Four lives lost, though one is still living.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Kane,
You ARE your own worst enemy.
You put yourself on some pedantic pedestal ("Flunks") ??
You keep using the phrase "duly noted" as if
you are either threatening something, or, more likely,
you have some sort of psychological pathology.

Like whatsisname when he used "duly noted?"

"duly noted" reminds me of some sort of anal retentive
behavior where you save your urine and roll feces into
little balls to "preserve it".

Why didn't you post this info when whatsisname was still here?

Kane only has used the term "duly noted" about 60 times (think he's makin
fun of whatsisname's choice of words???) when whatsisname used it over 440
times!

DULY FREAKIN NOTED!!!

(Fern5827) wrote in message ...

....and attempt to rewrite what I said. I did NOT make light of, or
excuse the destruction of four lives, three dead, one likely to go to
prison for a very long time. And who has to live, when he wakes up the
brutally created dream instituted by his father, to the reality of
murdering.

Your attempt to make it appear as though I approved is duly noted,
****ing bitch.

Apparently Kane you care more about the reckless, criminal and impulsive
actions of 14 year old

You can read, you dishonest lying ****ass thug. You know perfectly
well I was not approving "the reckless, criminal and impulsive actions
of [a] 14 year old."

I was pointing to probable causes that YOU don't want to face. He was
taught to use force.

than the death of the person who birthed him, his
StepDad and Stepsister.

Why would I then bemoan the loss of those lives and destruction of
his?

Apparently Twig, you didn't read the article. The father was not a
"step," as in:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2667917

"The dead were identified as Delbert Paul Posey, the teen's father;
stepsister Mary Lee Schmid, 14; and stepmother Tryone Posey.

Cody Posey was detained on three counts of murder and four counts of
tampering with evidence. An initial court appearance was scheduled for
Thursday, Sullivan said."

Where does your rage come from?

A concience. Why do you have to ask?

I'm amazed...no actually I'm not....that you would ask, given your own
lack of one.

You constantly side with the perp against the victim. This was a
battered child if the neighborhood is telling the truth. They seem
very remorseful they didn't report the abuse themselves.

Tell us, do you think women that are battered and kill their abuser
are the perp, not the victim?

So kill 3 for the sake of one moody teen who feels impotent.

"one moody teen who feels impotent?"

How about one battered and abused, grieving, teen that snapped and had
been taught to express anger by the use of force?

This is a perfect demonstration of your lack of moral character, you
immature and defective conscience, and your extreme lack of ethics.

While the step sister was too young to be responsible, the step mother
allowed the abuse to go on. According to neighbors this child
admitted, reluctantly, to abuse at the hands of his father.

And the boy did not "kill 3 for the sake of" himself.

He killed because he had been trained to oppose others with force. His
father trained him. His step mother allowed it, thus giving tacit
approval to brute force parenting methods, just as we discuss on
occasion in aps, which I'll cross post to for you...R R R R .

You DO recall do you not this child had lost his own mother some time
before? Some researchers claim that it can take as long as six years
for a child to heal from greaving such losses.

It's not like it would have been hard to find from the posted URL I
offered, or even a simple search. You seem to think others should
search for your citations. Why is it you blabber without doing any
searching of your own?

http://infospace.abcnews.com/_1_2ZGD...art=&ver=15765
Note the number of articles pointing out that it was only 4 years
prior that the boy lost his mother in an auto accident. And his father
beats him....great, eh?

It quite possible that he was not fully functional or rational and his
father abused him. Get with the program, you worthless bitch.

Wake up to the world you and people like you have created and are
attempting to continue in like vein. YOUR sick, dummy. SICK.

Kane

(Fern5827) wrote in message ...

....and attempt to rewrite what I said. I did NOT make light of, or
excuse the destruction of four lives, three dead, one likely to go to
prison for a very long time. And who has to live, when he wakes up the
brutally created dream instituted by his father, to the reality of
murdering.

Your attempt to make it appear as though I approved is duly noted,
****ing bitch.

Apparently Kane you care more about the reckless, criminal and impulsive
actions of 14 year old

You can read, you dishonest lying ****ass thug. You know perfectly
well I was not approving "the reckless, criminal and impulsive actions
of [a] 14 year old."

I was pointing to probable causes that YOU don't want to face. He was
taught to use force.

than the death of the person who birthed him, his
StepDad and Stepsister.

Why would I then bemoan the loss of those lives and destruction of
his?

Apparently Twig, you didn't read the article. The father was not a
"step," as in:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2667917

"The dead were identified as Delbert Paul Posey, the teen's father;
stepsister Mary Lee Schmid, 14; and stepmother Tryone Posey.

Cody Posey was detained on three counts of murder and four counts of
tampering with evidence. An initial court appearance was scheduled for
Thursday, Sullivan said."

Where does your rage come from?

A concience. Why do you have to ask?

I'm amazed...no actually I'm not....that you would ask, given your own
lack of one.

You constantly side with the perp against the victim. This was a
battered child if the neighborhood is telling the truth. They seem
very remorseful they didn't report the abuse themselves.

Tell us, do you think women that are battered and kill their abuser
are the perp, not the victim?

So kill 3 for the sake of one moody teen who feels impotent.

"one moody teen who feels impotent?"

How about one battered and abused, grieving, teen that snapped and had
been taught to express anger by the use of force?

This is a perfect demonstration of your lack of moral character, you
immature and defective conscience, and your extreme lack of ethics.

While the step sister was too young to be responsible, the step mother
allowed the abuse to go on. According to neighbors this child
admitted, reluctantly, to abuse at the hands of his father.

And the boy did not "kill 3 for the sake of" himself.

He killed because he had been trained to oppose others with force. His
father trained him. His step mother allowed it, thus giving tacit
approval to brute force parenting methods, just as we discuss on
occasion in aps, which I'll cross post to for you...R R R R .

You DO recall do you not this child had lost his own mother some time
before? Some researchers claim that it can take as long as six years
for a child to heal from greaving such losses.

It's not like it would have been hard to find from the posted URL I
offered, or even a simple search. You seem to think others should
search for your citations. Why is it you blabber without doing any
searching of your own?

http://infospace.abcnews.com/_1_2ZGD...art=&ver=15765
Note the number of articles pointing out that it was only 4 years
prior that the boy lost his mother in an auto accident. And his father
beats him....great, eh?

It quite possible that he was not fully functional or rational and his
father abused him. Get with the program, you worthless bitch.

Wake up to the world you and people like you have created and are
attempting to continue in like vein. YOUR sick, dummy. SICK.

Kane

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:00:49 -0700, Doan wrote:


The boy got a black eye at one time. You call that
"discipline",
Kane0?

