A short assignment

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



--

-- SNIP-------------------------------------

.

And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.

You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.


If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
fit with your neurotic denial and defense.

It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........

Kane

Thank you, sir- for defending both me and the truth. I fear it won't help
but I appreciate your efforts. Individuals like you, Ron, LaVonne and a few
others (you know who you are) are prime examples of why this newsgroup has
been so respected- on both sides of the issue.

Hey! You forget Steve! :-)

Doan

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: A short assignment


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:


-- Snips on down-------------------------------------

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the
teachers?

Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on),
but none
of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
him. We
didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
interviewed
several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
exceptionally
well behaved and studious.

And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
Interviews
are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.

But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
teachers
to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold and
on
every child?

So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one must
have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of every
detail of the subject's life, eh?

No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the subject,
to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data that
has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.

Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of 10
chances.

That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't arrest
you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you. And
if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
one's we come looking for first.

Pretty simple eh?


And the siblings are criminal too???

No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
individuals.

And this is becasue they were spanked???

I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it
is
because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The
siblings
have all converted to churches other than that in which they were
reared.)

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a
criminal
who
was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
coincidence,
but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
behavior?". I
asked
the question here because this was the most strongly recommended
group. I
mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of
a
criminal
who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but
only one
was a mass murderer.

Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked
a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious
- for
the reason I stated above.

I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked.
I've met
geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
spanked, but I
have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked.
We are
going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
suspicious. I'm
not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics
or
criminology expert.

Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
anything.)

Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
your own?

I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it shows.

You missed my point.

He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a **** how
many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.

I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.

I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in experience
from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
harmful?

I said nothing about you!

But you did.

"Are you sure you are in MENSA???"

You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling the
truth about MENSA?

Are you in MENSA?

And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores tatooed
on their foreheads.

So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I think
it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.



Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
afforded the
same
respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted.
James has
in
truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone
says
something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called
"pulling
a
Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
Discipline,
Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more
I'm too
lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
about him,
he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians-
more to
the
four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
Amish church.

Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there
are some
overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African
American
communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
endorsed by God,
and therefore the only one that should be utilized.

I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence of
what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
recall the number of times there have been citations of church groups
using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some common
african american names in the list of preachers and church members?

Here I'll give you one of those common references. There are hundreds,
possibly thousands of small, to large, groups that hold such beliefs.

http://www.homeschooldigest.com/index.htm

Sadly this magazine is connected, as you can see, with homeschooling,
a generally superior method of educating children, but in this case
perverted. This magazine has a fair sized subscription list...I used
to receive it as a matter of professional connections.

But if you check out who they serve and what they serve up you'll get
the idea your poster is quite correct.

One of their ads in this magazine is one of those to focus on. There
is currectly an effort by NON fundie Christians to stop this ad..they
aren't succeeding, sadly:




We appreciate your support of these companies as they support and work
with us.

-- P A R E N T I N G R E S O U R C E S --

Slide's Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 506
Checotah, OK 74426
The Rod –Flexible nylon rod, 22" inches, with cushioned vinyl grip,
safety tip. Designed for the purpose of Biblical training. $6.50 per
rod, includes S&H.

___HOME___
___Return To Advertiser's Page___
Copyright 2002-2003 Wisdom's Gate.


This is the kind of sickness you support by your little "let everyone
make up their own mind" nonsense.

That is the same mindset that created an isolationist attitude before
two world wars that turned them into the murderous nightmares they
became.

on a personal note:
Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things
you don't
understand and don't agree with? I

Nope!

I think the poster has you pegged. Attack has been your style for as
long as you have posted here. I've responded in kind because you
haven't a real debate in your entire empty head, though you certainly
fancy yourself as one.

I ASKED QUESTIONS when I don't understand.

Oh come now. A simple google on your addy will show clearly that
attack is just about all you know. Most every time you post you run
through two or three logical fallacies.

Why do you take as an
attack?

How about your "I don't believe you" to the simpliest of the posters
statements.

And demands to prove the obvioius that would require citations in the
hundreds to satisfy you. .. and even then you only do it to try and
find a diverting nitpick.

Try providing proof of YOUR position.

I did not come here for a debate, I came
here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look
elsewhere,
but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting
from a
professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to
bait me.
You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG
has been
very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you.
I think
you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't
want to
killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more
than
happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless
baiting. It
reflects poorly on you and your cause.

You came to this newsgroup for an answer??? You are right, you are
not
naive! ;-) BTW, I don't have a cause. I have stated in the past and
continued to repeat it very so often. Everyone should use
common-sense
and make up their own mind.

Your statements of position are nonsense. Common sense, like those
nice lead plates and cooking utensils pretty well wiped out the Roman
Empire.

The whole point of examining the use of cp in parenting is to shine
some light on "common sense" and how it so often can fail us.

This poster is attempting to find some factual information, not
"common sense" that is so often nonsensicle on its face.

If cp isn't a factor in the creation of social misfits then let's see
what YOU have to support that?

The poster hasn't found any Unspanked in the ranks of the violent
criminal, except one.

If we accept the premise he is a forensic psychologist with experience
then the assumption would be that he has seen or examine many such
violent criminals.

