Mr. Kenneth Pangborn ...

My offer still stands, Ken.

I will be happy to debate both the International study, and three
ethnic group astract with you in the spanking newsgroup only,
alt.parenting.spanking.

I ask, of course, as before, that we take an oath to not engage with
other people on the issuse or for that matter any issues, while in
that thread in that group...this includes exclusion of all those that
would intrude.

They may do so, but neither you or I would respond.

I would ask you to refrain as well from the ad hom attacks, as I will
be happy to do as well.

I would also request, that when a request for proof is asked for by
either of us the other party respond with that proof. This presumes a
claim is made, and a request for proof is tendered.

Can you debate under these conditions?

If not you need not answer. I don't intend to embarrass, you, but
simply to follow up on my word...that I will debate you under those
conditions I offered before and more careful boundaries to keep us
both honest and responsible to the issues.

And no, I'm not interested in negotiating conditions. These or no
debate.

Thank you for your attention. Feel free to turn me down, no fault.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
ups.com...

My offer still stands, Ken.

TOTALLY HOLLOW!!!!!

I will be happy to debate both the International study, and three
ethnic group astract with you in the spanking newsgroup only,
alt.parenting.spanking.

First you PROVE your original claim. That spanking CAUSES children to go
wildly insane on murdcxerous rampages (my ridicule of your stupid claims)
with secientifically acceptable evidence. The single source you have tried
to use does not support either the claims made in its title nor your
expanded claims for it. When you DO support your original claim and ONLY
when you do shall we "debate" further and YOU do NOT get to set the terms
Kane you are NOT the GOD you believe yourself to be. IF you want to debate
ME little boy you'll do it in the open or NOT AT ALL!

I ask, of course, as before, that we take an oath to not engage with
other people on the issuse or for that matter any issues, while in
that thread in that group...this includes exclusion of all those that
would intrude.

What a JOKE after your recent DESPERATION trying to summon Mr. Moore to
your aid. The ENTIRE reason - 100% of the reason you want to confine the
debate to the spanking group is so you can get the aid of your fellow
anti-spankers to help you - why? Because you NEED all the help you can get
and you KNOW it. When you walk the walk Citizen Kane THEN and ONLY THEN
will I take you seriously!! GOT IT?

On Mar 8, 5:22 am, " KRP" wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message

ups.com...

My offer still stands, Ken.

TOTALLY HOLLOW!!!!!

It's a genuine offer, almost identical to the one I made to you a
couple of months ago.
I'm sorry it doesn't meet your approval.

A simply, "no," would have been sufficient.

I will be happy to debate both the International study, and three
ethnic group astract with you in the spanking newsgroup only,
alt.parenting.spanking.

First you PROVE your original claim.

No. So far you haven't represented my original claim accurately. I
can't and won't try to "PROVE" something I didn't claim.

That spanking CAUSES children to go
wildly insane on murdcxerous rampages (my ridicule of your stupid claims)
with secientifically acceptable evidence.

Two points:

1 - That was not my claim. Mine was that the study, both in fact, did
not support the rhetoric of many spanking enthusiasts, and advocates,
such as Doan. One study, the three ethnic group comparisons, show the
same characteristic responses under the same variant conditions for
all three groups.

The second study, the International one showed that regardless of
conditions there was some increase, less in some populations, more in
others, to the occurrences of the use of CP.

Neither study article or abstract I offered claimed "CAUSES" nor did
I. In fact I accepted that the title of one (not in the abstract, but
to the article only) misrepresented the study and it's own article.

You seem to be insisting I did not.

You also are unethically claiming, if you mean to pin "CAUSES" on me
by way of that article title, expressing a desire to hold a poster to
being responsible for and in support of every word, sentence, and
paragraph or concept presented when they post from the media.

Do you wish to make that a standard protocol for all posters,
including yourself?

....and 2.

The single source you have tried
to use does not support either the claims made in its title nor your
expanded claims for it.

One source had included two citations, the article about, and the
abstract of, a study. There were, upon searching, other sources citing
the International study. The cross ethic study abstract was listed as
have, as I recall, at least three other citations by other authors,
researchers, or publications.

The fact is one can debate a point using a single source. One can
bring in more sources to influence the argument as well. But one is
not obligated to do so for their views to constitute valid argument.

I did, however, as you know, also in another thread, submit the three
ethnicity research.

I have not attempted to support the claims made in the title (and I
see you are referring to the International study.), and in fact
conceded (the ONLY concession I made, which does NOT stop normal
debate or argument about the larger issue) on to the title only. And
asked you to debate the content rather than the title.

You seem reluctant to move on to the actual content, though you make
claims about, and yet refuse to actually engage in the content beyond
our disagreement as to what it actually says, and if it is research
using "junk science...junk" as you said.

I have asked you to prove it is junk science according to the
professional standards of research for social science. I was waiting
for and answer to that, but instead was answered as though we are
still arguing over the title. I have agreed with you on the title.

Do you feel it necessary to still discuss it as though I'm opposed to
your position in the title? Why?

When you DO support your original claim

Well, I have done so, since my original claim was that the research,
in both instances, did not claim "cause," and addressed only
correlation (as Doan posted clearly for you in a challenge to LaVonne
to debate the International study) I find it peculiar that you still
insist, without requested proof that I personally made a claim of
"cause" for the study or studies.

Are you having difficulty finding evidence that I allegedly made a
claim for "cause?"

I am myself, because knowing that like other humans I certainly do
occasionally misspeak and on more than one occasion discovering
(sometimes with help from other posters) it I have gone to
considerable lengths to at least either acknowledge I did, or in some
cases go so far as to seek out more information, that proved I was
mistaken, and then have come back to the newsgroup, addressed my
opponent with the evidence of my error by cited the most authoritative
source I could find, and admitted my error...even providing the
correct information to replace, or rectify my error.

Now I'm prepared to do exactly the same, should you come up with proof
of my error in claiming "cause" because that would be an error. I
don't think in terms of "cause" when it comes to social science, nor
do I say "CAUSES," or "cause" unless I have mispoken. I do not
believe, as I've told you repeatedly, that there is much chance of
causal outcomes in SS research.

I have searched my and your and others posts to this subject thread,
"Spanking leads to..." and cannot find a place where it can reasonable
be claimed that "I" supported "CAUSES."

So, if I did misspeak, and you can find that and provide proof of it,
I apologize in advance, but please provide proof.

Or simply move on to the debate I'd like to have on this important
issue of spanking, ethnicity, and cultural influences on outcomes.

and ONLY
when you do shall we "debate" further and YOU do NOT get to set the terms

A simple "no," would have sufficed.

And yes, I cannot set terms for you. But I can for myself. My offer
stands as read, unless you'd like to negotiate terms so you can have
the opportunity to "whup" my "pansy ass," as you put it.

So far, you seem only to be setting up barriers.

Kane you are NOT the GOD you believe yourself to be.

Not only do I not believe myself not "GOD," but have no belief in god
or gods, or spirits, or ghosties.

IF you want to debate
ME little boy you'll do it in the open or NOT AT ALL!

In the open? How open?

I find it difficult to believe you are sincere, when you removed
addresses from the newsgroups "To:" field.

I posted my offer to you to, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated and soc.men
as well as the three you left in your reply.

Is that your concept of "do it in the open?"

I think it reasonable to also point out that you and I debating in one
newsgroup, and not, while we are in debate, engaging others in that
newsgroup and that thread, does not constitute a hidden debate.

Now if I had asked you to debate me privately off line, yes, that
would be not 'in the open.'

How can my offer constitute any way of blocking others from seeing our
debate?

Even commenting if they wish, just you and I not engaging them.

I ask, of course, as before, that we take an oath to not engage with
other people on the issuse or for that matter any issues, while in
that thread in that group...this includes exclusion of all those that
would intrude.

What a JOKE after your recent DESPERATION trying to summon Mr. Moore to
your aid.

I have offered to not engage anyone during our debate in aps. And to
confine ourselves to a single group, aps.

If you consider cross posting as "summoning," I just offered to block
that route.

The ENTIRE reason - 100% of the reason you want to confine the
debate to the spanking group is so you can get the aid of your fellow
anti-spankers to help you - why?

Either of us could summon anyone we wanted to VIEW the discussion,
simply not, by pledge agreement, could either of us engage them to USE
them as part of the argument.

I have not said that you and I can't discuss the debate and it's
content outside the ng, aps, but simply that we don't respond INSIDE
the thread to anyone but each other.

I'd hardly try to block someone from reading and posting. That's
impossible. I can only pledge not to engage them.

Because you NEED all the help you can get
and you KNOW it.

What I know is that I have offered a forum that limits that as much as
can be done in this medium. And I've done so precisely because I think
the opposite is true.

You appear to have enlisted the help of Doan, Greg, and occasionally
someone, or ones, apparently "socking." You certainly accept their
help.

Have you noticed that no one that one would consider from "my" side,
has made a single comment concerning the spanking debate issues under
discussion? I have seen you engaged by others on the issue of your
veracity about ME. But not about the spanking subject under
discussion.

In any case I would not, by pledge, engage anyone else.

Additionally, those who you might think of as my "help" I would ask to
not involve themselves by commenting to you, me, or even outside the
thread publicly. (The last I can't hold them to, but I would ask it.
And I think they'd honor my request).

I can pretty well gaurantee that both Doan and Greg would not respect
any agreement we have, but that's neither here not there, as long as
you and I honor it.

As you can plainly see, unless you have a bias that keeps you from
doing so, I am offering to debate on the most level of possible
playing fields I can think of.

Can you think of further restraints and boundaries that would do away
with "help" for either of us, equally, that you'd like to discuss?

When you walk the walk Citizen Kane THEN and ONLY THEN
will I take you seriously!! GOT IT?

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

I did tell you that very thing in my latest offer, and said that there
would be "no fault," claimed against you, or argued against you should
you simply say "no."

And to the best of my ability, despite your personal attacks, and your
continuing failure to honestly represent my position on the subject, I
have not attacked you.

In fact your only attacker I see in our exchange so far is you.

I will leave your changes in the newsgroup address list stand exactly
as you edited my list as proof of my good faith effort and offer to
debate on a level playing field.

A forum for debate where everyone who wishes, and any you'd like to
invite to view, can see what we post.

The invitation is open. A simple "no," no fault, is still offered as
an option. But "yes" would be far more welcome.

Kane

" KRP" wrote in message
news:36UHh.15064$zh.6611@trnddc08...
"Kane" wrote in message
ups.com...

My offer still stands, Ken.

TOTALLY HOLLOW!!!!!

I will be happy to debate both the International study, and three
ethnic group astract with you in the spanking newsgroup only,
alt.parenting.spanking.

First you PROVE your original claim. That spanking CAUSES children to
go wildly insane on murdcxerous rampages (my ridicule of your stupid
claims)
with secientifically acceptable evidence. The single source you have tried
to use does not support either the claims made in its title nor your
expanded claims for it. When you DO support your original claim and ONLY
when you do shall we "debate" further and YOU do NOT get to set the terms
Kane you are NOT the GOD you believe yourself to be. IF you want to debate
ME little boy you'll do it in the open or NOT AT ALL!

I ask, of course, as before, that we take an oath to not engage with
other people on the issuse or for that matter any issues, while in
that thread in that group...this includes exclusion of all those that
would intrude.

What a JOKE after your recent DESPERATION trying to summon Mr. Moore to
your aid. The ENTIRE reason - 100% of the reason you want to confine the
debate to the spanking group is so you can get the aid of your fellow
anti-spankers to help you - why? Because you NEED all the help you can get
and you KNOW it. When you walk the walk Citizen Kane THEN and ONLY THEN
will I take you seriously!! GOT IT?