No, Doan, I don't call it "discipline." The father would,
though, as
so many do that come here.

So you now speaking for the father???

No. I am speaking about the excuse that so many abusers of children
use...."I was just teaching him to mind, be respectful,
responsible,
etc."

But many parents are not abusers.

Non sequiter. I was not speaking about non-abusing parents. I was
speaking of abusers. If you wish to discuss the non-abusers you claim,
then do so.

I will simply ask you The Question again, and how they are to find and
KNOW the line between discipline and abuse.

What it amounts to is that a lot of folks that call themselves
"spankers" are just abusers. Then there are those that just cross
that
line they cannot find.

LOL! And speeders are just crossing the speed limits they cannot
find.
:-)

Yes, exactly. If the sign is missing for some reason, or covered, then
yes. It is a perfect example of the line missing in the use of pain
and humilation parenting methods. No one can identify the location of
the line.

The use of pain is a serious risk.

Must be one of your "formidable
research skill" again! ;--)

Reading this ng for a couple of years is all I need for information
to
make that claim about the father. Do you think he would, had he not
been killed, but instead reported to the police, have said, "Why
yes,
I abuse my son by beating him up regularly, and no, it's not for
discipline, but for my sadistic pleasure and the wonderful feeling
I
get being able to control those weaker than me?"

And speeders say "I was just following the traffic flow." :-)

Yep, and with abusive parents that doesn't work either. smile

"I was just disciplining my child."

Yer being kinda dumb again, little boy.

And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0. :-)

No relationship between the two, little spanked child.

YOU ARE SICK!

Sorry for your confusion, Doan. It's a product of your own
abusive
childhood.

LOL! And you are a product of what?

My childhood, and my learning.

Then I feel sorry for you. ;-)

Funny, that doesn't seem to matter to me. Should it?


I doubt that a single reader, not a Vegetable or a couch
fungus, or
malicious attacker, would have missed my meaning and intent in
a ng
dedicated to questions of the use of CP.

LOL! Delusional again, Kane0. :-)

You really want to claim and defend that others would, barring your
mindless buddies, agree with you that I was speaking for the father
when used the word discipline in the post pointing to the murder
story?

No. You are just being yourself. ;-)

Yep. And you never are yourself. You are the product your spanking
parent forced on you.

And just such acts of CP are often the result of a habit of
spanking,
then escalating. Seems one of your parents that made up their
own mind
kinda missed that line I mention in The Question. He won't have
the
problem again, it appears. Nor will three others who wish he
had made
the best choice of all and not used CP and pain and humiliation
to
parent.

Still being stupid, I see.

Sorry, it seems to me you are, and we know quite well what you
"see"
and how delusional it is.

LOL!

Neverous laughter is a dead giveaway. Thanks.

Didn't Nathan just taught you a lesson about
the line? :--)

No, he simply blathered another version of your vapid pointless
attempt to obscure the issue. Neither he nor you can define the
line
between abuse and discipline to ensure the safety, or even better
the
odds of safe use of CP with any accuracy.

That is because you are too stupid to understand it. :-)

Funny, I don't seem to care much for your opinion on this matter. He
no more answered The Question validly than you did. Just blather.

But I'm facinated. What precisely did I know "understand?"

You rely on what the Canadians now have shown you will be done to
keep
people from crossing that line, more often. MORE restrictions on
what
IS permissible actions to discipline by the use of force.

But you said there is no line! ;-)

Yep. And that IS the correct answer to The Question. There IS none
because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Canada is still
pretending there is a line, when even they show that it doesn't exist.

Not for any practical purpose. The line depends too much on
uncontrollable variables...such as health of the child, developmental
level, recent events in their lives, intelligence level, and too often
on the misinterpretation of the parent on why and what is happening.

Enjoy...a few court cases and it will become apparent that they
very
well intended to make it nearly impossible to actually spank a
child.
Think about the restrictions a bit and you'll get the idea. Seem
the
Brits are on the same path.

They banned spanking? ;-)

You have some misunderstanding of the words "the restrictions" and
"nearly impossible" do yah? Which of these, or any other words, in my
statement say "banned?"

Tell me again I'M stupid.

Both did away with the old law that allowed for an extremely wide
interpretation of what was permissible CP, up to an including
severe
injury with objects.

So they draw the line???

No, they limit the actions, and objects, and conditions. They still
leave unanswered the question of The Line, as you have done so for so
long.

Those are both gone now, and in their place....ah, well, read up.

What? Cat caught your tongue? ;-)

No, I prefer you do some of your own work, you lazy little spanked
boy.

Your attempts to demean me by these ****ty little insinuations
is duly
noted though, and shows everyone what you are about.

"****ty"??? You are too close to Steve - another "never-spanked"
boy!

You'll never know.

I know you too well now. :-)

Good.


I'd say by the prevalence of your use of excrement as lable, YOU
are
much closer to him than I.

I am only a reflection! ;-)

Nope. You instigate on your own continuously, ****ty assed little
child.

You are so terribly arrested in your emotional development..but
then
it's not your fault. You are fogiven.

And you are still have no shame; still using "**** you" and
"smelly--****". Is it your mom's fault then? :-)

Of course. She calls them like she sees them, and so do I.

She must be proud of you. ;-)

Last I checked.

The Plant deserved every word of it...being a proponent of beating
of
children by both parents and giving permission to church members to
do
so, as well as approving the use of hot peppers to punish children,
and the minimizing of murder of infants by use of prescription
drugs
of and by the parents.

LOL!

Dear me. Unable to come up with a rebuttal with content?

In fact there aren't sufficiently ugly terms to accurately describe
such people. I feel I failed to convey the deserved level of
contempt.

LOL!

What we have here is a failure to communicate. {:-

As for "smelly-****," YOU seem to be using it far more than I,
little
boy. Give you a bone, does it?

And you have a problem with that? :-)

No. It's your problem, not mine.

And when is the last time I used it, by the way, liar?

You are the "liar", "never-spanked" boy!

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

As in "still using?"

Like I said, just showing the same **** back at you. Like it? :-)

As in "still using?"

And as for your question: I'm not the least bothered by someone as
lacking in honesty and wit as you. In fact it's entertaining to pull
your chain now and then and watch you dance.


Thanks.

Doan

Droan some more for us.

Bark some more for us, Kane0! :-)

I dare not for fear you'll start up your cooking pot.

I don't like small fry. Kane0 is 9 less than a Kane9. :-)

Deja Vu. Seems like voices from the schoolyard.

Doan

When you are done Droananating publically, clean your keyboard and
monitor please. Must be a tidy little boy. Or your daddy may come
by
and smack you one.
He tells me you are very naughty.

