel tactics at. Enjoy. You can go to bed tonight and giggle to yourself that you were just "playing with" Kane. Doan........ ...........should get his hand out of his pants. Kane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Kane9 Kan't Dance continues.....WAS.... Alternate methodsof discipline
Does anyone have the Embry that Kane said he sent out to those that asked? Could it be that Kane3 is caught lying again? ;-) Doan On 11 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:50:46 -0800, Doan wrote: On 10 Feb 2004, Kane wrote: On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:00:42 -0800, Doan wrote: LOL! Can't answer the question on the sample size; can't give any details on the Embry Study. Too bad! :-) Won't because I told you I wouldn't. You, on the other hand, made no commitment to not debate, so what are YOU waiting for....tell us the number of the page where the demographics begins in the study. Love the logic. :-) Love that you avoided yet another simple question, the page number. I'm perfectly willing to debate you on Embry if you simply do as you are told...answer The Question, resolve your silly, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" nonsense, and prove you have the Embry Study. You have done nothing, nothing at all, and yet you seem to think I must do as you insist, debate Embry without you meeting the criteria. You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in your monkey ass. "I told you I wouldn't". Yes, that is a correct quote. On the other hand you NEVER set any criteria for debate on Embry, hence any holdup here is YOURS. Does it sounds like somebody who avoiding to debate? No, actually it sounds like someone that's got your number and then some. When you get honest, you get debate...........gonna be a long time isn't it? R R R R R OF COURSE it is! :-) Yep, if you have your way, a very very long time. I recall you pulling the numberous times in the past with others. Me, I don't fall for it. Put up, little Droany, put up. And answering your own question instead of being honest and letting your opponent answer for himself......? Tsk, Droany, tsk. Prove me a "liar," by ignorance, if you can. Already have. Did you read the sentence? One is not a liar if they claim something out of ignorance, Droany. Have you never taken a college course in critical reasoning? The Embry Study does indeed have a PUNISHMENT COMPONENT in it. You said it doesn't - YOU LIED! I did not say that. You are lying right now. I argued with the idea that it was a punishment study. On the other hand.......... The Embry Study does indeed have page numbers you refuse to give. YOU are lying that you have the study. You really DO need to study language a bit more. You and I disagreed on the MEANING of the study, not the content, Droany the Dumb. But then as long as you can keep this going you don't have to answer The Simple Question, nor answer for screaming, "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" (now THAT is funny), nor proving you have had the study all along. You've completely blown the last one, you know. This holding out on something so simple as coming up with a page number, a totally harmless answer to a simple question, has branded you a liar for certain. Or possibly you have a reason for not answering such a simple question? ............tap...................tap............. .......tap....yea, like I'm going to get an answer to THAT question. What ever it takes to drive off your opponent, eh, Droananator? No one could see you avoiding that simple questionn and NOT think you a liar. Some, compulsive liars themselves, might admire you for it, but we ALL know what you are doing....dodging, with lies and evasions. You don't want to debate Embry if you DO have the study because you KNOW what you are looking at, vis a vis spanking punishment vs non-spanking alternatives...and it scares the **** out of yah, and you can't answer The Question, and you know that your silly daring is just childish nonsense. Your only game is to stall. And you have run out of tactics other than to run off to another ng and try to strike up a debate there....which you once again demonstrated your weasel tactics at. Enjoy. You can go to bed tonight and giggle to yourself that you were just "playing with" Kane. Doan........ ..........should get his hand out of his pants. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Doananator declares was The Kane9 Kan't dance continues... Embry Study is available. | Kane | General | 10 | March 1st 04 04:17 AM |
| The Kane9 Kan't dance continues... | Kane | General | 1 | February 22nd 04 03:57 AM |
Kane9 Kan't Dance Alternate methods of discipline | Doan | General | 0 | February 7th 04 07:18 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |