So then, Ken ...

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

Has Mr. Pangborn proven that you anything you have posted on that site is
false?

Yes MANY things. Now there is a good del of text about me on Moore's
website from an alleged former associate, Attorney Robert Kosivlotisky
yet the man who Moore claimed practices law in Baltimore, Maryland isn't
listen in the Yellow pages or white pages for anywhere in the state of
Maryland. I guess he is a SUPER STEALTH secret agent lawyer, huh? He's also
not listed with the Baltimore Bar Association. He's also not listed with the
Maryland Bar Association or the Bar of any surrounding state. He's also not
listed with the American Bar Association. In short, Kane, he is an absolute
FICTION of Mr. Moore's mind. One of MANY people he just flatly made up.
Moore gave his OATH that if I could prove even ONE thing false he'd take
down the website. He didn't he just moved the info from one place to
another. He also MADE UP (as in INVENTED the character of Will Rainey
allegedly a former client) Yet there never was any such client. And Will
Rainey is an invention of Moore's, named after William Rainey Harper College
that was just a few miles from where Moore used to live. Same with Rob
Wedlock. Proved that Will Rainey is WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER COLLEGE... Moore
has a habit of using names from landmarks where he is living or the names of
personalities from his area. Such as for a long time Moore was using the
name "Jeff Johnson" who was a neighbor of his.


"Introduction - Who David D. Moore is and who we are
The David D. Moore we are speaking of is an ex-Marine currently living in
the Chicago, Illinois area. He posts on a regular basis to
alt.child-support. Please click here for a list of his current and past
screen names. My name is Joe O'Connor and my associate's name is John
Reinhagen. We both are or have been moderately frequent posters to men's
rights/father's rights-related newsgroups. We've put together this web site
to showcase Moore's abusive behavior on the newsgroups we post to and on the
Internet in general.

A bit of history
About two years ago we witnessed a bizarre Usenet episode where an alleged
NOW rep calling herself " started making ominous threats
to
self-styled fathers-rights advocate David Moore (he was calling himself
"Jeff Johnson" back then) on several of those newsgroups and demanded that
he take down his web pages. There was just one little problem; a comparison
of the subject headers of "Johnson's" posts with those of "ara" showed that
they were coming from the same computer. We both concluded that "ara" was a
sock-puppet cooked up by Moore to get hits on his web-counter and told him
he wasn't going to get any sympathy from us. Moore was quite angry with our
judgement and accused me of betraying him. I suppose he felt that the
pro-father's rights stance that we shared exempted him from critical
scrutiny. A few days later, he lost his Worldnet account (I wonder why).

Moore insisted that he was innocent and blamed his sudden departure from
Worldnet on a cabal of NOW feminists (he posted this on Usenet); although an
independent investigation proved otherwise. I finally got sick of his lying
and exposed him on his pet newsgroup alt.child-support. He didn't take too
kindly to this and a few months later retaliated by taking an old post of
mine and forging in an anti-Semitic comment. Unfortunately for him the
forgery was traced back to his workplace at Sara Lee and he lost his temp
job there. Again he was quite angry and made several posts that looked like
veiled threats of retaliation.

Ever since then, we have both had the displeasure of being treated to the
following:

a.. Repeated complaints to our ISPs.
b.. A mysterious anonymous remailer chorus that loves to post in Moore's
defense and seems excessively interested in his reputation and well-being.
c.. Virulent racist and ethnic forgeries under our screen names.
d.. Anonymous threats of violence.
e.. Anonymous posts begging for personal information about us.

Unfortunately, we're far from the only people who this has happened to, nor
do we claim to be his worst victims . It seems that whoever dares to speak
out against Moore's bizarre online behavior stands a good chance of getting
the same or worse directed against them. This is especially true for his
female 'marks'; Moore's ravings show a singular hatred of women.

About a year ago I put these pages at Geocities; it was taken down shortly
afterwards due to the sheer offensiveness of its content (Geocities didn't
seem to care that I wasn't the author of the crap that I was showcasing).
John generously offered to host the pages and and they've been here ever
since.

We'll be adding to this archive as time permits. Unfortunately keeping up
with Moore is a full-time occupation which neither of us really has time
for, so they will probably always be somewhat out of date.Please email me at
or John at if you have any
questions or concerns.

This page ©1999 Joseph M. O'Connor and John Reinhagen."

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:20:58 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:25:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


Hihihi! The Empty Kane is making noises again.

Then you agree with Ken and support his positions that I challenge, I
take it.

Hihihi! He WHUPPED your ass

Post those specific instances and their clickable link that you think
constituted a whupping of ass, please.

Hihihi! You lost, STUPID!

and you CONCEDED!

Please post links to those specific instances to what I conceded. You
no longer need to post quotes, as we have observed you lying by your
quoting out of context on this issue so very much.

Hihihi! What a loser you are, Kane!

How you liking the lessons, so far?

You haven't learned anything, have you, STUPID kane?

EK:-

EK;-)

Never fear, I'm here to protect you. 0;]

Hihihi





Doan


On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:28:04 -0800, Doan wrote:

...Doan demands and Doan refuses to answer. ...



Hihihi! The STUPID ADMITTED LIAR, aka Empty Kane, is making a fool of
himself.

Doan


On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:30:56 GMT, "KRP" wrote:


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

I guess I am going to have to live with the humiliation of you doing
that in front of all those people. 0:


No Kane - you are going to have to live with proving what a sissy you are in
front of all those people.

Not unless I put in chuckle all those addresses you left
out...R.R.R.R..YOU BREAK ME UP......RRR R R R R

So now you've changed your tune, by not the words...where is
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men

If you think I'm going to have this proof I'm a sissy?

I see you are still ****ing your pants over your claim that non
spanked children are more likely to have sociopathy.

Now doing go saying that's not what you said, or I'll just embarrass
you again by quoting, linking, and letting the interest see if my
words don't very accurately reflect YOUR claim, which could most
certainly be seen as CAUSAL (something you yourself denied is likely
in social science research....rr r r r R R R R R R )

Sociopathy, better knows as Sociopathic, diagnosis is very serious
indeed. We ARE talking the problem that society has with a great many
dangerous criminals.

Given that, you 'evidence' is very important and should be shared.

You'd hold it back because you think I failed to support something
that I didn't say....R R R ...you're a card, you are.

You got that proof of what you claim I said yet? Or you going to lie,
run, weasel and show, in fact, what a 'pansy ass' you truly are.

We used to call your kind, in the AF, "candyassed." A blubbering tub
of lard that cried over the obsticle course usually.

I laughed at the AF "basic training," being a country boy, and would
run so far ahead of the Candyasses like you, in everthing..including
manual of arms, that they stuck me with APs to train. Loved those .45
Grease Guns. You ever shoot one? Or tracers at dusk from a vehicle
mounted .30 air cooled?

Even got a fire a .50 a couple of times....whooo, what a rush.

Ken, you are a sad sack of lying ****, nothing more. You've been
nowhere, done nothing with your life but what Moore claims,
apparently. No wonder you are so terrified of him seeing what you are
currently up to.

Nobody has EVER needed help with you. A 12 year old could whip your
ass in five minutes flat.

Five minutes with you and your rambling blather and we KNOW we have a
candyass on our hands.

You gave yourself up almost immediately here when you attacked Ron,
falsely accusing him of not providing evidence for his claims....and
he HADN'T POSTED any CLAIMS.. and after he told you so, and that he
didn't have a dog in the fight, you continued to post accusations,
wild ones. Insane ones. Things he'd not done, engagements he'd not
been involved in.

This kind of **** is typical of you.

Get a psych eval, really.

But stay around.

We've almost worn out our current village idiot, when it comes to
laughs. You are at least more creative...or at least come up with
better tricks when using his old stuff.

Don't go away. Please.

Post your ad hom **** instead of responsible debate. Disregard
challenges and run from them. Deny the other party has answered, or
claim they having answered your demand they produce WHAT THEY DIDN'T
CLAIM.