LOL! Typical "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Never-spanked people trouble you, don't they, child? Envy and jealousy
are ugly things.

R R R R R

Can't even bark? :-)

Don't even want to.


Doan

Now dance for me.

Kane

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:00:49 -0700, Doan wrote:


The boy got a black eye at one time. You call that
"discipline",
Kane0?

No, Doan, I don't call it "discipline." The father would,
though, as
so many do that come here.

So you now speaking for the father???

No. I am speaking about the excuse that so many abusers of children
use...."I was just teaching him to mind, be respectful,
responsible,
etc."

But many parents are not abusers.

Non sequiter. I was not speaking about non-abusing parents. I was
speaking of abusers. If you wish to discuss the non-abusers you claim,
then do so.

I will simply ask you The Question again, and how they are to find and
KNOW the line between discipline and abuse.

What it amounts to is that a lot of folks that call themselves
"spankers" are just abusers. Then there are those that just cross
that
line they cannot find.

LOL! And speeders are just crossing the speed limits they cannot
find.
:-)

Yes, exactly. If the sign is missing for some reason, or covered, then
yes. It is a perfect example of the line missing in the use of pain
and humilation parenting methods. No one can identify the location of
the line.

The use of pain is a serious risk.

Must be one of your "formidable
research skill" again! ;--)

Reading this ng for a couple of years is all I need for information
to
make that claim about the father. Do you think he would, had he not
been killed, but instead reported to the police, have said, "Why
yes,
I abuse my son by beating him up regularly, and no, it's not for
discipline, but for my sadistic pleasure and the wonderful feeling
I
get being able to control those weaker than me?"

And speeders say "I was just following the traffic flow." :-)

Yep, and with abusive parents that doesn't work either. smile

"I was just disciplining my child."

Yer being kinda dumb again, little boy.

And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0. :-)

No relationship between the two, little spanked child.

YOU ARE SICK!

Sorry for your confusion, Doan. It's a product of your own
abusive
childhood.

LOL! And you are a product of what?

My childhood, and my learning.

Then I feel sorry for you. ;-)

Funny, that doesn't seem to matter to me. Should it?


I doubt that a single reader, not a Vegetable or a couch
fungus, or
malicious attacker, would have missed my meaning and intent in
a ng
dedicated to questions of the use of CP.

LOL! Delusional again, Kane0. :-)

You really want to claim and defend that others would, barring your
mindless buddies, agree with you that I was speaking for the father
when used the word discipline in the post pointing to the murder
story?

No. You are just being yourself. ;-)

Yep. And you never are yourself. You are the product your spanking
parent forced on you.

And just such acts of CP are often the result of a habit of
spanking,
then escalating. Seems one of your parents that made up their
own mind
kinda missed that line I mention in The Question. He won't have
the
problem again, it appears. Nor will three others who wish he
had made
the best choice of all and not used CP and pain and humiliation
to
parent.

Still being stupid, I see.

Sorry, it seems to me you are, and we know quite well what you
"see"
and how delusional it is.

LOL!

Neverous laughter is a dead giveaway. Thanks.

Didn't Nathan just taught you a lesson about
the line? :--)

No, he simply blathered another version of your vapid pointless
attempt to obscure the issue. Neither he nor you can define the
line
between abuse and discipline to ensure the safety, or even better
the
odds of safe use of CP with any accuracy.

That is because you are too stupid to understand it. :-)

Funny, I don't seem to care much for your opinion on this matter. He
no more answered The Question validly than you did. Just blather.

But I'm facinated. What precisely did I know "understand?"

You rely on what the Canadians now have shown you will be done to
keep
people from crossing that line, more often. MORE restrictions on
what
IS permissible actions to discipline by the use of force.

But you said there is no line! ;-)

Yep. And that IS the correct answer to The Question. There IS none
because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Canada is still
pretending there is a line, when even they show that it doesn't exist.

Not for any practical purpose. The line depends too much on
uncontrollable variables...such as health of the child, developmental
level, recent events in their lives, intelligence level, and too often
on the misinterpretation of the parent on why and what is happening.

Enjoy...a few court cases and it will become apparent that they
very
well intended to make it nearly impossible to actually spank a
child.
Think about the restrictions a bit and you'll get the idea. Seem
the
Brits are on the same path.

They banned spanking? ;-)

You have some misunderstanding of the words "the restrictions" and
"nearly impossible" do yah? Which of these, or any other words, in my
statement say "banned?"

Tell me again I'M stupid.

Both did away with the old law that allowed for an extremely wide
interpretation of what was permissible CP, up to an including
severe
injury with objects.

So they draw the line???

No, they limit the actions, and objects, and conditions. They still
leave unanswered the question of The Line, as you have done so for so
long.

Those are both gone now, and in their place....ah, well, read up.

What? Cat caught your tongue? ;-)

No, I prefer you do some of your own work, you lazy little spanked
boy.

Your attempts to demean me by these ****ty little insinuations
is duly
noted though, and shows everyone what you are about.

"****ty"??? You are too close to Steve - another "never-spanked"
boy!

You'll never know.

I know you too well now. :-)

Good.


I'd say by the prevalence of your use of excrement as lable, YOU
are
much closer to him than I.

I am only a reflection! ;-)

Nope. You instigate on your own continuously, ****ty assed little
child.

You are so terribly arrested in your emotional development..but
then
it's not your fault. You are fogiven.

And you are still have no shame; still using "**** you" and
"smelly--****". Is it your mom's fault then? :-)

Of course. She calls them like she sees them, and so do I.

She must be proud of you. ;-)

Last I checked.

The Plant deserved every word of it...being a proponent of beating
of
children by both parents and giving permission to church members to
do
so, as well as approving the use of hot peppers to punish children,
and the minimizing of murder of infants by use of prescription
drugs
of and by the parents.

LOL!

Dear me. Unable to come up with a rebuttal with content?

In fact there aren't sufficiently ugly terms to accurately describe
such people. I feel I failed to convey the deserved level of
contempt.

LOL!

What we have here is a failure to communicate. {:-

As for "smelly-****," YOU seem to be using it far more than I,
little
boy. Give you a bone, does it?

And you have a problem with that? :-)

No. It's your problem, not mine.

And when is the last time I used it, by the way, liar?

You are the "liar", "never-spanked" boy!

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

As in "still using?"

Like I said, just showing the same **** back at you. Like it? :-)

As in "still using?"

And as for your question: I'm not the least bothered by someone as
lacking in honesty and wit as you. In fact it's entertaining to pull
your chain now and then and watch you dance.


Thanks.

Doan

Droan some more for us.

Bark some more for us, Kane0! :-)

I dare not for fear you'll start up your cooking pot.