That may be of no value to you, but to me it brings up the same
questions I have from my own experience with violent juveniles...not a
one that wasn't spanked at least. Not one.

I have seen random behavior that included acts we might call violent
in children with fairly severe psychiatric conditions that I calculate
would likely have been present had they not been spanked, but I never
had examples to prove that.

All I did see had been spanked, with or without diagnosed mental
illness, and were violent.

You have no experience, unless you want to claim otherwise, to make
valid assumptions. You can quess all you want but when professionals
tell you what they have seen why do you insist on claiming they are
unlikely to be telling you the truth?


Doan


You aren't going to be taken seriously until you take the subject
seriously. And citing people like Dobson is not going to be one of
those critical pieces that make you appear knowledgable.

And your calling up the much debated Straus is pointless. The poster
isn't asking for studies. He's asking if other's experience, like or
unlike his, might shed some light on his questions.

Unless you have some experience what is your point?

Or, better, what is your experience?

Have you worked with violent criminal populations, or adjudicated or
mental health referred youth and children?

Have you anything other than your own personal family experience? Do
you assume that you can look at people or talk with them and make an
accurate assessment of whether or not they are geniuses?

By the way, how DO you know they were, and that they were unspanked?
You a MENSA member? I have access to membership lists and you know by
now that I know your full name.

You aren't listed.

So you must have some kind of special access to geniuses and their
private life. Care to share how you came by knowing the ones you met
were unspanked? Or were there actually any at all that you met?

Oh, and by the way. Why would you bring up the issue of "genius" as an
arguement. The poster is talking about violent forensic subjects and
the incidence of spanking thereto. As far as I've seen only a few
geniuses are violent to the point of criminality.

But they do exist, so if your premise, that geniuses are also spanked
how does that support your contention, so often voiced here, that
spanking isn't an issue worthy of more attention than "everyone use
common sense and make up their own mind?"

Kane

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: A short assignment


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:


-- Snips on down-------------------------------------

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed the
teachers?

Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed on),
but none
of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
him. We
didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
interviewed
several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
exceptionally
well behaved and studious.

And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
Interviews
are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.

But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
teachers
to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold and
on
every child?

So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one must
have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of every
detail of the subject's life, eh?

Yep! That is the only way to be sure.

No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the subject,
to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data that
has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.

And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!

Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of 10
chances.

So now I am a creep? Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)

That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't arrest
you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you. And
if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
one's we come looking for first.

LOL!

Pretty simple eh?

Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)


And the siblings are criminal too???

No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
individuals.

And this is becasue they were spanked???

I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe it
is
because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note: The
siblings
have all converted to churches other than that in which they were
reared.)

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met a
criminal
who
was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
coincidence,
but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
behavior?". I
asked
the question here because this was the most strongly recommended
group. I
mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases of
a
criminal
who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3, but
only one
was a mass murderer.

Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not spanked
a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very suspicious
- for
the reason I stated above.

I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not spanked.
I've met
geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
spanked, but I
have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not spanked.
We are
going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
suspicious. I'm
not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not forensics
or
criminology expert.

Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
anything.)

Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
your own?

Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the emperor
has no clothes! ;-)

I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it shows.

I have never claimed any expertise; I do no not "teach at a college
level"; I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0

You missed my point.

He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.

How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a **** how
many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.

Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)

I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.

I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in experience
from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
harmful?

Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing. ;-)

I said nothing about you!

But you did.

"Are you sure you are in MENSA???"

That is a question, not a declarative statement!

You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling the
truth about MENSA?

And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?

Are you in MENSA?

I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am? ;-)

And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores tatooed
on their foreheads.

Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known many!

So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I think
it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.

I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
a Ph. D! ;=3D_



Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
afforded the
same
respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are granted.
James has
in
truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime someone
says
something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is called
"pulling
a
Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
Discipline,
Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple more
I'm too
lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
about him,
he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously so.
I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream Christians-
more to
the
four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
Amish church.

Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before, there
are some
overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and African
American
communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
endorsed by God,
and therefore the only one that should be utilized.

I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence of
what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
recall the number of times there have been citations of church groups
using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some common
african american names in the list of preachers and church members?

Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY??? Do you like
making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)

Doan

Here I'll give you one of those common references. There are hundreds,
possibly thousands of small, to large, groups that hold such beliefs.

http://www.homeschooldigest.com/index.htm

Sadly this magazine is connected, as you can see, with homeschooling,
a generally superior method of educating children, but in this case
perverted. This magazine has a fair sized subscription list...I used
to receive it as a matter of professional connections.

But if you check out who they serve and what they serve up you'll get
the idea your poster is quite correct.

One of their ads in this magazine is one of those to focus on. There
is currectly an effort by NON fundie Christians to stop this ad..they
aren't succeeding, sadly:




We appreciate your support of these companies as they support and work
with us.

-- P A R E N T I N G R E S O U R C E S --

Slide's Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 506
Checotah, OK 74426
The Rod =96Flexible nylon rod, 22" inches, with cushioned vinyl grip,
safety tip. Designed for the purpose of Biblical training. $6.50 per
rod, includes S&H.

___HOME___
___Return To Advertiser's Page___
Copyright 2002-2003 Wisdom's Gate.


This is the kind of sickness you support by your little "let everyone
make up their own mind" nonsense.