It's all grist for the mill of those that have laughed at you for
years, and yes, NOW, Ken, I most certainly have joined them in their
laughter. You can thank youself.

And remember, you wouldn't debate me isolated in one group, but
insisted on posting out to other groups...two of which your buddy
Gregy introduced to the addy list?

I'm never going to stop chuckling at your great wisdom in letting your
flabby ego and limited comprehenstion determine you daring
defiance....R R R of me and that posting out...which attracted all
that attention you are so desperately trying to avoid now.

Hi Guys. Come "help me" with Ken...he's baaaaaaaaaaad.

alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men

Kane

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

R R R R R

I made the mistake of letting you drag me into the Moore fray again.

I have snipped it for the simple reason I do not with to be baited
away from OUR discussion and your departure from it into this issue of
Moore and you.

I've gone ahead and read tour various defenses and claims here. Some
seem credible and others less so.

Much of what he posts is speculative and could even be reduced to the
level of unsupported insinuation. That does not make all of it
incorrect.

Moore never once insulted me, though I pressed him just as I did you.

Upon engaging you ABOUT YOUR INSULTING COUPLING WITH DOAN, YOU
immediately turned to insult, and worse, outright simple and easily
proven lies. Attacking Ron was typical. He said nothing and suddenly
you had him as a "raving opponent" of your views....while he was
merely a spectator. Everyone could see that.

Frankly you weary me with the diversion of your Moore debacle.

Frankly I don't really care much, as I've said a number of times
before. I never, as you appeared to claim, 'supported' Moore. You have
done everything possible, it seems to me, including lie to me, about
me, to try and drag me into your fray with him.

My concern is how you have dealt with ME, Pangborn, and you have
repeatedly lied, and spouted the most ridiculous claims and accusation
imaginable.

To make accusations, as you have of me and about me, and about what I
have or have not said, and refuse to provide proof? That's
dishonorable.

Now you want to run back to this old news. And instead of responding
to reasonable requests from me.

Your dodging admission of your error on unspanked children is
laughable.

Your claim that I said "CAUSED aggression" and total refusal to
provide proof I said such a thing is beyond laughable. It's unethical
of you.

Decent debate and argument should proceed with responses to requests
that are within the range of the debate.

IF you bring something up, and are asked a question, it follows that
you need to answer it, and not create, as a condition of your
responding, impossible barriers to your opponent(especially demands of
your opponent to jump through hoops, admit to things not said, and
fall to your feet in surrenderous admission they have lost the
debate).

There's no requirement in normal debate to admit defeat to elicite a
response from the opponent.

There's no requirement to admit to a claim proferred with out proof,
either. Especially when it is about the person being forced to concede
when the actual subject has not been conceded to, only a subset to
move the debate on from that dead end.

You are unethical in debate, and that influences me to give more
consideration to Moore, and ask him more questions...IF I CARED.

I don't. I'm not involved except as you attempt to drag me into the
battle to distract from our own exchange.

In other words, you are running away from my question and challenges
to you.

I have nothing to say about MOORE, except to ask why YOU keep bringing
him up when my crossposting is about exposing your vicious unethical
debating tactics?

Grow up, Ken. If you can.


"Introduction - Who David D. Moore is and who we are

.....snip, not interest in either of you except as affects ME...you do,
Moore does not.

My debate is with you, not Moore.

Yours is with me, here.

If you wish to continue your debate with Moore and the accusations and
counter claims, feel free. In a thread for that.

This thread is about various claims you make, and failures to respond
to reasonable requests in THIS thread.

I offered once to debate you alone, in one ng, so that neither of us
would have to put up with others joining in.

YOU refused, Ken.

When YOU put all these other considerations aside, and when YOU stop
dodging questions by lying demands for compliance, you have a debate.

Otherwise, you are just another babbling asshole on Usenet.

Stop wasting your time.

And mine.

So, with that, I'll repeat the opening post to this thread, my post.

Would you like to try again, and stop the nonsense?

///////


Are you going to keep babbling about how I claim "victory" and "beat
my chest" and claim I'm the "alpha male," and other dribbling ****, or
are you going to produce that "considerable evidence" (and that's a
direct quote), that non spanked children are at risk of developing
sociopathy?