I don't like small fry. Kane0 is 9 less than a Kane9. :-)

Deja Vu. Seems like voices from the schoolyard.

Doan

When you are done Droananating publically, clean your keyboard and
monitor please. Must be a tidy little boy. Or your daddy may come
by
and smack you one.
He tells me you are very naughty.

LOL! Typical "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Never-spanked people trouble you, don't they, child? Envy and jealousy
are ugly things.

R R R R R

Can't even bark? :-)

Don't even want to.


Doan

Now dance for me.

Kane

On 12 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

(Fern5827) wrote in message ...

...and attempt to rewrite what I said. I did NOT make light of, or
excuse the destruction of four lives, three dead, one likely to go to
prison for a very long time. And who has to live, when he wakes up the
brutally created dream instituted by his father, to the reality of
murdering.

Your attempt to make it appear as though I approved is duly noted,
****ing bitch.

Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Your mom must be proud! ;-)

Doan

On 12 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

(Fern5827) wrote in message ...

...and attempt to rewrite what I said. I did NOT make light of, or
excuse the destruction of four lives, three dead, one likely to go to
prison for a very long time. And who has to live, when he wakes up the
brutally created dream instituted by his father, to the reality of
murdering.

Your attempt to make it appear as though I approved is duly noted,
****ing bitch.

Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy! Your mom must be proud! ;-)

Doan

On 12 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:00:49 -0700, Doan wrote:


The boy got a black eye at one time. You call that
"discipline",
Kane0?

No, Doan, I don't call it "discipline." The father would,
though, as
so many do that come here.

So you now speaking for the father???

No. I am speaking about the excuse that so many abusers of children
use...."I was just teaching him to mind, be respectful,
responsible,
etc."

But many parents are not abusers.

Non sequiter. I was not speaking about non-abusing parents. I was
speaking of abusers. If you wish to discuss the non-abusers you claim,
then do so.

This is alt.parenting.spanking, not alt.parenting.abuse!

I will simply ask you The Question again, and how they are to find and
KNOW the line between discipline and abuse.

Ask your local DA or CPS, stupid!

What it amounts to is that a lot of folks that call themselves
"spankers" are just abusers. Then there are those that just cross
that
line they cannot find.

LOL! And speeders are just crossing the speed limits they cannot
find.
:-)

Yes, exactly. If the sign is missing for some reason, or covered, then
yes. It is a perfect example of the line missing in the use of pain
and humilation parenting methods. No one can identify the location of
the line.

Then speeders don't know the speed limit? You are STUPID!

The use of pain is a serious risk.

So immunization is a "serious risk"???

Must be one of your "formidable
research skill" again! ;--)

Reading this ng for a couple of years is all I need for information
to
make that claim about the father. Do you think he would, had he not
been killed, but instead reported to the police, have said, "Why
yes,
I abuse my son by beating him up regularly, and no, it's not for
discipline, but for my sadistic pleasure and the wonderful feeling
I
get being able to control those weaker than me?"

And speeders say "I was just following the traffic flow." :-)

Yep, and with abusive parents that doesn't work either. smile

"I was just disciplining my child."

Yer being kinda dumb again, little boy.

And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0. :-)

No relationship between the two, little spanked child.

That because you are too STUPID to see the relationship!

YOU ARE SICK!

Sorry for your confusion, Doan. It's a product of your own
abusive
childhood.

LOL! And you are a product of what?

My childhood, and my learning.

Then I feel sorry for you. ;-)

Funny, that doesn't seem to matter to me. Should it?

Since you are STUPID, it shouldn't. ;-)


I doubt that a single reader, not a Vegetable or a couch
fungus, or
malicious attacker, would have missed my meaning and intent in
a ng
dedicated to questions of the use of CP.

LOL! Delusional again, Kane0. :-)

You really want to claim and defend that others would, barring your
mindless buddies, agree with you that I was speaking for the father
when used the word discipline in the post pointing to the murder
story?

No. You are just being yourself. ;-)

Yep. And you never are yourself. You are the product your spanking
parent forced on you.

And just such acts of CP are often the result of a habit of
spanking,
then escalating. Seems one of your parents that made up their
own mind
kinda missed that line I mention in The Question. He won't have
the
problem again, it appears. Nor will three others who wish he
had made
the best choice of all and not used CP and pain and humiliation
to
parent.

Still being stupid, I see.

Sorry, it seems to me you are, and we know quite well what you
"see"
and how delusional it is.

LOL!

Neverous laughter is a dead giveaway. Thanks.

You are welcome, STUPID! ;-)

Didn't Nathan just taught you a lesson about
the line? :--)

No, he simply blathered another version of your vapid pointless
attempt to obscure the issue. Neither he nor you can define the
line
between abuse and discipline to ensure the safety, or even better
the
odds of safe use of CP with any accuracy.

That is because you are too stupid to understand it. :-)

Funny, I don't seem to care much for your opinion on this matter. He
no more answered The Question validly than you did. Just blather.

You are too stupid to understand it. Too bad! ;-)

But I'm facinated. What precisely did I know "understand?"

Like I said, You are STUPID!

You rely on what the Canadians now have shown you will be done to
keep
people from crossing that line, more often. MORE restrictions on
what
IS permissible actions to discipline by the use of force.

But you said there is no line! ;-)

Yep. And that IS the correct answer to The Question. There IS none
because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Canada is still
pretending there is a line, when even they show that it doesn't exist.

LOL! If there is no line, how do you know when it has been crossed,
STUPID?

Not for any practical purpose. The line depends too much on
uncontrollable variables...such as health of the child, developmental
level, recent events in their lives, intelligence level, and too often
on the misinterpretation of the parent on why and what is happening.

Only to a stupid person!

Enjoy...a few court cases and it will become apparent that they
very
well intended to make it nearly impossible to actually spank a
child.
Think about the restrictions a bit and you'll get the idea. Seem
the
Brits are on the same path.

They banned spanking? ;-)

You have some misunderstanding of the words "the restrictions" and
"nearly impossible" do yah? Which of these, or any other words, in my
statement say "banned?"

Tell me again I'M stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID! :-)

Both did away with the old law that allowed for an extremely wide
interpretation of what was permissible CP, up to an including
severe
injury with objects.

So they draw the line???

No, they limit the actions, and objects, and conditions. They still
leave unanswered the question of The Line, as you have done so for so
long.

So they are stupid??? Why didn't they ban it?

Those are both gone now, and in their place....ah, well, read up.

What? Cat caught your tongue? ;-)

No, I prefer you do some of your own work, you lazy little spanked
boy.