That is the same mindset that created an isolationist attitude before
two world wars that turned them into the murderous nightmares they
became.

on a personal note:
Do you attack everything you don't understand? Or just the things
you don't
understand and don't agree with? I

Nope!

I think the poster has you pegged. Attack has been your style for as
long as you have posted here. I've responded in kind because you
haven't a real debate in your entire empty head, though you certainly
fancy yourself as one.

I ASKED QUESTIONS when I don't understand.

Oh come now. A simple google on your addy will show clearly that
attack is just about all you know. Most every time you post you run
through two or three logical fallacies.

Why do you take as an
attack?

How about your "I don't believe you" to the simpliest of the posters
statements.

And demands to prove the obvioius that would require citations in the
hundreds to satisfy you. .. and even then you only do it to try and
find a diverting nitpick.

Try providing proof of YOUR position.

I did not come here for a debate, I came
here for an answer. I was politely told that I would have to look
elsewhere,
but I continue to read the posts because I find them interesting
from a
professional perspective. You are the only writer who continues to
bait me.
You asked some good questions to begin with, but now you are simply
repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. Everyone in this NG
has been
very polite, informative, thoughtful, and honest. Everyone but you.
I think
you have raised some very good points in other threads, so I don't
want to
killfile you. If you have any new questions for me I would be more
than
happy to answer them as best I can, but please stop the needless
baiting. It
reflects poorly on you and your cause.

You came to this newsgroup for an answer??? You are right, you are
not
naive! ;-) BTW, I don't have a cause. I have stated in the past and
continued to repeat it very so often. Everyone should use
common-sense
and make up their own mind.

Your statements of position are nonsense. Common sense, like those
nice lead plates and cooking utensils pretty well wiped out the Roman
Empire.

The whole point of examining the use of cp in parenting is to shine
some light on "common sense" and how it so often can fail us.

This poster is attempting to find some factual information, not
"common sense" that is so often nonsensicle on its face.

If cp isn't a factor in the creation of social misfits then let's see
what YOU have to support that?

The poster hasn't found any Unspanked in the ranks of the violent
criminal, except one.

If we accept the premise he is a forensic psychologist with experience
then the assumption would be that he has seen or examine many such
violent criminals.

That may be of no value to you, but to me it brings up the same
questions I have from my own experience with violent juveniles...not a
one that wasn't spanked at least. Not one.

I have seen random behavior that included acts we might call violent
in children with fairly severe psychiatric conditions that I calculate
would likely have been present had they not been spanked, but I never
had examples to prove that.

All I did see had been spanked, with or without diagnosed mental
illness, and were violent.

You have no experience, unless you want to claim otherwise, to make
valid assumptions. You can quess all you want but when professionals
tell you what they have seen why do you insist on claiming they are
unlikely to be telling you the truth?


Doan


You aren't going to be taken seriously until you take the subject
seriously. And citing people like Dobson is not going to be one of
those critical pieces that make you appear knowledgable.

And your calling up the much debated Straus is pointless. The poster
isn't asking for studies. He's asking if other's experience, like or
unlike his, might shed some light on his questions.

Unless you have some experience what is your point?

Or, better, what is your experience?

Have you worked with violent criminal populations, or adjudicated or
mental health referred youth and children?

Have you anything other than your own personal family experience? Do
you assume that you can look at people or talk with them and make an
accurate assessment of whether or not they are geniuses?

By the way, how DO you know they were, and that they were unspanked?
You a MENSA member? I have access to membership lists and you know by
now that I know your full name.

You aren't listed.

So you must have some kind of special access to geniuses and their
private life. Care to share how you came by knowing the ones you met
were unspanked? Or were there actually any at all that you met?

Oh, and by the way. Why would you bring up the issue of "genius" as an
arguement. The poster is talking about violent forensic subjects and
the incidence of spanking thereto. As far as I've seen only a few
geniuses are violent to the point of criminality.

But they do exist, so if your premise, that geniuses are also spanked
how does that support your contention, so often voiced here, that
spanking isn't an issue worthy of more attention than "everyone use
common sense and make up their own mind?"

Kane

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:02:20 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: A short assignment


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:


-- Snips on down-------------------------------------

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed
the
teachers?

Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed
on),
but none
of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
him. We
didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
interviewed
several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
exceptionally
well behaved and studious.

And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the
best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
Interviews
are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.

But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
teachers
to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold
and
on
every child?

So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one
must
have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of
every
detail of the subject's life, eh?

Yep! That is the only way to be sure.

Now we have, by your own admission, a clear understanding of your
reality. Waaaay out of touch.

Should we rely on your methods to determine courses of action, like
turning on the lights, or scheduling traffic flow, or controlling
nuclear reactions, we must not...because we don't have that minute a
record of events to examine.

No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the
subject,
to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data
that
has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.

And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!

Yes........? And............?

Are you then claiming that hard science is the only valid science we
should use for decision making?

You will have to stay indoors under your bed then.

You make decisions based on "soft science."

Your decision making is in itself, "soft science" personafied.

Wait! I could be wrong. Maybe you don't operate in the same world the
rest of us do.


Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of
10
chances.

So now I am a creep?

Did you have doubts?

Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)

And on what body of precise minute by minute second by second
research, scientific, do you base the assumption that I am spanked or
unspanked? Or "never-spanked" and am a "boy?."

That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't
arrest
you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you.
And
if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
one's we come looking for first.

LOL!

The nervous laughter of a useless twit. But one who knows he's
something of a menage to society.

Pretty simple eh?

Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)

Yup! Sure is.


And the siblings are criminal too???

No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
individuals.

And this is becasue they were spanked???

I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe
it
is
because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note:
The
siblings
have all converted to churches other than that in which they
were
reared.)

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met
a
criminal
who
was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
coincidence,
but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
behavior?". I
asked
the question here because this was the most strongly
recommended
group. I
mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases
of
a
criminal
who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3,
but
only one
was a mass murderer.

Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not
spanked
a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very
suspicious
- for
the reason I stated above.

I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not
spanked.
I've met
geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
spanked, but I
have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not
spanked.
We are
going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
suspicious. I'm
not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not
forensics
or
criminology expert.

Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
anything.)

Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
your own?

Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the
emperor
has no clothes! ;-)

And which of the poster's clothes are you prepared to prove he has
none of, little boy?

According to you he cannot make worthwhile judgements about criminals
based on forensic psychology, yet he and his collegues do so, and are
sought after energetically by law enforcement. You think they want
"hard science" as you describe it before they'll believe its
effectiveness?

Or is it that you want him to prove he is a member of MENSA, or that
geniuses have no worth, intellectually, that isn't held by mentaly
disabled folks?

You really need to settle down to something here, Doan, before you
embarrass yourself to the extreme.

I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it
shows.

I have never claimed any expertise;

What a relief. It sure looked like you were quite happy to challenge
those that do as though you were their peer, expertwise.

I do no not "teach at a college
level";

I can't begin to express my thankfulness.

I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0

Did you think we would have trouble figuring that out for ourselves?
[:-}


You missed my point.

He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.

How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)

I have decided to use the masculine based on the rythym and syntax of
his posts and replies. I surely could be wrong, but I am clumsy with
the nuetered constructs and saying they when I mean an individual

It is a convenience I'll assume, unless the poster says otherwise, I
am free to use.

Are you curious about what is between his legs? I'm not.

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.

Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)

Okay, let's try that.

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
many CRIMINALS you've met that have or haven't been spanked.

SEE?

The difference is you have admitted you have no expertise in either
case. He does. When you have trained and practiced as a forensic
psychologist and therefor have all that minute detail you demand for
scientific validity, come back and use it to refute his claims or
questions.

I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.

I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in
experience
from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
harmful?

Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing.
;-)

All I said was that two of use differ in experience from you. YOUR
instence that you have a valid opposing opinion (especially when the
poster is quite reluctant to declare any position at all) shows who
has the "cargo cult" mentality.

You are making assumptions on little or no knowledge. If he is to be
believed, he is making his on his professional training and
experience, and I know I am.

So...what do you bring to the table to support your assumptions and
claims? That you were spanked, as you have admitted?

I've always thought a doctor that is too fresh from his own disease is
suspect for treating mine. I'd rather he had lots of distance from say
his own broken leg before he sets mine. Better perspective.

So how long has it been since your Bo or Me whipped your little smart
ass butt, eh?

I said nothing about you!

But you did.

"Are you sure you are in MENSA???"

That is a question, not a declarative statement!

I didn't say it was "declarative."

I only stated that you said something about him.

And it is disengenuous of you to think we can't get the nuance of
putting the word "sure" into a sentence to imply the poster is
possibly lying or in some other way impaired or questionable on his
MENSA status.

In other words, you are calling him a liar. And your response to my
question was a lie on your part. Very interesting.

But this is your attempt, as we are accustomed to, to appear erudite
when in fact you are simply a liar.

You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling
the
truth about MENSA?

And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?

YOU brought up genius, and that fact you had met none that had not
been spanked. Do you frequently introduce a point but not want a reply
in kind?

Oh, wait...of course. You do it all the time.

Are you in MENSA?

I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am?
;-)

Not in the least. I know rather a lot of folks that are members of
MENSA, and some are stupid and some are rude, and some kind,
thoughtful, considerate and smart. Rather like the general run of the
mill folks.

But we weren't arguing the relative merits of MENSANs but rather how
many genius you know and how many the poster knows. And the spanking
rate amongst them.

And you brought it up, genius.

And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores
tatooed
on their foreheads.

Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known
many!

Well, the poster pointed out his MENSA membership. I would conclude
either you don't know what MENSA is, or you are being stupid again. He
would, if he attends gettogethers with MENSANs, hard put to NOT meet a
lot of geniuses, by test. But then that is how it's established.

Now if you want to claim you have met intelligent people that were
spanked that might change things, but you said "geniuses" and that
puts the ball in your court to show how you know they were geniuses,
as I asked you to do.

I notice you avoided responding to the question and instead posed a
diversion.

For my part, I have lots of ways of knowning when I meet or have met a
genius. I ask. Usually the other person asks me. Want to guess why?

So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I
think
it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.

I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
a Ph. D! ;=3D_

And I've congratulated you on saving humankind.

Now that you have thoroughly, and once again, backed yourself into a
corner that you can't get out of and have reverted to your usual smart
ass remarks, shall we assume you have nothing to contribute to the
posters questions?



Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
afforded the
same
respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are
granted.
James has
in
truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime
someone
says
something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is
called
"pulling
a
Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
Discipline,
Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple
more
I'm too
lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
about him,
he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously
so.
I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream
Christians-
more to
the
four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
Amish church.

Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before,
there
are some
overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and
African
American
communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
endorsed by God,
and therefore the only one that should be utilized.

I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence
of
what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
recall the number of times there have been citations of church
groups
using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some
common
african american names in the list of preachers and church members?

Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY???

Yes, I understand the using of CP.

It is impossible to use it exclusively and so it is not a valid
response to the posters inquiry here.

It's just another of your diversions where you think yourself clever
to have slipped out of answering to the question posed.

Do you like
making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)

When did you stop beating your wife?.

As for fool, I think we'll let your question stand as is. It is a
perfect demonstration of your childishness.

Doan

snipping yet another series of questions and points made that Doan
does not answer or respond too, for fear of showing himself for what
he is.

And we now prepare ourselves for an onslaught of further foolishness
to cover up his lack of knowledge and wit, by the Genius at
Tomfoolery, Doan the Devious...a title he is in love with, given his
performance.

bingo bango bongo.

r r r r

Stoneman

"mind candy" wrote in message news:3f528818$1_4@newsfeed...
I realize I have a sizable advantage because I work in the field, but
everybody reading this has access to the internet, so here it goes. Find one
famous violent criminal who was not spanked as a child. I know a lot of you
would like to prove the experts wrong, so do this one thing and properly
humiliate us. In all the law enforcement research involving thousands of
murderers, rapists, arsonists, bombers, child molesters, and kidnappers, I
have come across only one offender who did not receive corporal punishment
as a child. He was (not yet convicted) murderer/millionaire Robert Durst.
Find just one more reasonably famous offender who wasn?t spanked, and you
will best, not only me, but every expert in forensic psychology. Good luck.
I?ll check back later to see if anyone succeeded.

So let's start again....smile

My work has put me in close contact with families and children since
about 1976. That in itself isn't unusual, but it's been both
adjudicated and/or diagnosed youth and children (and their families)
and those that are not.

In other words, dyfunctional and those that are not shown to be...for
what that might be worth.

My experience has been that among those that dysfunctional I have been
hard pressed to find any that have not been spanked. In fact in all
those instances I reviewed the information available, including by
interview of the subject and those familiar with the subject, I found
NONE that were unspanked and worse along with spanking.

Among the not shown by evaluation to be dysfunctional I found a mix.
Some where spanked, some not. Invariably I found though that those
that were NOT spanked dysfunction was missing or very low, and yet I
could not determine that they were truly not spanked.

Investigation can go only so far, after all.

Another point I noticed was that even among those reporting
non-spanking those with some with, to my view, slight dysfunction the
parents used some other punishments that were in place that the child
was reactive to. Usually it was humiliation of some kind: name
calling, and predicting failure most often.

One might find the Durst question answered by this punishment model.
Can't say as I surely don't know the case well.

My conclusion was and is that spanking (and other punishments) has a
risk of producing dysfunction that exceeds the risk of non spanking
and nonpunishing parenting methods.

An over-simplistic conclusion on my part: why use spanking or even
punishement at all if one has other tools for parenting?

It worked for me and my children.

(Note: I do not include natural consequence, if not imposed by
another, as punishment, but some children might experience them as
such...the very sensative child for instance).

Best wishes, Kane

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:02:20 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 14 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:48:19 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:



"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: A short assignment


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, mind candy wrote:


-- Snips on down-------------------------------------

So he never misbehaved in school??? Did you interviewed
the
teachers?

Yes, of course. Except his 3rd grade teacher (who had passed
on),
but none
of his elementary school teachers recalled any difficulty with
him. We
didn't interview all of his secondary school teachers, but we
interviewed
several, and the principal. By all accounts and records he was
exceptionally
well behaved and studious.

And there is your problem! Your "research" depended on other
people
memories! Confucius said "The faintest ink is better than the
best
memory." You are right in saying that you are not naive. ;-)

So you missed the records reference, or did you just ignore it?
Interviews
are done in conjunction with paper chasing, not in lieu of it.

But the "paper" doesn't record his whole life! Do you expect the
teachers
to keep a daily journal and everything that happenned in schoold
and
on
every child?

So to be able to study a subject and extrapolate effectively one
must
have a minute by minute second by second real time recording of
every
detail of the subject's life, eh?

Yep! That is the only way to be sure.

Now we have, by your own admission, a clear understanding of your
reality. Waaaay out of touch.

And so much for your understanding of the scientific method. :-)

Should we rely on your methods to determine courses of action, like
turning on the lights, or scheduling traffic flow, or controlling
nuclear reactions, we must not...because we don't have that minute a
record of events to examine.

No. Of course not. We just asked the night watchman what he saw. :-)

No, Doan, the point of forensics of any kind is to find out enough,
knowing one can't know everything there is to know about the
subject,
to be able to hold the knowledge up to previously collected data
that
has proven out to be true for the assumptions made.

And that is the difference between hard science and soft science!

Yes........? And............?