As I review your posts I see you almost got there once, but failed to
cite and quote appropriately so that the real material you make
reference to could not be located.

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?

Ask for Doan's help again. It's the least you can do after coming
running at his request to help him when he was cornered like a little
rat.

Give him a "hihihi" from me, thanks.

Kane

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:39:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

.....more babbling lies......


On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:20:58 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:25:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


Hihihi! The Empty Kane is making noises again.

Then you agree with Ken and support his positions that I challenge, I
take it.

Hihihi! He WHUPPED your ass

Post those specific instances and their clickable link that you think
constituted a whupping of ass, please.

Hihihi! You lost, STUPID!

and you CONCEDED!

Please post links to those specific instances to what I conceded. You
no longer need to post quotes, as we have observed you lying by your
quoting out of context on this issue so very much.

Hihihi! What a loser you are, Kane!

How you liking the lessons, so far?

You haven't learned anything, have you, STUPID kane?

EK:-

EK;-)

Never fear, I'm here to protect you. 0;]

Hihihi





Doan


On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:28:04 -0800, Doan wrote:

...Doan demands and Doan refuses to answer. ...



Hihihi! The STUPID ADMITTED LIAR, aka Empty Kane, is making a fool of
himself.

Doan


On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:30:56 GMT, "KRP" wrote:


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

I guess I am going to have to live with the humiliation of you doing
that in front of all those people. 0:


No Kane - you are going to have to live with proving what a sissy you are in
front of all those people.

Not unless I put in chuckle all those addresses you left
out...R.R.R.R..YOU BREAK ME UP......RRR R R R R

So now you've changed your tune, by not the words...where is
alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men

If you think I'm going to have this proof I'm a sissy?

I see you are still ****ing your pants over your claim that non
spanked children are more likely to have sociopathy.

Now doing go saying that's not what you said, or I'll just embarrass
you again by quoting, linking, and letting the interest see if my
words don't very accurately reflect YOUR claim, which could most
certainly be seen as CAUSAL (something you yourself denied is likely
in social science research....rr r r r R R R R R R )

Sociopathy, better knows as Sociopathic, diagnosis is very serious
indeed. We ARE talking the problem that society has with a great many
dangerous criminals.

Given that, you 'evidence' is very important and should be shared.

You'd hold it back because you think I failed to support something
that I didn't say....R R R ...you're a card, you are.

You got that proof of what you claim I said yet? Or you going to lie,
run, weasel and show, in fact, what a 'pansy ass' you truly are.

We used to call your kind, in the AF, "candyassed." A blubbering tub
of lard that cried over the obsticle course usually.

I laughed at the AF "basic training," being a country boy, and would
run so far ahead of the Candyasses like you, in everthing..including
manual of arms, that they stuck me with APs to train. Loved those .45
Grease Guns. You ever shoot one? Or tracers at dusk from a vehicle
mounted .30 air cooled?

Even got a fire a .50 a couple of times....whooo, what a rush.

Ken, you are a sad sack of lying ****, nothing more. You've been
nowhere, done nothing with your life but what Moore claims,
apparently. No wonder you are so terrified of him seeing what you are
currently up to.

Nobody has EVER needed help with you. A 12 year old could whip your
ass in five minutes flat.

Five minutes with you and your rambling blather and we KNOW we have a
candyass on our hands.

You gave yourself up almost immediately here when you attacked Ron,
falsely accusing him of not providing evidence for his claims....and
he HADN'T POSTED any CLAIMS.. and after he told you so, and that he
didn't have a dog in the fight, you continued to post accusations,
wild ones. Insane ones. Things he'd not done, engagements he'd not
been involved in.

This kind of **** is typical of you.

Get a psych eval, really.

But stay around.

We've almost worn out our current village idiot, when it comes to
laughs. You are at least more creative...or at least come up with
better tricks when using his old stuff.

Don't go away. Please.