You are stupid "never-spanked" boy! :-)


Your attempts to demean me by these ****ty little insinuations
is duly
noted though, and shows everyone what you are about.

"****ty"??? You are too close to Steve - another "never-spanked"
boy!

You'll never know.

I know you too well now. :-)

Good.

Same to you! :-)


I'd say by the prevalence of your use of excrement as lable, YOU
are
much closer to him than I.

I am only a reflection! ;-)

Nope. You instigate on your own continuously, ****ty assed little
child.

LOL! And you are like the "never-spanked" Steve! ;-)

You are so terribly arrested in your emotional development..but
then
it's not your fault. You are fogiven.

And you are still have no shame; still using "**** you" and
"smelly--****". Is it your mom's fault then? :-)

Of course. She calls them like she sees them, and so do I.

She must be proud of you. ;-)

Last I checked.

The Plant deserved every word of it...being a proponent of beating
of
children by both parents and giving permission to church members to
do
so, as well as approving the use of hot peppers to punish children,
and the minimizing of murder of infants by use of prescription
drugs
of and by the parents.

LOL!

Dear me. Unable to come up with a rebuttal with content?

In fact there aren't sufficiently ugly terms to accurately describe
such people. I feel I failed to convey the deserved level of
contempt.

LOL!

What we have here is a failure to communicate. {:-

As for "smelly-****," YOU seem to be using it far more than I,
little
boy. Give you a bone, does it?

And you have a problem with that? :-)

No. It's your problem, not mine.

Then don't complain!

And when is the last time I used it, by the way, liar?

You are the "liar", "never-spanked" boy!

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

As in "still using?"

Like I said, just showing the same **** back at you. Like it? :-)

As in "still using?"

You stopped??

And as for your question: I'm not the least bothered by someone as
lacking in honesty and wit as you. In fact it's entertaining to pull
your chain now and then and watch you dance.

You are looking in the mirror again. :-)


Thanks.

Doan

Droan some more for us.

Bark some more for us, Kane0! :-)

I dare not for fear you'll start up your cooking pot.

I don't like small fry. Kane0 is 9 less than a Kane9. :-)

Deja Vu. Seems like voices from the schoolyard.

LOL!

Doan

When you are done Droananating publically, clean your keyboard and
monitor please. Must be a tidy little boy. Or your daddy may come
by
and smack you one.
He tells me you are very naughty.

LOL! Typical "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Never-spanked people trouble you, don't they, child? Envy and jealousy
are ugly things.

LOL! You are delusional.


R R R R R

Can't even bark? :-)

Don't even want to.

That is why you are a Kane0! :-)


Doan

Now dance for me.

Look in the mirror!

Doan

Kane

On 12 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:00:49 -0700, Doan wrote:


The boy got a black eye at one time. You call that
"discipline",
Kane0?

No, Doan, I don't call it "discipline." The father would,
though, as
so many do that come here.

So you now speaking for the father???

No. I am speaking about the excuse that so many abusers of children
use...."I was just teaching him to mind, be respectful,
responsible,
etc."

But many parents are not abusers.

Non sequiter. I was not speaking about non-abusing parents. I was
speaking of abusers. If you wish to discuss the non-abusers you claim,
then do so.

This is alt.parenting.spanking, not alt.parenting.abuse!

I will simply ask you The Question again, and how they are to find and
KNOW the line between discipline and abuse.

Ask your local DA or CPS, stupid!

What it amounts to is that a lot of folks that call themselves
"spankers" are just abusers. Then there are those that just cross
that
line they cannot find.

LOL! And speeders are just crossing the speed limits they cannot
find.
:-)

Yes, exactly. If the sign is missing for some reason, or covered, then
yes. It is a perfect example of the line missing in the use of pain
and humilation parenting methods. No one can identify the location of
the line.

Then speeders don't know the speed limit? You are STUPID!

The use of pain is a serious risk.

So immunization is a "serious risk"???

Must be one of your "formidable
research skill" again! ;--)

Reading this ng for a couple of years is all I need for information
to
make that claim about the father. Do you think he would, had he not
been killed, but instead reported to the police, have said, "Why
yes,
I abuse my son by beating him up regularly, and no, it's not for
discipline, but for my sadistic pleasure and the wonderful feeling
I
get being able to control those weaker than me?"

And speeders say "I was just following the traffic flow." :-)

Yep, and with abusive parents that doesn't work either. smile

"I was just disciplining my child."

Yer being kinda dumb again, little boy.

And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0. :-)

No relationship between the two, little spanked child.

That because you are too STUPID to see the relationship!

YOU ARE SICK!

Sorry for your confusion, Doan. It's a product of your own
abusive
childhood.

LOL! And you are a product of what?

My childhood, and my learning.

Then I feel sorry for you. ;-)

Funny, that doesn't seem to matter to me. Should it?

Since you are STUPID, it shouldn't. ;-)


I doubt that a single reader, not a Vegetable or a couch
fungus, or
malicious attacker, would have missed my meaning and intent in
a ng
dedicated to questions of the use of CP.

LOL! Delusional again, Kane0. :-)

You really want to claim and defend that others would, barring your
mindless buddies, agree with you that I was speaking for the father
when used the word discipline in the post pointing to the murder
story?

No. You are just being yourself. ;-)

Yep. And you never are yourself. You are the product your spanking
parent forced on you.

And just such acts of CP are often the result of a habit of
spanking,
then escalating. Seems one of your parents that made up their
own mind
kinda missed that line I mention in The Question. He won't have
the
problem again, it appears. Nor will three others who wish he
had made
the best choice of all and not used CP and pain and humiliation
to
parent.

Still being stupid, I see.

Sorry, it seems to me you are, and we know quite well what you
"see"
and how delusional it is.

LOL!

Neverous laughter is a dead giveaway. Thanks.

You are welcome, STUPID! ;-)

Didn't Nathan just taught you a lesson about
the line? :--)

No, he simply blathered another version of your vapid pointless
attempt to obscure the issue. Neither he nor you can define the
line
between abuse and discipline to ensure the safety, or even better
the
odds of safe use of CP with any accuracy.

That is because you are too stupid to understand it. :-)

Funny, I don't seem to care much for your opinion on this matter. He
no more answered The Question validly than you did. Just blather.

You are too stupid to understand it. Too bad! ;-)

But I'm facinated. What precisely did I know "understand?"

Like I said, You are STUPID!

You rely on what the Canadians now have shown you will be done to
keep
people from crossing that line, more often. MORE restrictions on
what
IS permissible actions to discipline by the use of force.

But you said there is no line! ;-)

Yep. And that IS the correct answer to The Question. There IS none
because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Canada is still
pretending there is a line, when even they show that it doesn't exist.