Are you then claiming that hard science is the only valid science we
should use for decision making?

Never said that. We should use common-sense.

You will have to stay indoors under your bed then.

Why?

You make decisions based on "soft science."

Really?

Your decision making is in itself, "soft science" personafied.

Nope!

Wait! I could be wrong. Maybe you don't operate in the same world the
rest of us do.

Who are we? The 94%+ that spanked? ;-)


Such as if one spanks a child enough the probability of that child
growing into a creep like you is inevitable at roughly a 9 out of
10
chances.

So now I am a creep?

Did you have doubts?

About you? NOPE! ;-)

Thank you, "never-spanked" boy. ;-)

And on what body of precise minute by minute second by second
research, scientific, do you base the assumption that I am spanked or
unspanked? Or "never-spanked" and am a "boy?."

You are either "never-spanked" nor not. ;-) Your chance to say something
about your mom again. Go ahead! ;-)

That's all one needs for all practical purposes. Society won't
arrest
you for being a dangerous creep, but we will keep an eye on you.
And
if something nasty happens in your vacinity you will be one of the
one's we come looking for first.

LOL!

The nervous laughter of a useless twit. But one who knows he's
something of a menage to society.

That's just a laught in your face, Kane9!

Pretty simple eh?

Yup! For simple-minded "never-spanked" boy like you! ;-)

Yup! Sure is.

I know, simple-minded "never-spanked" boy! :-)


And the siblings are criminal too???

No they are not, as a point of fact they are quite successful
individuals.

And this is becasue they were spanked???

I don't know, that might be a factor, might not. I tend believe
it
is
because of their religious faith more than anything else.(note:
The
siblings
have all converted to churches other than that in which they
were
reared.)

And you claimed "correlation" base on this one case???

No, I claimed a possible correlation because I have NEVER met
a
criminal
who
was not spanked as a child. As I said before it could just be
coincidence,
but the question is an old one "does CP lead to violent
behavior?". I
asked
the question here because this was the most strongly
recommended
group. I
mentioned the case because I was asked if I knew of any cases
of
a
criminal
who had ONLY experienced spanking as discipline. I know of 3,
but
only one
was a mass murderer.

Your logic is faulty! I have NEVER met genius who was not
spanked
a child
neither. But that is hardly a good basis to claim correlation!
And the
3 cases that you claimed to have knowledge of, I am very
suspicious
- for
the reason I stated above.

I'm in Mensa, I have met dozens of geniuses who were not
spanked.
I've met
geniuses who were spanked too, and successful people who were
spanked, but I
have never, not once, met a violent criminal who was not
spanked.
We are
going in circles here. To be blunt, I don't care if you are
suspicious. I'm
not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not
forensics
or
criminology expert.

Are you sure you are in MENSA??? (Not that it supposes to meant
anything.)

Why would you question someone else's bonefides but provide none of
your own?

Because I am just a little boy that like to point out that the
emperor
has no clothes! ;-)

And which of the poster's clothes are you prepared to prove he has
none of, little boy?

It's a figure of speech, Kane9. You might want to ask your master (or is
it ex-master, Chris. :-)

According to you he cannot make worthwhile judgements about criminals
based on forensic psychology, yet he and his collegues do so, and are
sought after energetically by law enforcement. You think they want
"hard science" as you describe it before they'll believe its
effectiveness?

LOL! And if they sought psychics, I must believe in psychics too?
Hey, Kane9, your "cargo-cult' mentality is showing. :-)

Or is it that you want him to prove he is a member of MENSA, or that
geniuses have no worth, intellectually, that isn't held by mentaly
disabled folks?

Huh?

You really need to settle down to something here, Doan, before you
embarrass yourself to the extreme.

No. You should look at yourself first. :-)

I can answer that for you: you have no expertise at all and it
shows.

I have never claimed any expertise;

What a relief. It sure looked like you were quite happy to challenge
those that do as though you were their peer, expertwise.

Sure, I will challenge anyone. You see, unlike you, I learn to think
for myself. ;-)

I do no not "teach at a college
level";

I can't begin to express my thankfulness.

I do not hold a Ph. D; and I am no member of MENSA! :-0

Did you think we would have trouble figuring that out for ourselves?
[:-}

And that makes it much more fun when I kicked your butt! ;-)
Remember how you claimed to be a security "expert"??? ;-)


You missed my point.

He didn't miss it. You missed his answering it.

How do you know it's a he? Did you look between his/her legs? ;-)

I have decided to use the masculine based on the rythym and syntax of
his posts and replies. I surely could be wrong, but I am clumsy with
the nuetered constructs and saying they when I mean an individual

So you are admitting that you are stupid? ;-)

It is a convenience I'll assume, unless the poster says otherwise, I
am free to use.

And you came up looking like an ass! ;-)

Are you curious about what is between his legs? I'm not.

I didn't make any assumption, YOU DID! ;-)

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
many geniuses you've met that have or haven't been spanked. No
relevance to others experience, but enjoy your ignorance. Make
yourself a trophy and put it on your monitor.

Exactly! Now replace genius with criminal! See my point? :-)

Okay, let's try that.

He was too polite to point out he, nor I, nor anyone, gives a ****
how
many CRIMINALS you've met that have or haven't been spanked.