Post your ad hom **** instead of responsible debate. Disregard
challenges and run from them. Deny the other party has answered, or
claim they having answered your demand they produce WHAT THEY DIDN'T
CLAIM.

It's all grist for the mill of those that have laughed at you for
years, and yes, NOW, Ken, I most certainly have joined them in their
laughter. You can thank youself.

And remember, you wouldn't debate me isolated in one group, but
insisted on posting out to other groups...two of which your buddy
Gregy introduced to the addy list?

I'm never going to stop chuckling at your great wisdom in letting your
flabby ego and limited comprehenstion determine you daring
defiance....R R R of me and that posting out...which attracted all
that attention you are so desperately trying to avoid now.

Hi Guys. Come "help me" with Ken...he's baaaaaaaaaaad.

alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents,
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men

Kane

"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

R R R R R

I made the mistake of letting you drag me into the Moore fray again.



Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Letting ME drag you in??
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You went out SCREAMING and BEGGING him to come RESCUE YOU ya little PANSY!

Sigh, just can't pull yourself out of your muddy feces, you are a
washout here piggy.
Your ranting is that of a schoolyard bully.
No one believes you, no one cares.
Go back to your pen, and take the other little coward piggies with
you.

On Mar 8, 7:44 am, " KRP" wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

R R R R R

I made the mistake of letting you drag me into the Moore fray again.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Letting ME drag you in??
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You went out SCREAMING and BEGGING him to come RESCUE YOU ya little PANSY!

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:44:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:


"0:-]" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

R R R R R

I made the mistake of letting you drag me into the Moore fray again.



Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Letting ME drag you in??
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You went out SCREAMING and BEGGING him to come RESCUE YOU ya little PANSY!


Ken, how does one manage to stay hysterical for five years straight?

Do you eat a lot of sugar?

support groups snecked

Jade

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:44:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:


"0:-]" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

R R R R R

I made the mistake of letting you drag me into the Moore fray again.



Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Letting ME drag you in??

Was I the one that mentioned his name first?

Did I post a lot of "information" about him or you?

I was on another subject entirely.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You went out SCREAMING and BEGGING him to come RESCUE YOU ya little PANSY!

No I didn't.

Please post proof of my screaming and begging.

What would I have him rescue me from?

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:25:23 -0800, "0:-]"
wrote:

Ken, why did you focus again on Moore, and not on the issues I was
discussing?

The best way to leave Moore out is to simply ignore him. You seem
unable to do that.

Would you care to address anything else in my post, not related to
Moore?

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:29:22 GMT, " KRP"
wrote:...I just am not getting enough attention....

.....snipping unrelated material......

Upon engaging you ABOUT YOUR INSULTING COUPLING WITH DOAN, YOU
immediately turned to insult, and worse, outright simple and easily
proven lies. Attacking Ron was typical. He said nothing and suddenly
you had him as a "raving opponent" of your views....while he was
merely a spectator. Everyone could see that.

....snip again....same reason.....


My concern is how you have dealt with ME, Pangborn, and you have
repeatedly lied, and spouted the most ridiculous claims and accusation
imaginable.

To make accusations, as you have of me and about me, and about what I
have or have not said, and refuse to provide proof? That's
dishonorable.

...and again....


Your dodging admission of your error on unspanked children is
laughable.

Your claim that I said "CAUSED aggression" and total refusal to
provide proof I said such a thing is beyond laughable. It's unethical
of you.

Decent debate and argument should proceed with responses to requests
that are within the range of the debate.

IF you bring something up, and are asked a question, it follows that
you need to answer it, and not create, as a condition of your
responding, impossible barriers to your opponent(especially demands of
your opponent to jump through hoops, admit to things not said, and
fall to your feet in surrenderous admission they have lost the
debate).

There's no requirement in normal debate to admit defeat to elicite a
response from the opponent.

There's no requirement to admit to a claim proferred with out proof,
either. Especially when it is about the person being forced to concede
when the actual subject has not been conceded to, only a subset to
move the debate on from that dead end.

You are unethical in debate,

....again....

In other words, you are running away from my question and challenges
to you.


....and again...