LOL! If there is no line, how do you know when it has been crossed,
STUPID?

Not for any practical purpose. The line depends too much on
uncontrollable variables...such as health of the child, developmental
level, recent events in their lives, intelligence level, and too often
on the misinterpretation of the parent on why and what is happening.

Only to a stupid person!

Enjoy...a few court cases and it will become apparent that they
very
well intended to make it nearly impossible to actually spank a
child.
Think about the restrictions a bit and you'll get the idea. Seem
the
Brits are on the same path.

They banned spanking? ;-)

You have some misunderstanding of the words "the restrictions" and
"nearly impossible" do yah? Which of these, or any other words, in my
statement say "banned?"

Tell me again I'M stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID! :-)

Both did away with the old law that allowed for an extremely wide
interpretation of what was permissible CP, up to an including
severe
injury with objects.

So they draw the line???

No, they limit the actions, and objects, and conditions. They still
leave unanswered the question of The Line, as you have done so for so
long.

So they are stupid??? Why didn't they ban it?

Those are both gone now, and in their place....ah, well, read up.

What? Cat caught your tongue? ;-)

No, I prefer you do some of your own work, you lazy little spanked
boy.

You are stupid "never-spanked" boy! :-)


Your attempts to demean me by these ****ty little insinuations
is duly
noted though, and shows everyone what you are about.

"****ty"??? You are too close to Steve - another "never-spanked"
boy!

You'll never know.

I know you too well now. :-)

Good.

Same to you! :-)


I'd say by the prevalence of your use of excrement as lable, YOU
are
much closer to him than I.

I am only a reflection! ;-)

Nope. You instigate on your own continuously, ****ty assed little
child.

LOL! And you are like the "never-spanked" Steve! ;-)

You are so terribly arrested in your emotional development..but
then
it's not your fault. You are fogiven.

And you are still have no shame; still using "**** you" and
"smelly--****". Is it your mom's fault then? :-)

Of course. She calls them like she sees them, and so do I.

She must be proud of you. ;-)

Last I checked.

The Plant deserved every word of it...being a proponent of beating
of
children by both parents and giving permission to church members to
do
so, as well as approving the use of hot peppers to punish children,
and the minimizing of murder of infants by use of prescription
drugs
of and by the parents.

LOL!

Dear me. Unable to come up with a rebuttal with content?

In fact there aren't sufficiently ugly terms to accurately describe
such people. I feel I failed to convey the deserved level of
contempt.

LOL!

What we have here is a failure to communicate. {:-

As for "smelly-****," YOU seem to be using it far more than I,
little
boy. Give you a bone, does it?

And you have a problem with that? :-)

No. It's your problem, not mine.

Then don't complain!

And when is the last time I used it, by the way, liar?

You are the "liar", "never-spanked" boy!

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

As in "still using?"

Like I said, just showing the same **** back at you. Like it? :-)

As in "still using?"

You stopped??

And as for your question: I'm not the least bothered by someone as
lacking in honesty and wit as you. In fact it's entertaining to pull
your chain now and then and watch you dance.

You are looking in the mirror again. :-)


Thanks.

Doan

Droan some more for us.

Bark some more for us, Kane0! :-)

I dare not for fear you'll start up your cooking pot.

I don't like small fry. Kane0 is 9 less than a Kane9. :-)

Deja Vu. Seems like voices from the schoolyard.

LOL!

Doan

When you are done Droananating publically, clean your keyboard and
monitor please. Must be a tidy little boy. Or your daddy may come
by
and smack you one.
He tells me you are very naughty.

LOL! Typical "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Never-spanked people trouble you, don't they, child? Envy and jealousy
are ugly things.

LOL! You are delusional.


R R R R R

Can't even bark? :-)

Don't even want to.

That is why you are a Kane0! :-)


Doan

Now dance for me.

Look in the mirror!

Doan

Kane

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:51:16 -0700, Doan wrote:

.....very very carefully to not answer the questions asked, or
challenge the claims made.............

On 12 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:55:28 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:00:49 -0700, Doan
wrote:


The boy got a black eye at one time. You call that
"discipline",
Kane0?

No, Doan, I don't call it "discipline." The father would,
though, as
so many do that come here.

So you now speaking for the father???

No. I am speaking about the excuse that so many abusers of
children
use...."I was just teaching him to mind, be respectful,
responsible,
etc."

But many parents are not abusers.

Non sequiter. I was not speaking about non-abusing parents. I was
speaking of abusers. If you wish to discuss the non-abusers you
claim,
then do so.

This is alt.parenting.spanking, not alt.parenting.abuse!

It is also unmoderated.

But more importantly, you cannot identify, nor can anyone else, the
line between "spanking" and "abuse" hence any discussion of spanking,
which of course includes a high probability escalation to abuse....as
is known by the incidences of just such abuse resulting in the removal
of children by the state, is valid and on topic.

I will simply ask you The Question again, and how they are to find
and
KNOW the line between discipline and abuse.

Ask your local DA or CPS, stupid!

I asked YOU. I'm interested in whether or not YOU know....if the DA or
CPS persons were arguing in favor of spanking I'd be asking THEM. Or
even if they were saying, "make up your own mind."

You didn't answer the question. As usual.

As for the DA and CPS, I've asked. They cannot answer it. They can
tell me when abuse has occurred, after the fact, but they cannot
define that precise point where discipline becomes abuse, stupid!

I've read the law, and the CPS policy in a number of states. NONE
point out anything but the aftermath, and NON CP PARENTING METHODS TO
BE USED INSTEAD OF CP.

So, they can't ID the line, and neither can you.

If there were no risk there would be no need to have a DA or CPS
involved in the issue.

Thank you for bringing up the seriousness of this issue by your
invocation of the District Attorney and Child Protective Services.

Your encouragement of parents to "make up their own mind," juxtiposed
with your admission that this is a legal criminal and civil and
enforcement issue makes it clear to me, and I presume to others, that
you do not in fact mind OTHERS taking risks with their children's
safety, and the risk they might lose their child, permanently.

Thanks for clarifying.

What it amounts to is that a lot of folks that call themselves
"spankers" are just abusers. Then there are those that just
cross
that
line they cannot find.

LOL! And speeders are just crossing the speed limits they cannot
find.
:-)

Yes, exactly. If the sign is missing for some reason, or covered,
then
yes. It is a perfect example of the line missing in the use of pain
and humilation parenting methods. No one can identify the location
of
the line.

Then speeders don't know the speed limit? You are STUPID!

Of course they don't without clear guidelines in law, drivers
pamphlets, and roadside signes, if they cannot see these and the
posted speed limit signs, STUPID!