So, that means you can't debate him, or won't, right kenny? Be honest
kenny, for once. Admit that you ARE the sinking ship! Admit that you can't
debate kane, quit bobbing and weaving.

After all kenny, the debate that you and I started ended up with you going
off on tangents unrelated to the subject and unable to support your claims.
You even went so far as to claim that links I provided didn't contain the
data I quoted, even though every other reader here could see that they did.
Your corruption is nearly complete kenny, you need only admit your errors to
gain some small credibility.

Ron

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:45:10 -0800, "0:-]"
wrote:

You must have been playing with me, joking.

You can't be serious that you, honorable, decent, misunderstood, an
attacked, would turn down an offer to have a true public level playing
field debate and get to have everyone watch you, "kick" my "pansy
ass."

Or were you just being kind to me and not wanting to subject me to
that embarrassment?

That's thoughtful, but really, I'm willing to take that risk.

The offer is still open, and probably will stay open ... forever, or
as long as you live, which ever comes first.

How's your blood pressure?

Kane

On Mar 8, 5:22 am, " KRP" wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message

ups.com...

My offer still stands, Ken.

TOTALLY HOLLOW!!!!!

It's a genuine offer, almost identical to the one I made to you a
couple of months ago.
I'm sorry it doesn't meet your approval.

A simply, "no," would have been sufficient.

I will be happy to debate both the International study, and three
ethnic group astract with you in the spanking newsgroup only,
alt.parenting.spanking.

First you PROVE your original claim.

No. So far you haven't represented my original claim accurately. I
can't and won't try to "PROVE" something I didn't claim.

That spanking CAUSES children to go
wildly insane on murdcxerous rampages (my ridicule of your stupid claims)
with secientifically acceptable evidence.

Two points:

1 - That was not my claim. Mine was that the study, both in fact, did
not support the rhetoric of many spanking enthusiasts, and advocates,
such as Doan. One study, the three ethnic group comparisons, show the
same characteristic responses under the same variant conditions for
all three groups.

The second study, the International one showed that regardless of
conditions there was some increase, less in some populations, more in
others, to the occurrences of the use of CP.

Neither study article or abstract I offered claimed "CAUSES" nor did
I. In fact I accepted that the title of one (not in the abstract, but
to the article only) misrepresented the study and it's own article.

You seem to be insisting I did not.

You also are unethically claiming, if you mean to pin "CAUSES" on me
by way of that article title, expressing a desire to hold a poster to
being responsible for and in support of every word, sentence, and
paragraph or concept presented when they post from the media.

Do you wish to make that a standard protocol for all posters,
including yourself?

...and 2.

The single source you have tried
to use does not support either the claims made in its title nor your
expanded claims for it.

One source had included two citations, the article about, and the
abstract of, a study. There were, upon searching, other sources citing
the International study. The cross ethic study abstract was listed as
have, as I recall, at least three other citations by other authors,
researchers, or publications.

The fact is one can debate a point using a single source. One can
bring in more sources to influence the argument as well. But one is
not obligated to do so for their views to constitute valid argument.

I did, however, as you know, also in another thread, submit the three
ethnicity research.

I have not attempted to support the claims made in the title (and I
see you are referring to the International study.), and in fact
conceded (the ONLY concession I made, which does NOT stop normal
debate or argument about the larger issue) on to the title only. And
asked you to debate the content rather than the title.

You seem reluctant to move on to the actual content, though you make
claims about, and yet refuse to actually engage in the content beyond
our disagreement as to what it actually says, and if it is research
using "junk science...junk" as you said.

I have asked you to prove it is junk science according to the
professional standards of research for social science. I was waiting
for and answer to that, but instead was answered as though we are
still arguing over the title. I have agreed with you on the title.

Do you feel it necessary to still discuss it as though I'm opposed to
your position in the title? Why?