SEE?

Yes! Are you stat stupid? He(?) did asked in his first post if anyone
know of any criminals who weren't spanked!!!

The difference is you have admitted you have no expertise in either
case. He does. When you have trained and practiced as a forensic
psychologist and therefor have all that minute detail you demand for
scientific validity, come back and use it to refute his claims or
questions.

And how do you know that he (again?) has any expertise? You just admitted
that you don't even know if he has a dick between his legs! Are you this
stupid or are you just pretending to be this stupid? ;-)

I HAVE NEVER met a genious who were never spanked.

I have. Many times. Now you have TWO others that differ in
experience
from you. Think you might want to give that some consideration when
you try so despiritely to cling to your notion that spanking isn't
harmful?

Two? Very scientific, Kane9. You "cargo-cult" mentality is showing.
;-)

All I said was that two of use differ in experience from you. YOUR
instence that you have a valid opposing opinion (especially when the
poster is quite reluctant to declare any position at all) shows who
has the "cargo cult" mentality.

Huh? Two of you said spanking is harmful and that is scientific?
What logic! :-)

You are making assumptions on little or no knowledge. If he is to be
believed, he is making his on his professional training and
experience, and I know I am.

I asked questions that he (again?) cannot answered.! This is the
interrnet and one can claim anything. One can even claim to "teach math
at a college level" with just a M.A in Biology!!! Do you know how to
think for yourself, Kane9? Or you just too happy to be a little dog
obeying the commands of your master? ;-)

So...what do you bring to the table to support your assumptions and
claims? That you were spanked, as you have admitted?

Yup! I have admitted that. :-)

I've always thought a doctor that is too fresh from his own disease is
suspect for treating mine. I'd rather he had lots of distance from say
his own broken leg before he sets mine. Better perspective.

And you are willing to take diagnostics from a doctor over the internet,
right, Kane9? ;-)

So how long has it been since your Bo or Me whipped your little smart
ass butt, eh?

Who? You gonna whip my ass or I'll whip yours - like so many times before.
:-)

I said nothing about you!

But you did.

"Are you sure you are in MENSA???"

That is a question, not a declarative statement!

I didn't say it was "declarative."

But you said I did. That is a declarative sentence! Are you playing
stupid again? ;-)

I only stated that you said something about him.

LOL! If I "said something about him" then I made a declarative statement,
you fool! ;-)

And it is disengenuous of you to think we can't get the nuance of
putting the word "sure" into a sentence to imply the poster is
possibly lying or in some other way impaired or questionable on his
MENSA status.

I asked him a question!

In other words, you are calling him a liar. And your response to my
question was a lie on your part. Very interesting.

No where did I said he is liar, you stupid Kane9! ;-)

But this is your attempt, as we are accustomed to, to appear erudite
when in fact you are simply a liar.

LOL! Now you're calling a liar. You can do better than that,
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)

You are attempting to cast doubt on his contribution to the
discussion. What in his discourse would suggest he isn't telling
the
truth about MENSA?

And what does MENSA have to do with the discussion?

YOU brought up genius, and that fact you had met none that had not
been spanked. Do you frequently introduce a point but not want a reply
in kind?

Oh, wait...of course. You do it all the time.

Yup! To point out the irrelevance or illogical of the poster. You don't
get it. ;-)

Are you in MENSA?

I have never claimed so. Would it changed your mind if I said I am?
;-)

Not in the least. I know rather a lot of folks that are members of
MENSA, and some are stupid and some are rude, and some kind,
thoughtful, considerate and smart. Rather like the general run of the
mill folks.

Which point that MENSA is relevant to the discussion??? ;-)

But we weren't arguing the relative merits of MENSANs but rather how
many genius you know and how many the poster knows. And the spanking
rate amongst them.

So members of MENSA are geniuses???

And you brought it up, genius.

Did I said I was?

And how many geniuses have you ever met and how did you know who is
and isn't a genius? Very few folks go around with their scores
tatooed
on their foreheads.

Then it is funny for you, and the poster, to say that you have known
many!

Well, the poster pointed out his MENSA membership. I would conclude
either you don't know what MENSA is, or you are being stupid again. He
would, if he attends gettogethers with MENSANs, hard put to NOT meet a
lot of geniuses, by test. But then that is how it's established.

You might want to re-read your discription of MENSA above. You will see
that the stupid one is Y-O-U! ;-)

Now if you want to claim you have met intelligent people that were
spanked that might change things, but you said "geniuses" and that
puts the ball in your court to show how you know they were geniuses,
as I asked you to do.

Irrelevant! Remember, you said some members of MENSA are stupid! ;-)

I notice you avoided responding to the question and instead posed a
diversion.

For my part, I have lots of ways of knowning when I meet or have met a
genius. I ask. Usually the other person asks me. Want to guess why?

Because you are a genius! OF COURSE! ;-)

So you see, if you doubt he's a genius and a member of MENSA, I
think
it only fair to question if you have met any geniuses at all.

I never claimed to be a genius nor "teach a a college level" nor have
a Ph. D! ;=3D_

And I've congratulated you on saving humankind.

How's that? I thought you are the one that out to save humankind from
spankers! ;-)

Now that you have thoroughly, and once again, backed yourself into a
corner that you can't get out of and have reverted to your usual smart
ass remarks, shall we assume you have nothing to contribute to the
posters questions?