Please show me the law, the parent's pamphlets, and the signs that say
what the limit is in the use of CP.

Notice the roadsign signs don't say, "maintain a speed that we won't
give you a ticket for." They say, "35" or "65" or "45" and the DMV
pamphlets are explicite in telling folks the limit in school zones,
residential neighborhoods, business areas, and freeways.

You must use that information, or you have a lot of tickets.

The use of pain is a serious risk.

So immunization is a "serious risk"???

Actually a risk, yes. "Serious?" nope, because we have decided it has
a small enough risk level to benefit ratio. Spanking does NOT enjoy
this same low level of actual risk.

Every hear of anyone being investigated for getting a vaccination for
their child under medical supervision?

Again you prove the point. If spanking were of the same risk levels as
immunizations, and administered under medical supervision, then we
wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?

Know anyone that has called his doctor to come over, or waited for an
office visit to apply a spanking to their child?

You are doing great here, little boy. Keep it up.

Must be one of your "formidable
research skill" again! ;--)

Reading this ng for a couple of years is all I need for
information
to
make that claim about the father. Do you think he would, had he
not
been killed, but instead reported to the police, have said, "Why
yes,
I abuse my son by beating him up regularly, and no, it's not for
discipline, but for my sadistic pleasure and the wonderful
feeling
I
get being able to control those weaker than me?"

And speeders say "I was just following the traffic flow." :-)

Yep, and with abusive parents that doesn't work either. smile

"I was just disciplining my child."

Yer being kinda dumb again, little boy.

And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0. :-)

No relationship between the two, little spanked child.

That because you are too STUPID to see the relationship!

You are desperately clutching at straws as you sink yourself.

As I said, the exuses of either speeders or child abusers who use
spanking and other pain and humiliation discipline methods have
nothing to do with whether or not I was every spanked.

You seem unable to shift your way along a continuum of a conversation,
child.

Your logic and thinking skills are obviously impaired by something.
Possibly your mother drank or did drugs while you were in utero, or,
more likely, you were spanked at critical moments in your development.

Notice, YOU said "And you are being "never-spanked" again, Kane0.:-)"

I said there is "no relationship between the two" immediately after
your statement of ad hom. Get it yet, dummy?

YOU ARE SICK!

Sorry for your confusion, Doan. It's a product of your own
abusive
childhood.

LOL! And you are a product of what?

My childhood, and my learning.

Then I feel sorry for you. ;-)

Funny, that doesn't seem to matter to me. Should it?

Since you are STUPID, it shouldn't. ;-)

Non sequiter, and thanks for MORE clarification of your mental
disability. I hope those spankings didn't hurt too much physically, as
they sure must have done so psychologically.


I doubt that a single reader, not a Vegetable or a couch
fungus, or
malicious attacker, would have missed my meaning and intent
in
a ng
dedicated to questions of the use of CP.

LOL! Delusional again, Kane0. :-)

You really want to claim and defend that others would, barring
your
mindless buddies, agree with you that I was speaking for the
father
when used the word discipline in the post pointing to the murder
story?

No. You are just being yourself. ;-)

Yep. And you never are yourself. You are the product your spanking
parent forced on you.

And just such acts of CP are often the result of a habit of
spanking,
then escalating. Seems one of your parents that made up
their
own mind
kinda missed that line I mention in The Question. He won't
have
the
problem again, it appears. Nor will three others who wish he
had made
the best choice of all and not used CP and pain and
humiliation
to
parent.

Still being stupid, I see.

Sorry, it seems to me you are, and we know quite well what you
"see"
and how delusional it is.

LOL!

Neverous laughter is a dead giveaway. Thanks.

You are welcome, STUPID! ;-)

Don't mention it, smart boy. {;-

Didn't Nathan just taught you a lesson about
the line? :--)

No, he simply blathered another version of your vapid pointless
attempt to obscure the issue. Neither he nor you can define the
line
between abuse and discipline to ensure the safety, or even
better
the
odds of safe use of CP with any accuracy.

That is because you are too stupid to understand it. :-)

Funny, I don't seem to care much for your opinion on this matter.
He
no more answered The Question validly than you did. Just blather.

You are too stupid to understand it. Too bad! ;-)

Your inability to explain and deal with the issue of safety in the use
of pain and humiliation parenting?

No, I understand quite well. We see examples of the damage all around
us everyday. Some become so innured to it they don't notice it. I
notice.

If you weren't so desperate to defend the practice you might do
better...but then there's the childhood trauma thing for you. Sad.

But I'm facinated. What precisely did I know "understand?"

Like I said, You are STUPID!

I asked you what you think I didn't understand, not WHY you think I
didn't understand it.

I think that was stupid of you to once again dodge the actual
question.

If you think I'm too stupid, why do you post replies at all when I
challenge your childishness?

It's a big world. Lots of other people to talk with that you don't
think are stupid.

You rely on what the Canadians now have shown you will be done
to
keep
people from crossing that line, more often. MORE restrictions on
what
IS permissible actions to discipline by the use of force.

But you said there is no line! ;-)

Yep. And that IS the correct answer to The Question. There IS none
because there are too many uncontrollable variables. Canada is
still
pretending there is a line, when even they show that it doesn't
exist.

LOL! If there is no line, how do you know when it has been crossed,
STUPID?

The same way scientists detect matter they cannot see, hear, feel,
smell, or taste.....they detect the aftermath and postulate the
characteristics of the matter. YOU should know that, little scientist!

In fact sometimes, with children, the damage is so well concealed it
is not detected for years. Some children have had broken bones that
were never treated because the parent didn't know they had fractured
them in play or punishment.

It does not bode well for them, the parent, should those untreated
breaks be detected in routine medical exams later, and reported by
those mandated to do so...medical personnel, to CPS.

In fact it can ruin the life of the child as well. Rather more risk
than a vaccination.

The old practice, perfectly legal in its day, of teachers hitting
children's hands with a ruler or pointer, can do considerable serious
damage to hands that is lifelasting. My little brother was attacked
that way by a teacher. He has, now in his late fifties, recurring pain
at the site of the injury, and gave up a promising classical music
career on the cello, then later, on drums, because of the pain
involved.

Let's look at the medical communities handling of spanking, even when
the accept it as a parenting method:

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_bdiscphy_hhg.htm

They have so many caveats that it's pretty apparent that the only risk
free course is to, as they offer early on, NOT do it.

And they point out the risks pretty clearly.

An aside: Don't assume, by the way, I approve of their advice at all.
They are completely off base in the formation of a conscience by the
use of punishment. It never works, and at best simply creates a facade
that breaks down easily (as history and recent events in the news show
us) under even slight tests or temptations.

http://www.parentsanonymous.org/

This group exists because of the high risk involved with the choice of
using CP on children.