When you DO support your original claim

Well, I have done so, since my original claim was that the research,
in both instances, did not claim "cause," and addressed only
correlation (as Doan posted clearly for you in a challenge to LaVonne
to debate the International study) I find it peculiar that you still
insist, without requested proof that I personally made a claim of
"cause" for the study or studies.

Are you having difficulty finding evidence that I allegedly made a
claim for "cause?"

I am myself, because knowing that like other humans I certainly do
occasionally misspeak and on more than one occasion discovering
(sometimes with help from other posters) it I have gone to
considerable lengths to at least either acknowledge I did, or in some
cases go so far as to seek out more information, that proved I was
mistaken, and then have come back to the newsgroup, addressed my
opponent with the evidence of my error by cited the most authoritative
source I could find, and admitted my error...even providing the
correct information to replace, or rectify my error.

Now I'm prepared to do exactly the same, should you come up with proof
of my error in claiming "cause" because that would be an error. I
don't think in terms of "cause" when it comes to social science, nor
do I say "CAUSES," or "cause" unless I have mispoken. I do not
believe, as I've told you repeatedly, that there is much chance of
causal outcomes in SS research.

I have searched my and your and others posts to this subject thread,
"Spanking leads to..." and cannot find a place where it can reasonable
be claimed that "I" supported "CAUSES."

So, if I did misspeak, and you can find that and provide proof of it,
I apologize in advance, but please provide proof.

Or simply move on to the debate I'd like to have on this important
issue of spanking, ethnicity, and cultural influences on outcomes.

and ONLY
when you do shall we "debate" further and YOU do NOT get to set the terms

A simple "no," would have sufficed.

And yes, I cannot set terms for you. But I can for myself. My offer
stands as read, unless you'd like to negotiate terms so you can have
the opportunity to "whup" my "pansy ass," as you put it.

So far, you seem only to be setting up barriers.

Kane you are NOT the GOD you believe yourself to be.

Not only do I not believe myself not "GOD," but have no belief in god
or gods, or spirits, or ghosties.

IF you want to debate
ME little boy you'll do it in the open or NOT AT ALL!

In the open? How open?

I find it difficult to believe you are sincere, when you removed
addresses from the newsgroups "To:" field.

I posted my offer to you to, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated and soc.men
as well as the three you left in your reply.

Is that your concept of "do it in the open?"

I think it reasonable to also point out that you and I debating in one
newsgroup, and not, while we are in debate, engaging others in that
newsgroup and that thread, does not constitute a hidden debate.

Now if I had asked you to debate me privately off line, yes, that
would be not 'in the open.'

How can my offer constitute any way of blocking others from seeing our
debate?

Even commenting if they wish, just you and I not engaging them.

I ask, of course, as before, that we take an oath to not engage with
other people on the issuse or for that matter any issues, while in
that thread in that group...this includes exclusion of all those that
would intrude.

What a JOKE after your recent DESPERATION trying to summon Mr. Moore to
your aid.

I have offered to not engage anyone during our debate in aps. And to
confine ourselves to a single group, aps.

If you consider cross posting as "summoning," I just offered to block
that route.

The ENTIRE reason - 100% of the reason you want to confine the
debate to the spanking group is so you can get the aid of your fellow
anti-spankers to help you - why?

Either of us could summon anyone we wanted to VIEW the discussion,
simply not, by pledge agreement, could either of us engage them to USE
them as part of the argument.

I have not said that you and I can't discuss the debate and it's
content outside the ng, aps, but simply that we don't respond INSIDE
the thread to anyone but each other.

I'd hardly try to block someone from reading and posting. That's
impossible. I can only pledge not to engage them.

Because you NEED all the help you can get
and you KNOW it.

What I know is that I have offered a forum that limits that as much as
can be done in this medium. And I've done so precisely because I think
the opposite is true.

You appear to have enlisted the help of Doan, Greg, and occasionally
someone, or ones, apparently "socking." You certainly accept their
help.

Have you noticed that no one that one would consider from "my" side,
has made a single comment concerning the spanking debate issues under
discussion? I have seen you engaged by others on the issue of your
veracity about ME. But not about the spanking subject under
discussion.