Grow up, Ken. If you can.



....yet again....

This thread is about various claims you make, and failures to respond
to reasonable requests in THIS thread.

I offered once to debate you alone, in one ng, so that neither of us
would have to put up with others joining in.

YOU refused, Ken.

When YOU put all these other considerations aside, and when YOU stop
dodging questions by lying demands for compliance, you have a debate.

Otherwise, you are just another babbling asshole on Usenet.

Stop wasting your time.

And mine.

So, with that, I'll repeat the opening post to this thread, my post.

Would you like to try again, and stop the nonsense?

///////


Are you going to keep babbling about how I claim "victory" and "beat
my chest" and claim I'm the "alpha male," and other dribbling ****, or
are you going to produce that "considerable evidence" (and that's a
direct quote), that non spanked children are at risk of developing
sociopathy?

As I review your posts I see you almost got there once, but failed to
cite and quote appropriately so that the real material you make
reference to could not be located.

So, why not debate this with me. Who knows, there may be something
somewhere that actually says that, and if there is you must know about
it you wouldn't have made that claim, right?

Ask for Doan's help again. It's the least you can do after coming
running at his request to help him when he was cornered like a little
rat.

Give him a "hihihi" from me, thanks.

Kane

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:02:36 -0800, "0:-]"
wrote: ... where is the evidence proving that I claimed spanking
"CAUSES" aggression in children?

On the slight chance that you have made an honest error, let me
suggest that you review the thread where this is first mentioned.

And who brings up "causes," focusing on the title of the international
research article.

He has also pointed out that the article itself, and the research does
not support the title of the article. Just as you have, and just as I
have. Yet you persist in claiming I made a claim of "cause."

This statement is from LaVonne, if I recall...quoting the article.
(it could be me, the attributions are so deep)

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

... * More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance. ...

Where is the claim of "cause?"

Doan simply screams (He was using all caps words) in agreement with
this as though it's something someone else claims is "causal."

No one did.

I did not claim cause, LaVonne did not claim cause. Doan spoke as
though the title was presented as the claim of the poster. I was that
original poster, and never claimed the title was anything more than it
was. Just a title.

I pointed expressly to the content of the source statement...taken
from their abstract...as above.

"Associated" is a careful researcher's way of saying that no causal
relationship is implied, not the other way around, as Doan attempts to
show by focusing solely on the title in that sentence.

The most that can be ascribed to "associated" in research terms, and
not even exactly that much validity, is to causation...though if we
can obtain the study Doan continues to dangle and I've requested, we
may get to see the actual numbers and statistical analysis that
supports a finding of "correlation." I suspect we will.

It may be that you took your lead from him, and because I was in the
thread, (after all, I did post the original entry to the thread) you
presumed he was accurately portraying my position.

He was not.

I had not taken a position at that point.

In fact, immediately after your comment to his comment to LaVonne
where he states "First, the study is a correlation study. No
CAUSATION can be implied.

Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
is bogus!,"

You reply:
"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,"

His very next post, to draw my name in right after his post and your
reply, which insinuates he is referring to ME in his prior statement
on "cause," or "Leads" to, was this:

"Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?"

What do I have to do with the above exchange between you two and his
statement on "cause?"

Does it not imply that I claimed cause?

Yet neither he nor you have been able to provide proof that that was
my statement, or claim.

This may have lead you to assume he saying I said "cause," when in
fact I was not.

He did, in fact, attempt repeatedly to put words in my mouth, as in
this exchange. I am the first poster:
"
Correlation is a valid scientific concept. It is and has been used
successfully to make major policy and decisions to action on things as
varied as rocket launches, and what to serve for breakfast.

Hahaha! Correlation is not causation is the first thing they teach in
statistics 101! Are you this STUPID??? "

Notice that I did not claim causation is correlation, but that is how
he words his reply, as though I was making a claim for cause, when I
am in fact defending the use of correlation?

Has this helped clarify events for you?

May we see that evidence on non-spanked children and sociopathy now?

Or are you still withholding that proof I argued for "causation," by
presenting the article on the international study?

Kane