Not for any practical purpose. The line depends too much on
uncontrollable variables...such as health of the child,
developmental
level, recent events in their lives, intelligence level, and too
often
on the misinterpretation of the parent on why and what is
happening.

Only to a stupid person!

Please describe the characteristics of a smart "person!" and how they
would avoid crossing the line into abuse. There's a good boy.

Enjoy...a few court cases and it will become apparent that they
very
well intended to make it nearly impossible to actually spank a
child.
Think about the restrictions a bit and you'll get the idea. Seem
the
Brits are on the same path.

They banned spanking? ;-)

You have some misunderstanding of the words "the restrictions" and
"nearly impossible" do yah? Which of these, or any other words, in
my
statement say "banned?"

Tell me again I'M stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID! :-)

Well, you seem to be relying on that claim to avoid actually
answering the question......where did I say spanking was banned in
Canada or the UK?

Stupid.

Millions of children, we can hope, will NOT be spanked or otherwise
humiliated and pained as a result of the massive change these new laws
entail.

Enjoy.

Both did away with the old law that allowed for an extremely
wide
interpretation of what was permissible CP, up to an including
severe
injury with objects.

So they draw the line???

No, they limit the actions, and objects, and conditions. They still
leave unanswered the question of The Line, as you have done so for
so
long.

So they are stupid???

On the contrary, they are politically very wise indeed. Sick folks
like you and those you support and encourage abound in both countries,
and this one you and I live in as well.

Thus, any effort to outright ban might well have been defeated. There
was considerable attention on public reactions to the media articles
on the pending changes.

It would have been a close call. They hedged their bets by creating,
especially in the case of Canada, a legal cache that could not be so
easily attacked....case law attempts to reinstituted legalized
spanking of the former severity, will founder because there is NOTHING
to attack....what is there is well protected within the law itself.

The new law will allow much more stringent restraint being brought on
these areas: age, means, and severity, to the point legal "spanking"
or other CP will be little more than a butterfly landing on a child's
cheek.

Why didn't they ban it?

As I said above.

But then, I guess you can't be a genius at everything. {:-

And with your spanking hangup it's not a surprise you miss the point
on that. They did not need to declare an all out ban, and risk some
political repercussions, but instead lowered the limits well below ANY
CHANCE of a parent crossing the line of risk of injury.

I wonder if I should point out to you you are apparently too stupid to
understand this....especially since I've answered this very same
question in the ng recently, in the very same way.

I have a hunch you are just badgering for the annoyance factor and
knew the answer yourself before you asked the question. Am I right?

As if you'd tell the truth.

Those are both gone now, and in their place....ah, well, read
up.

What? Cat caught your tongue? ;-)

No, I prefer you do some of your own work, you lazy little spanked
boy.

You are stupid "never-spanked" boy! :-)

So, you haven't bothered to read up on the prior CA and UK laws
related to CP that were removed.

Using an ad hom to avoid, and to hide that you have avoided, is your
usual ploy. Enjoy.


Your attempts to demean me by these ****ty little
insinuations
is duly
noted though, and shows everyone what you are about.

"****ty"??? You are too close to Steve - another
"never-spanked"
boy!

You'll never know.

I know you too well now. :-)

Good.

Same to you! :-)

No, I don't think you know me quite well enough to understand where
you are treading. There is a great deal of my past that isn't up for
public disclosure.

Avoid finding out. You wouldn't like it.


I'd say by the prevalence of your use of excrement as lable, YOU
are
much closer to him than I.

I am only a reflection! ;-)

Nope. You instigate on your own continuously, ****ty assed little
child.

LOL! And you are like the "never-spanked" Steve! ;-)

More nervous laughter?

I'm afraid I don't know Steve well enough to make a valid comparison
on many matters.

Your opinion isn't of much use, given your propensity to lie and
dodge.

You are so terribly arrested in your emotional
development..but
then
it's not your fault. You are fogiven.

And you are still have no shame; still using "**** you" and
"smelly--****". Is it your mom's fault then? :-)

Of course. She calls them like she sees them, and so do I.

She must be proud of you. ;-)

Last I checked.

The Plant deserved every word of it...being a proponent of
beating
of
children by both parents and giving permission to church members
to
do
so, as well as approving the use of hot peppers to punish
children,
and the minimizing of murder of infants by use of prescription
drugs
of and by the parents.

LOL!

Dear me. Unable to come up with a rebuttal with content?

In fact there aren't sufficiently ugly terms to accurately
describe
such people. I feel I failed to convey the deserved level of
contempt.

LOL!

What we have here is a failure to communicate. {:-

As for "smelly-****," YOU seem to be using it far more than I,
little
boy. Give you a bone, does it?

And you have a problem with that? :-)

No. It's your problem, not mine.

Then don't complain!

You mistake correcting you for a complaint. I LOVE what you do and say
here. It forwards my efforts to stop the madness of CP on children.

As usual, you are out of touch with reality. I'm celebrating your
posts.

And when is the last time I used it, by the way, liar?

You are the "liar", "never-spanked" boy!

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

As in "still using?"

Like I said, just showing the same **** back at you. Like it? :-)

As in "still using?"

You stopped??

You stopped? {:-

And as for your question: I'm not the least bothered by someone as
lacking in honesty and wit as you. In fact it's entertaining to
pull
your chain now and then and watch you dance.

You are looking in the mirror again. :-)

No, not at all. I'm just looking at your post, and history.


Thanks.

Doan

Droan some more for us.

Bark some more for us, Kane0! :-)

I dare not for fear you'll start up your cooking pot.

I don't like small fry. Kane0 is 9 less than a Kane9. :-)

Deja Vu. Seems like voices from the schoolyard.

LOL!

Nervous laughter again, child?

Doan

When you are done Droananating publically, clean your keyboard
and
monitor please. Must be a tidy little boy. Or your daddy may
come
by
and smack you one.
He tells me you are very naughty.

LOL! Typical "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Never-spanked people trouble you, don't they, child? Envy and
jealousy
are ugly things.

LOL! You are delusional.

Nervous laughter again, child?

You are damaged by your childhood, and suffer serious thinking errors.


R R R R R

Can't even bark? :-)

Don't even want to.

That is why you are a Kane0! :-)

Childish insults. And that is all you've got, including your old "I
DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU," silliness.


Doan

Now dance for me.

Look in the mirror!

Why? You aren't in my mirror.

If I want to see you dancing when I pull your chain, yet again, I must
look here in the ng at your posts.

See what I mean about you being out of touch with reality, and
suffering from severe thinking errors?

Doan

Kane


Kane