In any case I would not, by pledge, engage anyone else.

Additionally, those who you might think of as my "help" I would ask to
not involve themselves by commenting to you, me, or even outside the
thread publicly. (The last I can't hold them to, but I would ask it.
And I think they'd honor my request).

I can pretty well gaurantee that both Doan and Greg would not respect
any agreement we have, but that's neither here not there, as long as
you and I honor it.

As you can plainly see, unless you have a bias that keeps you from
doing so, I am offering to debate on the most level of possible
playing fields I can think of.

Can you think of further restraints and boundaries that would do away
with "help" for either of us, equally, that you'd like to discuss?

When you walk the walk Citizen Kane THEN and ONLY THEN
will I take you seriously!! GOT IT?

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

I did tell you that very thing in my latest offer, and said that there
would be "no fault," claimed against you, or argued against you should
you simply say "no."

And to the best of my ability, despite your personal attacks, and your
continuing failure to honestly represent my position on the subject, I
have not attacked you.

In fact your only attacker I see in our exchange so far is you.

I will leave your changes in the newsgroup address list stand exactly
as you edited my list as proof of my good faith effort and offer to
debate on a level playing field.

A forum for debate where everyone who wishes, and any you'd like to
invite to view, can see what we post.

The invitation is open. A simple "no," no fault, is still offered as
an option. But "yes" would be far more welcome.

Kane

"0:-]" wrote in message
...

You must have been playing with me, joking.

Taking candy away from a baby.

You can't be serious that you, honorable, decent, misunderstood, an
attacked, would turn down an offer to have a true public level playing
field debate and get to have everyone watch you, "kick" my "pansy
ass."

No you want it in your own sandbox where you can call up helpers and you
want to set all the rules and you refuse standard debate rules. Sorry Kane
you've blown the chance for a debate. You wanted and started an alley fight,
you keep trying to play Internet badass, but what's funny is your hysterical
appeals for help.

Or were you just being kind to me and not wanting to subject me to that
embarrassment?

You've already embarassed yourself. You don't have the intellectual
development to realize it Kane.

That's thoughtful, but really, I'm willing to take that risk.

Is that why you keep SCREAMING for Moore to help you?

The offer is still open, and probably will stay open ... forever, or as
long as you live, which ever comes first.

Oooo what a real MACHO dude! Kane the silverback (only in his own
mind) - when you get off your alpha male delusion let me know BADASS!

How's your blood pressure?

Fairly low right now but yours has to be in outer space. Keep crying,
Moore will come to your rescue, he always does PANSY!

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:38:27 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:

"0:-]" wrote in message
.. .

You must have been playing with me, joking.

Taking candy away from a baby.

What a relief to know that you were just kidding around and are now
prepared to debate on a level playing field.

You can't be serious that you, honorable, decent, misunderstood, an
attacked, would turn down an offer to have a true public level playing
field debate and get to have everyone watch you, "kick" my "pansy
ass."

No you want it in your own sandbox where you can call up helpers

Well, if I broke my vow, you'd be perfectly right to label me as
unethical, and end the debate right then and there leaving ME exposed
as a liar and cheat, Ken.

Remember, I asked that we BOTH meet the same boundary requirement of
not engaging anyone else in the conversation.

and you
want to set all the rules and you refuse standard debate rules.

Other than a possible mediator, often used in formal debate, who is
bound by rules to not favor one over the other, how could I have an
advantage you would not enjoy as well to consult with "helpers?" I
could not, as you could, allow them to directly contribute to the
exchange...in other words, we, you and I both, would have to disregard
any 'noise' they made. I thought you understood that.

I'll try to be more clear.

Sorry Kane
you've blown the chance for a debate.

No, I'm still open to it. The ball is in your court...and it seems you
are holding it out of play.