And the poster is a he? LOL! A genius, a member of MENSA, who came to
alt.parenting.spanking looking for answer??? Yeah, Kane. Look who is
the fool - which no clothes! :-)



Really? Have you read Dobson? ;-)

Dobson is considered an extremist in academia, thus he is
afforded the
same
respect that a John Park or perhaps even Tom Carey are
granted.
James has
in
truth become something of a joke in most circles, Anytime
someone
says
something so blaringly incorrect as to be humorous, it is
called
"pulling
a
Jimmy" in his honor. I have read a few of his books (Dare to
Discipline,
Love for a Lifetime, Preparing for Adolescence, and a couple
more
I'm too
lazy to fetch from the library). I don't understand the uproar
about him,
he's wrong on a lot of things, but probably not dangerously
so.
I wasn't referring to the born again and mainstream
Christians-
more to
the
four-squares, certain Pentecostals and even some members the
Amish church.

Did Dobson recommend CP in all cases? Can you tell me who does?

No Dobson does not, nor did I claim he did. As I said before,
there
are some
overtly religious sects- most commonly found in rural and
African
American
communities- that believe CP is the only form of discipline
endorsed by God,
and therefore the only one that should be utilized.

I found it hard to believe. Can you give me a reference?

Oh stop playing the fool. One simply has to be able to read and
observe the media to understand his statement. You've seen evidence
of
what you are asking him to prove right here in this ng. Do you not
recall the number of times there have been citations of church
groups
using cp on members children? Were you unable to recognize some
common
african american names in the list of preachers and church members?

Do you understand using CP and using it EXCLUSIVELY???

Yes, I understand the using of CP.

It is impossible to use it exclusively and so it is not a valid
response to the posters inquiry here.

It's just another of your diversions where you think yourself clever
to have slipped out of answering to the question posed.

Do you like
making a fool of yourself in public??? ;-)

When did you stop beating your wife?.

As for fool, I think we'll let your question stand as is. It is a
perfect demonstration of your childishness.

Doan

snipping yet another series of questions and points made that Doan
does not answer or respond too, for fear of showing himself for what
he is.

What? You can't stand your own post, Kane9?

And we now prepare ourselves for an onslaught of further foolishness
to cover up his lack of knowledge and wit, by the Genius at
Tomfoolery, Doan the Devious...a title he is in love with, given his
performance.

And a perfect ending of someone who claimed to be "neverr-spanked"! ;-)

Doan

Yawn....

Try pulling back just a little further.

..............( * )..............

I'm sure you'll enjoy the view.

And you'll finally find yourself, yourself.


r r r r r

Stoneman the K-9....r r r r

"mind candy" wrote in message
...


--

-- SNIP-------------------------------------

.

And the poster hasn't asked for debate. He's only asked questions, and
questions about what premise might be drawn from what he's found.

You haven't contributed a single statement in response, only behaved
like the damaged child you still carry around from being spanked...and
what ever other humilities were visited on you as a child.


If you can give the poster some information that might help sort out
his puzzle, why he found only one serial killer that hadn't been
spanked you might be useful, but we know the prospect of examining
this terrifies you because the truth, as is likely to be found, won't
fit with your neurotic denial and defense.

It's good to see you working on it though. Maybe one day........

Kane

Thank you, sir- for defending both me and the truth. I fear it won't help
but I appreciate your efforts. Individuals like you, Ron, LaVonne and a
few
others (you know who you are) are prime examples of why this newsgroup has
been so respected- on both sides of the issue.


Oh no, please do not include me in that. I usually avoid this ng as it is
so full of BS and untruth. I use my own common sense and the rules under
which I live to make my decisions in this area.

I suppose I "could" respect participants in this ng, if they could cut the
lies to only once per post. Then again the ng would only have very short
posts.

Ron

LOL! The little Kane9 is running with his tail between his legs! :-)

Doan

On 16 Sep 2003, Kane wrote:

Yawn....

Try pulling back just a little further.

.............( * )..............

I'm sure you'll enjoy the view.

And you'll finally find yourself, yourself.


r r r r r

Stoneman the K-9....r r r r

Here's a great example of Doan's thinking and Doan's ability to articulate.

Ordinary people are intimidated by pseudoscience? Who are ordinary people, Doan,
and what do you consider to be pseudoscience?

Teachers who have good ideas? Force of the school system? Where did the
knowledge base go, doan? What is a good teacher idea and what makes this a good
idea? And on what is the school system basing their curriculum? ciI realize
that you abhor experts, doan, but uninformed opinions are a dime a dozen. Truly
informed opinions are very rare, and individuals who live by uninformed decisions
find experts that contradict this opinion a puzzle.

I loved this statement, though -- "Or a parentof bad boys, after disciplining
them in one way or another, feelsguilty for the rest of her life because she
didn't do "the rightthing," according to the experts.

A parent of of bad boys? Who are the "bad boys?" Why not "a parent of bad
girls?" Are only boys bad? Whatever is your logic here, Doan?

What is the right thing for "bad boys?" Is this also the same for "bad girls?"

Good grief, Doan.

LaVonne

Doan wrote:


Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.






So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)