You wanted and started an alley fight,

Did I? I don't think so, and I'm sorry you do, but then my offer to
debate now, as then, included rules that would have keep me from more
freedom to "start(ed) an alley fight," but darn if someone didn't
insist on posting to other newsgroups and in fact having exchanges
with various people that argued FOR him.

Who was that, I wonder? 0:]

you keep trying to play Internet badass, but what's funny is your hysterical
appeals for help.

Have you seen me actually doing that? You are the one that, upon
meeting me, and being challenged by me, insisted on inviting others to
the party.

Or were you just being kind to me and not wanting to subject me to that
embarrassment?

You've already embarassed yourself. You don't have the intellectual
development to realize it Kane.

Well, whatever, I'll just have to go with what I've got, as limited as
that might be. 0:]


That's thoughtful, but really, I'm willing to take that risk.

Is that why you keep SCREAMING for Moore to help you?

Hmmmm...you have seen me publicly ask Moore to NOT engage you on
anything I am offering in debate and challenges to the issues YOU or I
have brought up that are ON topic....the effects of spanking on
children.

I haven't seen him post a single word on the subject, so it looks
like, if you or he took my cross posting to mean I wanted help on the
topic of debate....children and spanking....you both were in
error...though HE seems to be the one that has honored my request to
keep out of that area.

The offer is still open, and probably will stay open ... forever, or as
long as you live, which ever comes first.

Oooo what a real MACHO dude! Kane the silverback (only in his own
mind) - when you get off your alpha male delusion let me know BADASS!

Can I take that as a "no?"

How's your blood pressure?

Fairly low right now but yours has to be in outer space.

122/59 this morning. Thanks.

Keep crying,
Moore will come to your rescue, he always does PANSY!

Moore has never come to my rescue here, and in fact except when I wish
to keep out of your exchanges, which is, unless YOU bring up your
exchanges with him, I stay out of your business, other than to
challenge Moore a couple of times to prove his claims.

I ask questions tough enough he had to admit that one of his pieces of
evidence could not meet sufficient standards to be called,
"conclusive." I can't help you much more than that without departing
too far from the on topic subjects I'd like to debate with you.

You wouldn't lie about my calling for help, now would you?

It's so unlike you.

The offer is still open.

Surely you can defeat me in debate, me being a "pansy ass," and
deficient in "intellectual development," and all?

I guess I'll just have to assume your kind heart and your deep
capacity for empathy holds you back from just trashing me in debate.

Well, as I said, I'll risk it and leave the offer open for life.

And lest you forget, I'll renew now and then to help you remember.

You can signal your willingness by posting that proof you say you have
the I said "Spanking causes aggression in children," and a link to
some of that evidence about sociopathy as a product (produces) in
children by way of less spanking.


From: " krp"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:07:01 GMT
Local: Fri, Jan 12 2007 7:07 am
Subject: Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety,
Regardless Of Cultural Norm

....

There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children.

....

Since Doan was referring to LaVonne, and you later claimed falsely
that I said that spanking causes aggression in children (where in
fact, as you see above YOU are the first to use 'spanking causes,' as
though it was being claimed by someone, it appears you were mistaken.

But you aren't the first to have been led down the garden path by
Doan's clever shifting of parameters and making it appear that someone
had made a claim they didn't.

As to your second sentence above, it does appear you are saying
"produces," as in caused by.

Did I read you correctly? (emphasis mine) "There is considerable
evidence that a lack of spanking CAN PRODUCE sociopathy in children?"

Rather than be distracted by those parts of your response that consist
of ad hom off topic to my question, I'll reply either to a post that
stays on this topic, or will redact all those portions of your post
that do not, and answer only those portions that do.

Seems fair to me.

I can't think of any reason to engage with you in a flame war, I'm so
obviously overmatched, right?

So I'll "cheat" and stick to the topic of your claims.

Get back to me at your leisure, convenience, and when you feel up to
the challenge.

0:]






Kane

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:38:27 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:

......snip unrelated.........

you
want to set all the rules and you refuse standard debate rules. Sorry Kane
you've blown the chance for a debate. ...

.....snip unrelated ad hom......

I have not refused the "standard debate rules."

Such a term ignores that the "standard" is not a set of universally
accepted rules for ALL debate.

There are different sets for different circumstances.

I believe you might have mentioned, when you used this cough cough
polite request to me that we use such standards, you mentioned
"Parliamentary" rules.

Those procedures don't lend themselves here.

I think I might just have protested.

Feel free to pick a set of rules YOU like, or bits and pieces to
create a set you like and will use to debate by.

I will look them over, and if you have not departed from these, or you
have not chosen from recognized sources you can cite, I will debate
you by YOUR rules.

I do though insist on the "one newsgroup posting" requirement, and the
"no conversing within the thread" with others...just you and I.

That might be seen as the "DoanGregMooreRonFiremonkey etc.
Nullification Rule." Then we won't have to deal with what you seem to
think is MY advantage, nor I with your "friends."

That would be no advantage to either of us, unless for some strange
reason you have fewer friends and supporters than I. So far, it's been
about neck and neck...though unlike you I have NO one supporting my on
topic subject debate.

They seem just to not like your methods.

YOu seem to have at least one, Doan, lyi....opps, sorry, "arguing" in
your favor as to the debate.

While I, sob have no one but my little "intellectually challenged
pansy ass self" on my side.

I'll just muddle along with you haven't that intellectual advantage,
and ... well, what ever it is that you think makes you superior to me.

What you will find when you look at standards of debate will include
the Lincoln Douglas style of debate, which is what I am proposing we
use with our own accommodations to meet the constraints of this
medium, basically, letter writing in exchange.

And that only you and only I oppose each other. As Lincoln and Douglas
were constrained to do.

If we simply leave it open as a free for all, it goes nowhere but that
we, you and I, could be accused of just trying to start an "alley
fight."

Here you go then...

Your rules are?

You both have my word that I will stay out of the debate. My the best
man win!

On Mar 10, 10:09 am, "Kane [Kah-nay] " wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:38:27 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:

.....snip unrelated.........

you
want to set all the rules and you refuse standard debate rules. Sorry Kane
you've blown the chance for a debate. ...

....snip unrelated ad hom......

I have not refused the "standard debate rules."

Such a term ignores that the "standard" is not a set of universally
accepted rules for ALL debate.

There are different sets for different circumstances.

I believe you might have mentioned, when you used this cough cough
polite request to me that we use such standards, you mentioned
"Parliamentary" rules.

Those procedures don't lend themselves here.

I think I might just have protested.

Feel free to pick a set of rules YOU like, or bits and pieces to
create a set you like and will use to debate by.

I will look them over, and if you have not departed from these, or you
have not chosen from recognized sources you can cite, I will debate
you by YOUR rules.

I do though insist on the "one newsgroup posting" requirement, and the
"no conversing within the thread" with others...just you and I.

That might be seen as the "DoanGregMooreRonFiremonkey etc.
Nullification Rule." Then we won't have to deal with what you seem to
think is MY advantage, nor I with your "friends."

That would be no advantage to either of us, unless for some strange
reason you have fewer friends and supporters than I. So far, it's been
about neck and neck...though unlike you I have NO one supporting my on
topic subject debate.

They seem just to not like your methods.

YOu seem to have at least one, Doan, lyi....opps, sorry, "arguing" in
your favor as to the debate.

While I, sob have no one but my little "intellectually challenged
pansy ass self" on my side.

I'll just muddle along with you haven't that intellectual advantage,
and ... well, what ever it is that you think makes you superior to me.

What you will find when you look at standards of debate will include
the Lincoln Douglas style of debate, which is what I am proposing we
use with our own accommodations to meet the constraints of this
medium, basically, letter writing in exchange.

And that only you and only I oppose each other. As Lincoln and Douglas
were constrained to do.

If we simply leave it open as a free for all, it goes nowhere but that
we, you and I, could be accused of just trying to start an "alley
fight."

Here you go then...

Your rules are?